Further analysis of employment interview validity: a quantitative evaluation of interviewer-related structuring methods

Huffcutt, Allen I.; Woehr, David J.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199907)20:4<549::aid-job921>3.0.co;2-q

Cited by 63 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Structured interviews, such as the behavior description interview (BDI; Janz, 1982) and the situational interview (SI; Latham, Saari, Pursell, & Campion, 1980), are developed to take into account practicality, legal defensibility (Latham & Finnegan, 1993;Terpstra, Mohamed, & Kethley, 1999), and criterion-related validity (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994). Numerous studies have investigated diverse aspects of the interviews' content (e.g., Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001) and structure (e.g., Taylor & Small, 2002), as well as characteristics of the interviewers (e.g., Huffcutt & Woehr, 1999). Relatively little research, however, has been conducted on the criteria that these interviews predict (e.g., Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Klehe, 2004), although the "criterion problem" remains a vexing issue in personnel selection (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Would You Do—Really or Ideally? Constructs Underlying the Behavior Description Interview and the Situational Interview in Predicting Typical Versus Maximum Performance

Klehe

Latham²

2006

Human Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A predictive validation study was conducted to determine the extent to which the behavior description (BDI) and situational (SI) interviews predict typical versus maximum performance. Incoming MBA-students (n = 79) were interviewed regarding teamplaying behavior. Four months later, peers within study groups anonymously evaluated each person's typical teamplaying behavior, whereas other peers within project groups anonymously evaluated each person's maximum teamplaying behavior. Both the BDI and the SI predicted typical performance. The SI also predicted maximum performance. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Would You Do—Really or Ideally? Constructs Underlying the Behavior Description Interview and the Situational Interview in Predicting Typical Versus Maximum Performance

Klehe

Latham²

2006

Human Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They argued, "Such training might establish a more systematic frame work, thereby reducing differences among interviewers and increasing consistency across applicants." 87 In their meta-analysis, training indeed had the strongest effect on validity of the four variables they investigated (which also included structure, notetaking, and format). Thus, training was investigated in this literature review as a poten tial source of variation in panel interview studies.…”

Section: Description and Explanationmentioning

confidence: 94%

The Panel Interview: A Review of Empirical Research and Guidelines for Practice

Dixon¹,

Wang²,

Calvin³

et al. 2002

Public Personnel Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After over 50 years of research, the panel interview remains an important yet controversial tool for personnel selection. Previous narrative and metaanalytic reviews have yielded conflicting results concerning its reliability and predictive validity. Furthermore, no review has focused exclusively on the panel interview. By examining the features and psychometric property of the panel interview, we can not only add to the scholarly literature but also determine important, research-based applications for the practitioner. We have derived an eight-step panel interview procedure from previous research. Utilizing this procedure as an organizing framework, this review highlights various features of the panel interview including: setting, struc ture and scoring anchors, question type, training, and rating combination method. Each of these features is discussed in terms of interview trends and in relation to reliability and validity. Practical implications and directions for future research also are addressed. A fter nearly 50 years of research, examining the overall utility of the panel inter view continues to be important, especially given its wide use in the public sector and apparent growing use in the private sector. For practitioners, con siderations such as cost, face validity, adverse impact, and legal defensibility are impor tant when choosing tools for selecting employees. 1 For example, practitioners have argued that the personnel costs (in terms of hours spent interviewing) are greater for panel interviews than those of the individual interview. These costs, however, might be offset by the greater predictive and face validity of panel interviews. 2 In addition, panel interviews may increase buy-in among incumbents regarding the ultimate selec tion decision.^ By examining the features and psychometric properties of panel inter views, we can determine important, research-based implications for the practitioner. One may argue that after 50 years, we have learned all we can about panel inter views. However, based on past meta-analyses, narrative reviews, and empirical research, it is clear that much investigation remains. In spite of the intuitive appeal Downloaded from prompting the use of panel interviews, research findings have generally yielded equiv ocal results. 4 While some meta-analyses have determined panel interview validity to be as high as .44,5 others have found it to be a dismal -.04. 6 In fact, one meta-analysis reported different results depending on the studies utilized. 7 Furthermore, while a number of narrative reviews have been conducted on inter views as a selection device, it is quite surprising that no review, to date, has focused exclusively on the panel interview. Most of the past research has focused either on the individual versus the panel interview 8 or on the interview versus other selection devices? Thus, while others have offered advice to the practitioner concerning the use of the panel interview 10 they have based their suggestions on reviews of mixed types of interviews or on an...

show abstract

“…The reference lists from previously published meta-analyses involving the selection interview (e.g., Berry, Sackett, & Landers, 2007;Conway et al, 1995;Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994;Huffcutt & Woehr, 1999;Huffcutt et al, 2013;Latham & Sue-Chan, 1999;Marchese & Muchinsky, 1993;McDaniel et al, 1994;Salgado & Moscoso, 2002;Taylor & Small, 2002;Wiesner & Cronshaw, 1988;Wright, Lichtenfels, & Pursell, 1989) were compiled and reviewed for appropriate studies. Major reviews of research on the interview (Campion et al, 1997;Ulrich & Trumbo, 1965;Wagner, 1949) were also examined for applicable studies.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis of interview length on reliability and validity

Thorsteinson

2017

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First impressions are frequently seen as a biasing factor that may prevent an interviewer from forming a comprehensive assessment of the applicant. However, research has found that people can make surprisingly accurate impressions of others based on minimal information. Additional exposure to the applicant would be expected to lead to a more accurate impression, but a previous meta-analysis on the employment interview found evidence for a negative relationship between the length of the interview and validity. Using a much larger sample of studies, the current meta-analysis examined whether length of the interview was related to the validity of the interview. In addition, I examined the relation between interview length and reliability. Results revealed that the subset of studies reporting length of interviews yielded reliability and validity estimates consistent with more comprehensive meta-analyses. Consistent with previous research on consensus judgements of personality, length of the interview was found to be unrelated to reliability. However, contrary to the previous meta-analysis, validity was also unrelated to the length of the interview. Practitioner pointsLittle attention has been given to how the length of time spent interviewing job candidates relates to the reliability and validity of interviews Length of the interview was not related to reliability or validity of interviews Results suggest that organizations can implement shorter interviews to save time and money compared to longer interviews, without sacrificing reliability and predictive validity Selecting a new employee can be a time-consuming process. Not only do employers need to recruit qualified applicants, but they need to identify the best applicants from a potentially large pool of qualified candidates. The employment interview, especially when structured, has been shown to be a good predictor of job performance (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994;Huffcutt, Culbertson, & Weyhrauch, 2014;Marchese & Muchinsky, 1993;McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994), but can be quite costly to develop and implement. The development of an interview, especially a structured interview, requires careful development of interview questions and scoring keys for responses. Interviewers, who are often highly paid managers and executives, may spend considerable time in training to administer and score the interview as well as time spent administering the interview to numerous applicants. Even an unstructured interview will incur considerable costs in terms of time spent by interviewers in reviewing candidates' application materials prior to the interview and administering the interview. These increased costs may be acceptable if longer interviews result in improved psychometric properties (i.e., greater reliability and validity). The literature on the employment interview, however, provides scant attention to the relationship of interview length to the reliability and validity of the interview. Given the high costs of the employment interview, organizations could benefit...

show abstract

Further analysis of employment interview validity: a quantitative evaluation of interviewer-related structuring methods

Cited by 63 publications

References 18 publications

What Would You Do—Really or Ideally? Constructs Underlying the Behavior Description Interview and the Situational Interview in Predicting Typical Versus Maximum Performance

What Would You Do—Really or Ideally? Constructs Underlying the Behavior Description Interview and the Situational Interview in Predicting Typical Versus Maximum Performance

The Panel Interview: A Review of Empirical Research and Guidelines for Practice

A meta‐analysis of interview length on reliability and validity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About