Studies of the structured behavioral interview.

Motowidlo, Stephan J.; Carter, Gary W.; Dunnette, Marvin D.; Tippins, Nancy T.; Werner, Steve; Burnett, Jennifer R.; Vaughan, Mary Jo

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.571

Cited by 138 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This should come as no surprise because improvements in interviews often represent combinations of many aspects of structure (e.g., M. A. Campion, Campion, & Hudson, 1994;Janz, 1982;Latham, Saari, Pursell, & Campion, 1980;Motowidlo et al, 1992). Also, despite relative differences in the strengths of the results, all three categories of structure are important.…”

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes.

Williamson

Campion²,

Malos³

et al. 1997

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors linked interview structure and litigation outcomes conceptually and empirically. Using legal and psychological literatures, they established a conceptual link based on reduced opportunities for differential treatment through standardization, reduced potential for bias through increased objectivity, and increased job relatedness. Analyzing decisions regarding 84 disparate-treatment claims and 46 disparate-impact claims in federal court cases, they established an empirical link between interview structure and how judges explained their verdicts. The 17 aspects of interview structure were scored in these cases. They collapsed into 3 composites: objective-job related, standardized administration, and multiple interviewers. Most items and composites were significantly related to favorable verdicts for defendants in both types of claims. The objective-job related composite was most highly related, followed by standardized administration. It is concluded that structure enhances interview reliability and validity, and it is also linked to litigation outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes.

Williamson

Campion²,

Malos³

et al. 1997

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the methods that have been used include using answers heard by SMEs during job interviews from candidates who were actually hired (Latham et al, 1980), having interviewers develop anchors from notes about responses to similar questions (Green, Alter, & Carr, 1993), brainstorming and speculation by SMEs (Campion et al, 1988;Robertson, Gratton, & Rout, 1990), and having project staff draft a first version of the BARS and revising it after consulting with SMEs (M. A. Campion, personal communication, January 27, 2016). BARS can be generated for questions tied to a critical incident analysis of a specific job (Motowidlo et al, 1992) or for preexisting interview questions (Latham & Saari, 1984). Because the anchors are tied closely to specific questions, they are usually not subjected to the retranslation process described in Step 3 (Green et al, 1993).…”

Section: Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales For Evaluating Interviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Situational questions (SQs; Latham, Saari, Pursell, & Campion, 1980) present people with hypothetical work situations and ask them to describe how they would respond to those situations. Past behavior questions (PBQs; Janz, 1982;Motowidlo et al, 1992) present people with work situations they likely experienced in the past and ask them to describe how they responded to those situations previously. PBQs operate under the assumption that past behavior is one of the best predictors of future behavior (the behavioral consistency principle; Schmitt & Ostroff, 1986;Wernimont & Campbell, 1968).…”

Section: Employment Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As BARS aim to capture the entire behavioral continuum constituting performance, when critical incidents are being generated, not only should highly effective and ineffective behaviors be sampled but also "merely satisfactory" behaviors. Critical incidents can be gathered in many different ways, including in large workshops (Motowidlo et al, 1992), small groups (Hedge et al, 2004;Motowidlo, Dunnette, & Carter, 1990), individual interviews (Martin-Raugh, Kell, & Motowidlo, 2016), or through the review of archival materials (Weekley et al, 2006). At least several hundred critical incidents are usually gathered, with the goal being to reach the point where saturation occurs and new incidents feature largely redundant material.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview Performance

Kell

Martín‐Raugh

Carney

et al. 2017

ETS Research Report Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its 1947 founding, ETS has conducted and disseminated scientific research to support its products and services, and to advance the measurement and education fields. In keeping with these goals, ETS is committed to making its research freely available to the professional community and to the general public. Published accounts of ETS research, including papers in the ETS Research Report series, undergo a formal peer-review process by ETS staff to ensure that they meet established scientific and professional standards. All such ETS-conducted peer reviews are in addition to any reviews that outside organizations may provide as part of their own publication processes. Peer review notwithstanding, the positions expressed in the ETS Research Report series and other published accounts of ETS research are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Officers and Trustees of Educational Testing Service.The Daniel Eignor Editorship is named in honor of Dr. Daniel R. Eignor, who from 2001 until 2011 served the Research and Development division as Editor for the ETS Research Report series. The Eignor Editorship has been created to recognize the pivotal leadership role that Dr. Eignor played in the research publication process at ETS. ETS Research Report Series ISSN 2330-8516 R E S E A R C H R E P O R T Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview PerformanceHarrison J. Kell, Michelle P. Martin-Raugh, Lauren M. Carney, Patricia A. Inglese, Lei Chen, & Gary FengEducational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) are an essential component of structured interviews. Use of BARS to evaluate interviewees' performance is associated with greater predictive validity and reliability and less bias. BARS are time-consuming and expensive to construct, however. This report explores the feasibility of gathering participants' responses to structured interview questions through an online crowdsourcing platform and using those responses to develop BARS. We describe the development of 12 structured interview questions to assess four applied social skills, elicitation of responses to these questions in the form of critical incidents from 68 respondents, and the creation of BARS from these critical incidents. Results indicate online participants are able to produce responses of sufficient quality to generate BARS for evaluating structured interview performance. We conclude by discussing limitations to this approach and future directions for research and practice.Keywords Amazon Mechanical Turk; behaviorally anchored rating scales; crowdsourcing; employment interviews; performance appraisal; social skills; structured interviews doi:10.1002/ets2.12152 Employment interviews are one of the most popular means of selecting personnel (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014;McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994). Structured interviews that present all interviewees with the same standardized questions have higher validities for pre...

show abstract

“…For example, Motowidlo et al (1992) report an uncomected validity coefficient of .22 as theu-best overall estimate of validity, across four independent studies. Bosshardt (1992) included only situational interviews in his review and reports a mean (uncorrected) sample-size weighted validity of .29.…”

Section: Relevant Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Criterion Measures to Assess Retention and Decay of Aerospace Physiology Knowledge and Skills

Paullin¹,

McKee²,

Hanson³

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing this collection of infomiation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Infomiation Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302 Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of infomiation if it does not display a currently valid 0MB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) October 2002 REPORT TYPE Final TITLE AND SUBTITLE Development of Criterion Measures to Assess Retention and Decay of Aerospace Physiology Knowledge and Skills AUTHOR(S)Cheryl SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) AFRL; AFRL/HEA SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) AFRL-HE-AZ-TR-2001-0111 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ABSTRACTThis research examines the feasibility of developing criterion measures of Aerospace Physiology (AP) knowledge and skill retention and decay. We used two different criterion measures. One measure utilizes the situational judgment test methodology to create an inventory that measures the ability to apply AP knowledge and skills in situations actually encountered before, during, and after flight. We conducted several workshops with Air Force personnel to (a) collect descriptions of realistic situations in which physiological factors were affecting performance and (b) develop plausible response options for each situation. The second measure was a traditional job knowledge test consisting of multiple choice questions that measure recall of factual information related to AP. A small number of existing items were collected from quizzes administered during AP refresher.training and new multiple choice items were written. Nimierous obstacles were encountered when attempting to schedule workshops with Air Force personnel. This resulted in less comprehensive coverage of the AP content domain and fewer test items than were originally planned. Nevertheless, both measures show promise for assessing the retention and decay of AP knowledge and skills among Air Force aircrew members.

show abstract

Studies of the structured behavioral interview.

Cited by 138 publications

References 45 publications

Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes.

Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes.

Exploring Methods for Developing Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Evaluating Structured Interview Performance

Development of Criterion Measures to Assess Retention and Decay of Aerospace Physiology Knowledge and Skills

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About