The validity of an employment interview independent of psychometric variables

Waldron, Laura

doi:10.1080/00050067408256500

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are two levels of structure on this component, either a job analysis can be conducted or there are at least three (unstructured) alternatives. First, many interviews are conducted by psychologists focusing on personality traits but are not based on job analysis (Bobbitt & Newman, 1944, Fisher, Epstein, & Harris, 1967Harris, 1972;Hilton, Bolin, Parker, Thylor, & Walker, 1955;Mischel, 1965;Plag, 1961;Raines & Rohrer, 1955; Waldron, 1974; but cf. Holt, 1958).…”

Section: Review Of Components Of Structure 1 Base Questions On a Jobmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This includes application forms, resumes, test scores, recommendations, previous interviews, transcripts, and so forth. Many interviews have allowed ancillary information (Albrecht, Glaser, & Marks, 1964 Waldron, 1974).…”

Section: Control Ancillary Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ratings are made on dimensions, ranging from 2 to 12 or more, based on answers to multiple questions or on the entire interview. This level is less structured than rating every answer because judgments are not as linked to individual answers, and there are usually fewer scales than questions so fewer ratings are made, Due to flexibility, this level is used in interviews that span the range of structure on other components, including highly structured (Robertson et al, 1990;Walters et al, 1993), moderately structured ( h e y et al, 1987; Barrett et al, 1967;Borman, 1982;Grove, 1981;Hakel, 1971;Jam, 1982;Landy, 1976;Mayfield et al, 1980;Orpen, 1985;Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995;Reynolds, 1979;Roth & J. Campion, 1992;Yonge, 1956;Zedeck et al, 1983), and fairly unstructured (Anderson, 1954;Bolanovich, 1944;Campbell, 1962;Dougherty et al, 1986;Drucker, 1957;DuBois & Watson, 1950;Fisher et al, 1967;Freeman et al, 1942;Glaser, Schwarz, & Flanagan, 1958;Hilton et al, 1955;Hovland & Wonderlic, 1939;Huse, 1962;Komives et al, 1984;Maas, 1965;Morse & Hawthorne, 1946;Rafferty & Deemer, 1950;Raines & Rohrer, 1955;Reeb, 1969;Shaw, 1952;'Ikankell, 1959;"Ibbiana & Ben-Shakhar, 1982;Waldron, 1974).…”

Section: Rate Each Answer or Use Multiple Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

Campion

Palmer

Campion

1997

Personnel Psychology

410

565

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtually every previous review has concluded that structuring the selection interview improves its psychometric properties. This paper reviews the research literature in order to describe and evaluate the many ways interviews can be structured. Fifteen components of structure are identified that may enhance either the content of the interview or the evaluation process in the interview. Each component is explained in terms of its various operationalizations in the literature. Then, each component is critiqued in terms of its impact on numerous forms of reliability, validity, and user reactions. Finally, recommendations for research and practice are presented. It is concluded that interviews can be easily enhanced by using some of the many possible components of structure, and the improvement of this popular selection procedure should be a high priority for future research and practice.In the 80-year history of published research on employment interviewing (dating back to Scott, 1915), few conclusions have been more widely supported than the idea that structuring the interview enhances reliability and validity.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Components Of Structure 1 Base Questions On a Jobmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Control Ancillary Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rate Each Answer or Use Multiple Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

Campion

Palmer

Campion

1997

Personnel Psychology

410

565

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, when compared to cognitive ability tests, interviews were found to have lower validity (Hunter & Hunter, 1984;Mayfield, 1964;Reilly & Chao, 1982). Finally, even when interviews were found to be valid, they were criticized for having no 'incremental validity' over the more economical alternatives such as ability tests (Mayfield, 1964;Waldron, 1974).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the panel interview has shown 'some evidence of 'incremental validity'. Waldron (1974) tested the incremental validity of the panel interview above cognitive tests and biographical data for predicting training success, satisfaction, adjustment to the Navy, and job performance. The interview showed incremental validity for one measure of adjustment to the Navy and, most importantly, job performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the predictive power of the panel interview and pre‐employment tests

Roth

Campion

1992

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The validity of pre‐employment interviews has been debated for a long period of time. One recently advocated way to improve validity has been to use a panel of two or more interviewers. A cohort of petroleum process technicians was selected by pre‐employment tests and the panel interview. The interview predicted job performance and promotions while the pre‐employment tests predicted training success and job performance. The panel interview also showed ‘incremental validity’ over and above the pre‐employment tests for job performance.

show abstract