Why do Situational Interviews Predict Job Performance? The Role of Interviewees’ Ability to Identify Criteria

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed at shedding light on why situational interviews (SIs) predict job performance. We examined an explanation based upon the importance of interviewees' Ability to Identify Criteria (ATIC, i.e., to read the targeted interview dimensions) for SI performance. Design/Methodology/Approach Data were obtained from 97 interviewees who participated in a mock interview to train for future applications. This approach enabled us to conduct the SIs under standardized conditions, to assess interviewees' ATIC, and at the same time, to collect job performance data from interviewee's current supervisors. Findings We found that interviewees' ATIC scores were not only positively related to their interview performance, but also predicted job performance as rated by their supervisors. Furthermore, controlling for interviewees' ATIC significantly lowered the relationship between performance in the SI and job performance. Implications Better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the criterion-related validity of SIs is crucial for theoretical progress and improving personnel selection procedures. This study highlights the relevance of interviewees' ATIC for predicting job performance. It also underscores the importance of constructing interviews to enable candidates to show their criterion-relevant abilities. Originality/Value This study shows that interviewees' ATIC contributes to a better understanding of why the SI predicts job performance.

Why Do Situational Interviews Predict Performance? Is it Saying How You Would Behave or Knowing How You Should Behave?

“…Thus, situational interviews predict performance because they capture whether interviewees are able to read situational demands—or in other words know how they should behave to master performance-relevant situations—both during the interview and on the job (cf. Ingold et al 2015 ; Jansen et al 2013 ). Thus, for this explanation, it is relevant that ATIC as a common cause is positively related to both performance in the interview and performance in work-related situations.…”

“…It has already been shown that the correct perception of situational demands correlates with performance in personality questionnaires, assessment centers, and also situational interviews (e.g., Griffin 2014 ; Ingold et al 2015 ; Jansen et al 2012 ; König et al 2007 ; Melchers et al 2009 ). In line with previous findings, we therefore suggest the following hypothesis:…”

“…König et al ( 2007 ) already found that ATIC scores from a structured interview were predictive of performance in an assessment center and vice versa ( r = 0.29 and r = 0.34, respectively). Furthermore, recently Jansen et al ( 2013 ) found that ATIC scores derived from an assessment center predicted actual job performance ( r = 0.27), and Ingold et al ( 2015 ) found that ATIC scores derived from a situational interview predicted supervisor ratings of job performance ( r = 0.29). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:…”

A review of applicant faking in selection interviews

“…They argued that applicants’ abilities (e.g., cognitive ability or the ability to identify the selection criteria) are necessary for both successful faking in interviews and task performance (cf. Ingold, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & Van Iddekinge, , for ATIC, and Schmidt & Hunter, , for cognitive ability) and therefore contribute to criterion‐related validity. In contrast, information obtained in the honest condition allows for a better prediction of citizenship behavior, which is more strongly associated with personality and motivation in comparison to abilities.…”

“…However, whether the small positive relationship they found generalizes to high‐stakes selection interviews must be determined. Because cognitive ability or ATIC are likely to play a role in successful interview faking and are also predictive of task performance (Ingold, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, et al, ; Schmidt & Hunter, ), faking could contribute to the prediction of task performance. In contrast, applicants usually fake to compensate for a lack of qualification or fit, and thus faking should negatively impact criterion‐related validity (e.g., Levashina et al, ).…”