INTERVIEW NOTES AND VALIDITY

Three studies were conducted investigating the effects of notetaking behavior and the content of notes on validity in a selection interview. Overall, results indicate that when notetaking was voluntary, notetakers made more valid ratings than non-notetakers. But, when note-taking was manipulated non-notetakers made ratings that were just as valid as raters told to take behavioral notes, and actually more valid than those raters instructed to take general notes. With regard to the content of notes, behavioral-type notes were found to contribute to greater validity. In addition, in the first and third study, procedural type notes resulted in lower validity. These results may have important implications for interviewer training for notetaking.     

EXPERIENCE-BASED AND SITUATIONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS: STUDIES OF VALIDITY

This research compared the validity of two different types of structured interview questions (i.e., experience-based and situational) under tightly controlled conditions. The experience-based interview questions required that 108 study participants relate how they had handled situations in the past requiring skills and abilities necessary for effective performance on the job. Situational questions, administered to another group of 108 study participants, provided interviewees with hypothetical job-relevant situations and asked them how they would respond if they were confronted with these problems. The experience-based interview questions yielded higher levels of validity than the situational questions. Additional analyses showed that the interview added incrementally to the prediction of performance beyond the variance accounted for by a cognitive ability test. There were small differences in subgroup performance (White, Black, Hispanic, male, and female) on the experience-based interview, though it was equally valid for all subgroups.     

THE INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF INTERVIEW SCORES OVER AND ABOVE COGNITIVE ABILITY AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS SCORES

Recent research has suggested that scores on measures of cognitive ability, measures of Conscientiousness, and interview scores are positively correlated with job performance. There remains, however, a question of incremental validity: To what extent do interviews predict above and beyond cognitive ability and Conscientiousness? This question was addressed in this paper by (a) conducting meta‐analyses of the relationships among cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, and interviews, (b) combining these results with predictive validity results from previous meta‐analyses to form a “meta‐correlation matrix” representing the relationships among cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, interviews, and job performance, and (c) performing 9 hierarchical regressions to examine the incremental validity of 3 levels of structured interviews in best, actual, and worst case scenarios for prediction. Results suggested that interview scores contribute to the prediction of job performance over and above cognitive ability and Conscientiousness to the extent that they are structured, with scores from highly structured interviews contributing substantially to prediction. Directions for future research are discussed.     

THE ROLE OF THE TRADITIONAL RESEARCH DESIGN IN UNDERESTIMATING THE VALIDITY OF THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW

Building upon the suggestions of Arvey and Campion (1982) and Zedeck, Tziner, and Middlestadt (1983), this paper calls into question the traditional approach to validating the employment interview. A general review of the literature reveals that individuals are likely to differ in their ability to provide accurate predictions of employee behavior and that interviewers often differ in their constant tendency to make favorable or unfavorable ratings. A review of published validation studies shows that most researchers fail to consider these tendencies and, therefore, may be inappropriately collapsing data across multiple interviewers. Through analytic argument we conclude that reviews of the existing literature will likely underestimate the usefulness of this widely used technique.     

ADJUSTING SALES RESULTS MEASURES FOR USE AS CRITERIA

The use of objective criterion measures in validation research raises the issue of criterion contamination. Several methods of treating sales measures in the empirical keying of a biodata instrument are compared. The relative contaminating effects of local economic conditions and company factors are evaluated. This study is an example of how practitioners can use their knowledge about the selection context to develop acceptable criterion norming strategies.     

BEYOND EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW VALIDITY: A COMPREHENSIVE NARRATIVE REVIEW OF RECENT RESEARCH AND TRENDS OVER TIME

The last major narrative review of the employment interview was published over 10 years ago. Since then, 278 studies have examined numerous aspects of the interview. This review summarizes and critically examines this recent research. A framework is developed that partitions research into social, cognitive, individual difference, measurement, and outcome factors. This organizing framework allows an examination of trends over time and facilitates identification of gaps in the empirical literature. Within each of these major factors, each research topic is identified, defined, and reviewed. For each topic, the results of the previous 3 narrative reviews are briefly summarized, recent research is reviewed and critiqued, and directions for future research are identified.     

VALIDITY GENERALIZATION RESULTS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OCCUPATIONS

The Schmidt-Hunter interactive validity generalization procedure was applied to validity data for cognitive abilities tests for law enforcement occupations. Both assumed artifact distributions, and distributions of artifacts constructed from information contained in the current sample of studies were used to test the hypothesis of situational specificity and to estimate validity generalizability. Results for studies using a criterion of performance in training programs showed that validities ranged from .41 to .71, and for four test types the hypothesis of situational specificity could be rejected using the 75% decision rule. For the remaining test types, validity was generalizable, based on 90% credibility values ranging from .37 to .71. Results for studies using a criterion of performance on the job indicated that the hypothesis of situational specificity was not tenable for three test types, which had validities between .17 and .31. For the remaining test types, estimated mean true validities ranged from .10 to .26 and were generalizable to a majority of situations. Results for both groups of studies were essentially identical for the two types of artifact distribution. Possible reasons for the apparently lower validities and lesser generalizability for job performance criteria are discussed, including possible low validity of the criterion (due to lack of opportunity by supervisors to observe behavior) and the potential role of noncognitive factors in the determination of law enforcement job success. Suggestions for specifically targeted additional research are made.     

PREPARATION OF COLLEGE GRADUATES FOR THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW

A large number of college students are lacking in the skills and techniques that are considered basic for a job interview. In order to investigate the problem systematically and objectively, a crude instrument was designed to be used in a structured interview with recruitment personnel. The need for assisting college students for employment interviews is apparent from the findings. Industry has expressed an interest in working cooperatively with the educators in setting up a program to prepare students at the college level for the job interview.     

IMPLICATIONS OF THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE OF JOB PERFORMANCE FOR THE VALIDITY OF SELECTION TESTS: MULTIVARIATE FRAMEWORKS FOR STUDYING TEST VALIDITY

Although most studies of criterion-related validity focus on univariate relationships, the complex and multidimensional nature of the performance construct and the widespread use of multiple selection devices argue in favor of multivariate frameworks for evaluating validity. Using a Monte Carlo simulation we estimated the validity of general cognitive ability tests and personality tests in predicting "job performance," where performance is conceptualized as a composite of multiple performance measures (i.e., individual job task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors). The validity of a selection battery varies substantially as a function of the relative weight given to both predictors and criteria; the 95% confidence interval for validities ranged from .20 to .78. The effective weights given to performance dimensions accounted for 34% of the variance in selection battery validities; depending on precisely how "performance" is defined, the same test battery can have relatively high or relatively low levels of validity. Our model suggests that the way an organization defines job performance is a source of true and important variability in validities, and that the validity of selection tests for predicting complex performance criteria may show considerably less generalizability that current metaanalysis of univariate validities would suggest.     

PREFERENCE FOR MOTIVATOR AND HYGIENE FACTORS IN A HYPOTHETICAL INTERVIEW SITUATION: FURTHER FINDINGS AND SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW

Managers, supervisory personnel, clerical workers, and high school students were administered questionnaires which asked them to indicate whether or not they would discuss various work-related factors if they were applicants in an employment interview situation. A systematic tendency was found for respondents to prefer to discuss "motivators" as opposed to "hygiene factors" as characteristics they would seek in a new job, or as reasons for dissatisfaction with a previous one. Responding to a modified version of the questionnaire, twenty professional employment interviewers indicated that it is in fact wise to emphasize motivators and deemphasize hygiene factors if the applicant's intent is to maximize the likelihood of being offered a job.