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.     

INTERVIEW VALIDITY FOR SELECTING SALES CLERKS

Interviewer judgments, gender, and age data were collected for job applicants interviewing for seasonal retail sales clerk positions in two separate years. Job performance data were matched with interviewer judgments for 312 employees in Year One and for 205 employees in Year Two. The correlation between interview judgments and job performance was .34 in Year One; after correction for criterion attenuation and restriction of range, the correlation was estimated at .42. The second year results yielded a correlation of .51, which, after corrections, was estimated at .61. Analyses of the data for differential prediction as a function of sex and age for both years revealed that females and older applicants received higher average interview evaluations, but regression lines did not differ significantly among the age and gender 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.     

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.     

RELIABILITY IS NOT VALIDITY AND VALIDITY IS NOT RELIABILITY

Interrater correlations do provide an index of reliability of job performance ratings. We show that the arguments presented by Murphy and DeShon (2000) lead to the radical conclusion that traditional measurement models–both classical theory and generalizability theory models–can be used neither with job performance ratings nor with other measures used in I-O and other areas of psychology and the social sciences. We show that this untenable conclusion is based on confusion of validity issues and questions with reliability issues and questions. It is also based on the incorrect belief that classical measurement models are capable of addressing only random response measurement error and cannot address other forms of measurement error. We also show that the solution Murphy and DeShon offer to the problem of measurement error in ratings, as they define this problem, cannot work. Properly understood, the position taken by Murphy and DeShon leaves us with the nihilistic conclusion that no appropriate measurement models are possible in psychological research, thus making meaningful research impossible.     

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.     

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN INTERVIEWER RATINGS: THE IMPACT OF STANDARDIZATION, CONSENSUS DISCUSSION, AND SAMPLING ERROR ON THE VALIDITY OF A STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

This research investigated empirical issues regarding the validity of individual interviewers'( N = 62) ratings collected after a structured interview. Each interviewer rated an average of 25 interviewees. One hypothesis examined but not supported was that systematic interviewer errors will attenuate interview validity when data are aggregated across interviewers. Also investigated was the validity of ratings averaged across interviewers compared to consensus ratings; consensus ratings were shown to have significantly but probably not practically higher validities. Third, a meta-analysis of individual interviewer validities revealed that all of the variance in validities could be attributed to sampling error. Results and implications are discussed.     

情境访谈的特点与研究趋势

情境访谈自８０年代初到现在已有了长足的发展,人们不仅把它作为一种人员选拔的方法,而更将它理解为一种研究的思路。本文主要着重讨论有关情境访谈研究的以下几个方面：（１）情境访谈与传统访谈的比较研究;（２）过去行为定向情境访谈和将来意图定向情境访谈的比较研究;（３）情境访谈与认知能力测验之间的关系。（４）情境访谈在新的组织情境下的应用。本文还讨论了关于情境访谈的将来研究趋势。     

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF IN-BASKET PERFORMANCE MEASURES

The in-basket test is a frequently used assessment tool for predicting job performance and, to a lesser extent, as a technique for research and development in various human resource applications. While the in-basket test has obvious attractive features for application in the business setting, there is a great degree of uniqueness in each application and relatively little research focusing on critical issues involved in construction or evaluation. In this paper, the literature focusing on the psychometric properties of in-basket measures of performance are reviewed and evaluated. The compiled evidence provides only modest support of the usefulness of the in-basket test as a measurement tool.     

EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS: LEGALITY AND VALIDITY1

Educational achievements (e.g., high school diploma, college degree) are frequently used as selection requirements for a wide variety of jobs. Despite this, the legality and validity of this “selection test” has been a neglected subject of study by personnel psychologists. In this article, two important issues concerning educational requirements are discussed. First, court cases are reviewed to gain insight into judicial opinions. Next, validity studies of educational requirements are summarized. The article concludes with suggestions for the proper use and defense of educational requirements.     

病前智力估计:效度与局限

病前智力的估计是甄别、诊断智能衰退的必要条件,有重要的临床和科研意义。依据学业成绩和工作成就等背景资料可综合评估病前智力的水平与结构,但其定性的结论不利于科研,且难免主观。依赖人口统计学变量的回归公式能客观给出确切的、具有一定效度的估计数,但会高估或低估极端智商。依据当前测验成绩的估计有“保持”和最佳作业两种模式,这种估计个体特异高,但被试在选用测验上的当前表现能否代表病前智力水平尚有争议。联合不同方法能提高预测效度。