Interviews: A selection procedure designed to predict future job performance on the basis of applicants’ oral responses to oral inquiries.  

Advantages useful for determining if the applicant has requisite communicative or social skills which may be necessary for the job interviewer can obtain supplementary information used to appraise candidates’ verbal fluency can assess the applicant’s job knowledge can be used for selection among equally qualified applicants enables the supervisor and/or co-workers to determine if there is compatability between the applicant and the employees allows the applicant to ask questions that may reveal additional information useful for making a selection decision the interview may be modified as needed to gather important information

Disadvantages subjective evaluations are made decisions tend to be made within the first few minutes of the interview with the remainder of the interview used to validate or justify the original decision interviewers form stereotypes concerning the characteristics required for success on the job research has shown disproportionate rates of selection between minority and non-minority members using interviews negative information seems to be given more weight not much evidence of validity of the selection procedure not as reliable as tests

Tips Minimize stereotypes. To minimize the influence of racial and sex stereotypes in the interview process, provide interviewers with a job description and specification of the requirements for the position. Interviewers with little information about the job may be more likely to make stereotypical judgments about the suitability of candidates than are interviewers with detailed information about the job. Job Related. Try to make the interview questions job related. If the questions are not related to the job, then the validity of the interview procedure may be lower. Train Interviewers. Improve the interpersonal skills of the interviewer and the interviewer’s ability to make decisions without influence from non-job related information. Interviewers should be trained to: avoid asking questions unrelated to the job avoid making quick decisions about an applicant avoid stereotying applicants avoid giving too much weight to a few characteristics. try to put the applicant at ease during the interview communicate clearly with the applicant maintain consistency in the questions asked

---

Summary of Interviews

In general, interviews have the following weaknesses:

1. validity of the interview is relatively low
2. reliability of the interview is also low
3. stereotyping by interviewers, in general, may lead to adverse impact against minorities
4. the subjective nature of this procedure may allow bias such as favoritism and politics to enter into the selection process
5. this procedure is not standardized.
6. not useful when large numbers of applicants must be evaluated and/or selected

Types of Interviews

• Unstructured Interview Involves a procedure where different questions may be asked of different applicants.
• Situational Interview Candidates are interviewed about what actions they would take in various job-related situations. The job-related situations are usually identified using the critical incidents job analysis technique. The interviews are then scored using a scoring guide constructed by job experts.
• Behavior Description Interviews Candidates are asked what actions they have taken in prior job situations that are similar to situations they may encounter on the job. The interviews are then scored using a scoring guide constructed by job experts.
• Comprehensive Structured Interviews Candidates are asked questions pertaining to how they would handle job-related situations, job knowledge, worker requirements, and how the candidate would perform various job simulations. Interviews tapping job knowledge offer a way to assess a candidate’s current level of knowledge related to relevant implicit dimensions of job performance (i.e., “tacit knowledge” or “practical intelligence” related to a specific job position)
• Structured Behavioral Interview This technique involves asking all interviewees standardized questions about how they handled past situations that were similar to situations they may encounter on the job. The interviewer may also ask discretionary probing questions for details of the situations, the interviewee’s behavior in the situation and the outcome. The interviewee’s responses are then scored with behaviorally anchored rating scales.
• Oral Interview Boards This technique entails the job candidate giving oral responses tojob-related questions asked by a panel of interviewers. Each member of the panel then rates each interviewee on such dimensions as work history, motivation, creative thinking, and presentation. The scoring procedure for oral interview boards has typically been subjective; thus, it would be subject to personal biases of those individuals sitting on the board. This technique may not be feasible for jobs in which there are a large number of applicants that must be interviewed.

Personality Tests: A selection procedure measure the personality characteristics of applicants that are related to future job performance. Personality tests typically measure one or more of five personality dimensions: extroversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Advantages can result in lower turnover due if applicants are selected for traits that are highly correlated with employees who have high longevity within the organization can reveal more information about applicant’s abilities and interests can identify interpersonal traits that may be needed for certain jobs Disadvantages difficult to measure personality traits that may not be well defined applicant’s training and experience may have greater impact on job performance than applicant’s personality responses by applicant may may be altered by applicant’s desire to respond in a way they feel would result in their selection lack of diversity if all selected applicants have same personality traits cost may be prohibitive for both the test and interpretation of results lack of evidence to support validity of use of personality tests Tips Select traits carefully An employer that selects applicants with high degree of ‘assertiveness’, ‘independence’, and ’self-confidence’ may end up excluding females significantly more than males which would result in adverse impact. Select tests carefully Any tests should have been analyzed for (high) reliability and (low) adverse impact. Not used exclusively Personality tests should not be the sole instrument used for selecting applicants. Rather, they should be used in conjunction with other procedures as one element of the selection process. Applicants should not be selected on the basis of personality tests alone. Summary of Personality Tests Since there is not a correct answer to personality tests, the scoring of the procedure could be questioned. Recent litigation has suggested that some items for these types of tests may be too intrusive (Soroka v. Dayton Hudson, 1991). This technique lacks face validity. In other words, it would be difficult to show how individual questions on certain personality measures are job related even if the overall personality scale is a valid predictor of job performance. Hooke and Krauss (1971) administered three (3) tests to sergeant candidates; the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Allport-Vemon-Lindzey Study of Values, and the Gough Adjective Check List. These tests did not differentiate candidates rated as good sergeant material from those rates as poorer candidates. The researchers concluded that the groups may have been so similar that these tests were not sensitive enough to differentiate them. Types of Personality Tests Personal Attribute Inventory ersonal Attribute Inventory.An interpersonal assessment instrument which consists of 50 positive and 50 negative adjectives from Gough’s Adjective Check List. The subject is to select 30 which are most descriptive of the taregt group or person in question. This instrument was specifically designed to tap affective reactions and may be used in either assessing attitudes toward others or as a self-concept scale. Personality Adjective Checklist :A comprehensive, objective measure of eight personality styles (which are closely aligned with DSM-III-R Axis II constructs). These eight personality styles are: introversive, inhibited, cooperative, sociable, confident, forceful, respectful, and sensitive. This instrument is designed for use with nonpsychiatric patients and normal adults who read minimally at the eighth grade level. Test reports are computer-generated and are intended for use by qualified professionals only. Interpretive statements are based on empirical data and theoretical inference. They are considered probabilistic in nature and cannot be considered definitive. (2K ) Cross-Culture Adaptability Inventory : Self-scoring six-point rating scale is a training instrument designed to provide feedback to individuals about their potential for cross-cultural effectiveness. It is most effective when used as part of a training program. It can also be used as a team-building tool for culturally diverse work groups and as a counseling tool for people in the process of cross-cultural adjustment. The inventory contains 50 items, distributed among 4 subscales: emotional resilience, flexibility/openness, perceptual acuity, personal autonomy. Materials: Sample Questions of Personality Tests The following items are similar to items found on personality tests:     Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always 1. I enjoy reading books of fiction. 2. I am more conservative than risk taking. 3. Sometimes I get very nervous. 4. I more often introduce myself to strangers than strangers introduce themselves to me. 5. I consider myself more of a doer than a thinker. 6. I like to set goals before beginning a project. 7. I like to follow schedules. 8. I think it is OK to bend the rules to complete a task on time. 9. I enjoy long weekends.

 

Cognitive Ability Measures

 Cognitive Abilties Tests: Paper and pencil or individualized assessment measures of an individual’s general mental ability or intelligence.  These tests may be categorized as:

• General Intelligence Tests
• Aptitude Tests
  • Mechanical Aptitude
  • Clerical Aptitude
  • Spatial Aptitude

---

Examples of Cognitive Ability Tests

1. Employee Aptitude Survey A battery of employment tests designed to meet the practical requirements of a personnel office. Consists of 10 cognitive, perceptual, and psychomotor ability tests. Nine of the 10 tests have 5-minute time limits. The remaining test requires two to ten minutes of testing time. Is a tool for personnel selection and a useful diagnostic tool for vocational guidance and career counseling. For situations in which it is desirable to retest an individual on an alternate form, special retest norms are provided for interpreting retest scores.

Test 1–Verbal Comprehension. Each item consists of one word in capital letters followed by four words in small letters. The respondent is to choose the word in small letters that means about the same as the word in capital letters. Scoring is the number right minus 1/3 the number wrong. Test 2–Numerical Ability. A battery of three tests: integers, decimal fractions and common fractions, each is timed separately. Designed to measure skill in the four basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

Test 3–Visual Pursuit. Designed to measure the ability to make rapid scanning movements of the eyes without being distracted by other irrelevant visual stimulation. Involves the visual tracing of lines through an entangled network

 

Work Sample Tests

---

Work Sample Tests: Designed to have high content validity through a close relationship with the job. Work Sample tests are based on the premise that the best predictor of future behavior is observed behavior under similar situations. These tests require the examinee to perform tasks that are similar to those that are performed on the job.

Advantages high reliability high content validity since work samples are a sample of the actual work performed on the job low adverse impact because of their relationship to the job, these tests are typically viewed more favorable by examinees than aptitude or personality tests difficult for applicants to fake job proficiency which helps to increase the relationship between score on the test and performance on the job Work Sample tests use equipment that is the same or substantially similar to the actual equipment used on the job

Disadvantages costly to administer; often can only be administered to one applicant at a time although useful for jobs where tasks and duties can be completed in a short period of time, these tests have less ability to predict performance on jobs where tasks may take days or weeks to complete less able to measure aptitudes of an applicant thus restricting the test to measuring ability to perform the work sample and not more difficult tasks that may be encountered on the job

Tips Job Analysis Critical for identifying the content of the job from which samples will be developed. The Critical Incident Technique would be useful for identifying job duties/tasks that, if sampled on the test, would result in high predictive validity (criterion related validity). High Content Validity The test should be constructed with the intent of developing a highly content valid test. The content validity is build into the test. Equipment If specific equipment is used by incumbents on the job, try to incorporate all or some of that equipment on the test. Of couse, the safety of the applicant should take precedence over use of dangerous or unfamiliar tools or machines.

---

Types of Work Sample Tests

1. Work-Sample Tests of Trainability These are tests through a period of instruction when the applicant is expected to learn tasks involved in a work sample. The work-sample tests of trainability are suitable for untrained applicants with no previous job experience. The predictive validity of this technique is low relative to other techniques and there is evidence the validity of the instrument may attenuate over time.
2. Simulation of an Event These tests present the candidate with a picture of an incident along with quotations from those involved. The candidates then respond to a series of questions in which they write down the decisions they would make. The test is scored by subject matter experts.
3. Low Fidelity Simulations These tests present applicants with descriptions of work situations and five alternative responses for each situation. Applicants choose the responses they would most likely and least likely make in each situation.

Work-samples Applicants perform observable, job-related behaviors

Self-Assessments

• This technique involves applicants generating self-ratings on relevant performance Over time, self-assessments can be useful to clarify job performance expectations between employees and supervisors (Bassett & Meyer, 1968; Campbell & Lee, 1988), but initial discrepancies in understanding of what job requirements and performance dimensions between self- and supervisor ratings cause problems in a performance appraisal system (e.g., Ash, 1980).
• Problems with this approach:

1.  
   1. Self-ratings show greater leniency, less variability, more bias, and less agreement with the judgments of others (Ash, 1980; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Johns, Nilsen & Campbell, 1993; Thornton, 1980; van Vliet, Kletke, & Chakraborty, 1994; Williams & Levy, 1992).
   2. The predictive validity of this technique is questionable (Mabe & West, 1982). The predictors related to self-assessments and supervisor’s ratings may show a lack of congruence (e.g., self-efficacy related to self-ratings) (Lane & Herriot, 1990).
   3. Research suggests that applicants may not honestly respond to this type of technique (Love & Hughes, 1994).
   4. Self assessment scores tend to be inflated (Gupta & Beehr, 1982; Ash, 1980).
   5. Evidence suggests there is low face validity and perceived fairness associated with using this technique to promote law enforcement personnel.
   6. The evidence suggests low accuracy compared to objective measures (George & Smith, 1990; DeNisi & Shaw, 1977).
   7. Self-assessments may not correspond to ratings from other sources (e.g., peers) due to a lack of congruence on which specific job dimensions are to be assessed and the relative importance of specific job dimensions (Zalesny & Kirsch, 1989; Zammuto, London, & Rowland, 1982).
   8. Congruency in ratings between supervisors and employees may be affected by the decision of supervisors to agree with the self-assessments of employees to avoid potential employee relation conflicts (Farh, Werbel, & Bedeian, 1988).

Test Information – Online

To access this information, select a test from the pull-down list above. This information is provided by: