Interviews: A selection procedure designed to predict future job performance on the basis of applicants’ oral responses to oral inquiries.
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
TipsMinimize 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:
|
Summary of Interviews
In general, interviews have the following weaknesses:
- validity of the interview is relatively low
- reliability of the interview is also low
- stereotyping by interviewers, in general, may lead to adverse impact against minorities
- the subjective nature of this procedure may allow bias such as favoritism and politics to enter into the selection process
- this procedure is not standardized.
- 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.
Summary of Personality Tests
Types of Personality Tests
Sample Questions of Personality TestsThe following items are similar to items found on personality tests:
|
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
- 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
|
Disadvantages
|
TipsJob 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
-
- 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).
- 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).
- Research suggests that applicants may not honestly respond to this type of technique (Love & Hughes, 1994).
- Self assessment scores tend to be inflated (Gupta & Beehr, 1982; Ash, 1980).
- Evidence suggests there is low face validity and perceived fairness associated with using this technique to promote law enforcement personnel.
- The evidence suggests low accuracy compared to objective measures (George & Smith, 1990; DeNisi & Shaw, 1977).
- 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).
- 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: