Applicant Reactions to Different Selection Technology: Face-to-Face, Interactive Voice Response, and Computer-Assisted Telephone Screening Interviews

This research contributes to the understanding of reactions to different selection screening methods. A sample of students (n=153) experienced one of three types of screening techniques, face-to-face interview screenings, telephone interview screenings, and interactive voice response (IVR) screenings, with identical content in a pre- to post-screening longitudinal study. We further examined the role of two important individual differences, cognitive ability and conscientiousness, in attitudes toward the screenings. IVR is a "non-interpersonal" screening method so it was not surprising that it was rated lower in terms of procedural justice factors such as interpersonal treatment, two-way communication, and openness but what is encouraging is that there were no differences between other labor intensive and costly technologies and IVR on the other procedural justice factors. Therefore, there do not appear to be any major negatives in terms of structural fairness among alternative screening devices implying that organizations can make choices between screening methods based on other factors such as recruitment strategy or cost.

[1]  Donald M. Truxillo,et al.  Development and examination of an expectancy-based measure of test-taking motivation. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[2]  Stephanie C. Payne,et al.  The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores , 2000 .

[3]  S. Gilliland.  The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective , 1993 .

[4]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[5]  T. Bauer,et al.  Applicant reactions to test score banding in entry-level and promotional contexts. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow , 1990 .

[7]  F. Schmidt,et al.  General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Filip Lievens,et al.  Recent trends and challenges in personnel selection , 2002 .

[9]  Thomas R. Carretta,et al.  Role of ability and prior knowledge in complex training performance. , 1995 .

[10]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  The Winding Road from Employee to Complainant: Situational and Psychological Determinants of Wrongful-Termination Claims , 2000 .

[11]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Applicants’ Perceptions of Selection Procedures and Decisions: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future , 2000 .

[12]  Jeffrey A. Miles,et al.  The effects of videoconference, telephone, and face-to-face media on interviewer and applicant judgments in employment interviews , 2001 .

[13]  Richard D. Arvey,et al.  MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS OF TEST TAKING , 1990 .

[14]  Christine A. Henle,et al.  Internet recruiting and employment discrimination: a legal perspective , 1998 .

[15]  Robert E. Ployhart,et al.  Applicants' reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: the effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. , 1998, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  D. Jackson,et al.  PERSONALITY MEASURES AS PREDICTORS OF JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYTIC REVIEW , 2006 .

[17]  Richard P. DeShon,et al.  Reactions to cognitive ability tests: the relationships between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS , 1991 .

[19]  M. Konovsky.  Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business Organizations , 2000 .

[20]  L. Beach.  Broadening the Definition of Decision Making: The Role of Prechoice Screening of Options , 1993 .

[21]  Richard T Seymour.  Why plaintiffs' counsel challenge tests, and how they can successfully challenge the theory of “validity generalization” , 1988 .

[22]  C. Dodrill,et al.  Long-term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. , 1983 .

[23]  James W. Smither,et al.  APPLICANT REACTIONS TO SELECTION PROCEDURES , 2006 .

[24]  N. Anderson.  Applicant and Recruiter Reactions to New Technology in Selection: A Critical Review and Agenda for Future Research , 2003 .

[25]  J. Colquitt,et al.  Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[26]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Research in the Psychological Laboratory , 1999 .

[27]  P. Costa,et al.  Four ways five factors are basic , 1992 .

[28]  David E. Smith,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF APPLICANTs' REACTIONS TO COGNITIVE ABILITY TESTS AND AN ASSESSMENT CENTER , 1994 .

[29]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  Self-Administered Questions by Telephone: Evaluating Interactive Voice Response , 2001 .

[31]  M. A. Campion,et al.  APPLICANT REACTIONS TO SELECTION: DEVELOPMENT OF THE SELECTION PROCEDURAL JUSTICE SCALE (SPJS) , 2001 .

[32]  Robert D. Gatewood,et al.  Human Resource Selection , 1997 .

[33]  Malcolm James Ree,et al.  Predicting job performance: Not much more than g.. , 1994 .

[34]  Barry M. Goldman.  Toward an Understanding of Employment Discrimination Claiming: An Integration of Organizational Justice and Social Information Processing Theories , 2001 .

[35]  J. Hunter,et al.  Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance , 1984 .