A meta‐analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview*

A meta-analysis of the employment interview was carried out to investigate the impact of interview format (individual vs. board interviews) and interview structure (unstructured vs. structured) on the validity of interviews. A thorough review of the unpublished and published literature worldwide yielded 150 usable validity coefficients for the meta-analysis. Contrary to the predominantly pessimistic views of previous researchers, the interview was found to be a generally good selection instrument. These findings suggest that the ' received doctrine' of interview invalidity is false. However, interview structure moderated predictive validity coefficients to a considerable extent. In fact, structured interviews produced mean validity coefficients twice as high as unstructured interviews. Although considerable variance in structured interviews remained unaccounted for after adjustment for statistical artifacts, all of the variation in observed validity coefficients for unstructured interviews was accounted for. It was concluded that a number of social psychological processes examined in previous interview research would have little effect in moderating the validity coefficients of the unstructured interview. The results also suggest that higher validity coefficients are associated with more reliable interviews and the use of formal job-analytic information in developing interview questions. Implications for research and practice in personnel psychology are explored.

[1]  The psychology of the interview , 1941 .

[2]  R. Wagner.  The Employment Interview: a Critical Summary , 1949 .

[3]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[4]  Eugene C. Mayfield.  THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH , 1964 .

[5]  D. Trumbo,et al.  THE SELECTION INTERVIEW SINCE 1949. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  G. Milne.  The interview: Let us have perspective , 1967 .

[7]  Orman R. Wright.  SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON THE SELECTION INTERVIEW SINCE 1964 , 1969 .

[8]  G. V. Barrett.  RESEARCH MODELS OF THE FUTURE FOR INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY , 1972 .

[9]  F. Landy.  The validity of the interview in police officer selection. , 1976 .

[10]  N. Schmitt.  Social and Situational Determinants of Interview Decisions: Implications for the Employment Interview. , 1976 .

[11]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. , 1977 .

[12]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity. , 1979 .

[13]  R. Sitgreaves.  Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[14]  E D Pursell,et al.  Structured interviewing: avoiding selection problems. , 1980, The Personnel journal.

[15]  D. Jackson,et al.  Decision making in the employment interview: An experimental approach. , 1980 .

[16]  R. Reilly,et al.  VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES , 1982 .

[17]  James E. Campion,et al.  The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. , 1982 .

[18]  Aharon Tziner,et al.  Interviewer Validity and Reliability: An Individual Analysis Approach. , 1983 .

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

[20]  Steven F. Cronshaw,et al.  One answer to the demand for accountability: selection utility as an investment decision , 1985 .

[21]  Daniel J. Svyantek,et al.  Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria. , 1985 .

[22]  Paul R. Sackett,et al.  On seeking moderator variables in the meta-analysis of correlational data: A Monte Carlo investigation of statistical power and resistance to Type I error. , 1986 .

[23]  Steven F. Cronshaw,et al.  Incorporating risk into selection utility: Two models for sensitivity analysis and risk simulation , 1987 .