1. TAYLOR HOWARD The Employment Interview: A Review of Current Studies and Directions for Future Research

2. Overview of Article Overview of important aspects regarding:  Interview and interviewer factors at play during an interview  Structured vs. unstructured  How applicant factors and characteristics affect the interview  Demographics  Directions for future studies  Limitations

3. Unstructured Structured Fly by the seat of your pants No guidance Every interview is different Calculated, rigid, formulaic Treat all applicants equally Also known as:  Situational, Behavioral, Conventional structured, or Structured situational Basic Interview Types

4. PART 1 Interview and Interviewer Factors

5. Factors that moderate the reliability and validity of interviewer judgments  Judgments based on structured interviews are more predictive of job performance than unstructured interviews  Adding structure to interview process can enhance reliability and validity (criterion-related) of interviewer evaluations  Huffcutt et al.’s (2006) meta-analysis indicated that the type of validation study design moderated the criterion-related validity of structured interviews That is, concurrent studies showed higher overall validity vs. predictive studies across both interview formats (unstructured/structured)

6. Interview and Interviewer Factors Factors that moderate the reliability and validity of interviewer judgments  Job complexity has been examined as a moderator with mixed results  Taylor and Small (2002) – Meta-analysis indicated no support from job complexity as a moderator of reliability or validity  Huffcutt et al. (2004) – Meta-analysis showed job complexity to be a moderator of the validity for situational interviews with less predictive ability for more complex jobs

7. Interview and Interviewer Factors Recent research findings regarding interview structure components  Behaviorally-anchored rating scales (BARS)  Very similar to a Likert-type question  Maurer (2002) enlisted job experts and students as interviewers, in a structured interview Both job experts and students rated video recordings of interviews with greater accuracy when using BARS vs. not using BARS

8. Example of a BARS

9. Interview and Interviewer Factors Recent research findings regarding interview structure components  Note-taking  It is unknown how often interviewers take notes, or how often they are instructed to do so Middendorf and Macan (2002) – Note taking may be important from a legal perspective or for memory purposes However, taking notes takes attention away from the interviewee and what they have to say

10. Interview and Interviewer Factors Recent research findings regarding interview structure components  Panel interviews  When 2+ interviewers together perform an interview with an applicant and afterward combine their ratings to get an overall score  Previous research has mixed results HR professionals who have performed them in the past look favorably upon them Studies have shown that the race of the interviewer and interviewee can affect the outcome of the interview

11. Interview and Interviewer Factors Do interviews measure cognitive ability  Berry et al. (2007) – Meta-analysis that  included recent results,  excluded samples where interviewers had access to cognitive ability test results, and  addressed range restriction issues Found correlations between interviews and cognitive ability scores, but of lower magnitude vs. prior meta-analyses Concluded that the interview may be a useful supplement to cognitive tests for some employers

12. Interview and Interviewer Factors Do interviews measure personality  Huffcutt et al. (2001) found that personality traits and social skills were the most frequently measured constructs  Van Dam (2003) indicated that across a variety of jobs, interviewers referred to all Big Five personality dimensions  Specifically: Agreeableness (25%) and Extraversion (23%)  Van Iddekinge (2005) showed that an interview can be specifically tailored to examine and measure the personality of an applicant

13. PART 2 Applicant Factors and Characteristics

14. Race  Frazer et al. (2001) found that African-American applicants were scored lower due to their responses seeming less intelligent vs. White applicants  Purkiss et al. (2006) indicated that applicants with ethnic- sounding names were scored more poorly than applicants with more traditional names

15. Applicant Factors and Characteristics Gender  Two studies, same results  1 – The effects of sexual questions in job interviews (Woodzicka et al., 2005)  2 - Male interviewer’s beliefs that female applicants are attracted to them (Ridge et al., 2002) Both studies found female applicant’s interview performance was affected by male interviewer behavior (as evaluated by outside raters)

16. Applicant Factors and Characteristics Disabilities  Generally it is advantageous for people with physical disabilities to talk about them early in the interview rather than later or not at all  Applicants who speak freely (e.g., don’t try to hide their disability) are seen as more favorable vs. applicants who do not mention their disability  This finding is true for disabilities that are both visible and non- visible (Hebl et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2006)

17. Applicant Factors and Characteristics Obesity  Selection bias has been shown in previous studies (Kutcher & Bragger, 2004)  Overweight and obese applicants cannot hide their condition like some disabled applicants can hide their disability (Hebl et al., 2002)  Perceived controllability of the applicant’s condition was a key factor regarding the course of the interview In regards to perception, the more controllable the condition, the less favorably the interviewee appeared to the interviewer

18. Conclusion Limitations:  A common model of interview structure to provide clarity on the role of all aspects of interview structure  Common metrics to help measure various constructs  A revised focus on what constructs could be measured or are best measured in employment interviews  Start investigating how you can investigate what specific construct you want to examine, rather than asking what has already been done (e.g., meta-analysis)  Consistency in definitions, labeling and measurement of all applicant factors and characteristics  Common definitions to aid in the observation of interviews