Journal of Management History (Archive

Emerald Article: A brief history of the selection interview: may the next 100 years be more fruitful M. Ronald Buckley, Amy Christine Norris, Danielle S. Wiese

Article information:
To cite this document: M. Ronald Buckley, Amy Christine Norris, Danielle S. Wiese, (2000),"A brief history of the selection interview: may the next 100 years be more fruitful", Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 6 Iss: 3 pp. 113 - 126 Permanent link to this document: Downloaded on: 03-04-2012 References: This document contains references to 53 other documents To copy this document: This document has been downloaded 3878 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MAURITIUS For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit for more information. About Emerald With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

113-126. Analysts. While the future of interview research may be unclear. OK. 6 No. structured. it will continue to be used as a selection tool. the interview has received much attention.A brief history of the selection A brief history of the selection interview interview: may the next 100 years be more fruitful University of Oklahoma. Norman. Theory. the interview has remained the most popular and widely used selection tool in the selection process. It has also been suggested that group interviews and extensive interviewer training modestly improve interview validity. At the risk of denigrating research contributions on the interview process. Ronald Buckley. it quickly became the most commonly used tool for selecting and promoting employees. praised. Division of Management. Gifted scholars (from management. 2000. 3. the interview has been criticized. the effectiveness of the interview Journal of Management History. Research has shown that structured interviews are more reliable than unstructured interviews. Human resource development Abstract Over the past 100 years. and reexamined through the eyes of a myriad different researchers. The structure. Early research efforts Numerous types of literature about the selection interview began to appear in the early part of the twentieth century. USA Keywords Interviews. enlarged. Little theoretical development has occurred since these ideas were presented in the 1940s. pp. tested. psychology. In 1915. the continued presence and importance of the interview are guaranteed. analyzed. validity. recorded and analyzed. reliability. Owing to the fact that the interview was the sole ``scientific'' selection instrument available. In spite of this. Over the past century. the past 20 years of interview research have lacked substantial theoretical contributions and the creativity necessary to make the interview perform the function it is designed to perform ± identify the best person for the job. Amy Christine Norris and Danielle S. Vol. Historical events have impacted the focus of research efforts. 1355-252X . # MCB University Press. It is generally agreed that the interview is modest in terms of reliability or validity. Instruction books telling employers how to interview and articles containing advice for potential job applicants also became popular. and predictive power of the interview have been investigated. Through all of this. M. Wiese 113 Received May 1997 Revised October 1997 The selection interview An examination of the last 100 years of research on the selection interview yields a number of repeating themes and demonstrates the importance of specific historical events on the focus of the research. sociology and public administration) and field practitioners have been responsible for the evolution of the interview process and have paved the way for new and creative ideas pertaining to interview research and practice.

This was reiterated by Buckley and Eder (1988b) when they suggested that the interview should only be used to evaluate those skills which could be observed in the interview. His last two steps to an effective interview included developing a method of evaluating the . forcefulness. if anything. Some candidates' rankings even ranged from the very best to the very worst. If the interviewers' advice would have been followed. Further evidence from a study done by Hollingworth (1922) reinforced the idea that the interview was not a flawless selection process. the results were both positive and negative. Charters (1927) concluded that traits which do not actually function or enter specifically into the behavior of the interviewee during the interview cannot be judged with any accuracy. brightness in conversation. In 1927. honesty.JMH 6. O'Rourke (1929). The search for the perfect structure New concepts about how interviews should be conducted surfaced in 1929 and 1930. researchers sought to uncover exactly what the interview could predict. 23 percent of the students who received average grades of 85 percent or higher would have been eliminated. persistence. 33 percent of the students who failed would have been eliminated. In his study. Hollingworth found that the rankings given by evaluators of a pool of candidates showed great variability. could all be observed and rated in an interview. likeability. 1989). who for many years was the director of test research for the United States Civil Service Commission. He suggested that the interview may do little more than report the ability of the candidate to engage in conversation. outside interests and hobbies. interviewed Civil Service candidates and concluded that ``genuine problem situations'' should be used in interviews to predict how the applicants would react in work situations.. On the other hand. O'Rourke's first step toward conducting a successful interview was to develop problems specifically designed to bring out the desired qualities in the candidates. He developed a series of steps to ensure that interviews would capture valuable information from candidates and represent real work situations. Charters found that characteristics. he also suggested that other qualities. Fueled by these findings. When the students' actual performances were compared with the predictions from the interviews. 429). including dependability. such as appearance and manners. The next step was to construct these problems so as to ``insure an adequate sampling of the qualifications being measured'' (p. However. and disagreeable mannerisms. attitudes. The effectiveness of interviewers was challenged again by Moss in his 1931 study about the ability of interviewers to predict the success or failure of medical school students. and loyalty could not be ascertained during the interview process.3 114 was challenged after a study showed that interviewers' abilities to identify successful applicants were problematic (Eder et al. O'Rourke then suggested creating a uniform method of presenting the problems and devising a method of making complete records of the oral examination.

(1947) found that ``quantitative interview ratings may be obtained with reliabilities as high as those of personality tests . Their research led them to conclude in 1939 that standardized interviews were the most effective types of interviews and should include questions about ``work history. interview This trend to devise an improved interview structure continued into the next decade. and personal history'' (p. This concept of standardized interview formats was gaining popularity in the late 1930s and early 1940s. personality. . He also asserted that the practical tests were superior because the candidates were more relaxed and likely to perform as they would in actual job situations. the interview was not a good predictor of success. in which the interviewee or a small group of interviewees was asked to perform a specific task. family history. in fact. wartime made large military samples available and allowed numerous tests of reliability and validity to be conducted. the interviewers attempted to predict the applicants' ability to be successful in flight school. They qualified this statement by establishing specific guidelines that an interview must meet in order to be reliable. . Attempts to measure and improve reliability and validity In the 1940s. Travers stated that a practical test situation. These guidelines were as follows: . than the reliabilities of many such tests'' (p. was ``equally good at measuring personal characteristics. Travers noted that all interviews should include a practical test of some kind. and general aptitude for work. 108). one done by Dunlap and Wantman (1947) and another by Newman et al. ability to follow directions. They developed the Diagnostic Interviewer's Guide in an attempt to standardize the interview process and create a system for quantitative recording. Newman et al. Hovland and Wonderlic (1939) also supported the use of standardized interviews. Adams and Smeltzer (1936) attempted to construct a standardized interview record form in 1936. higher. In 1941. carefulness. attitude. the overall prediction rates were little better than chance.interviews and determining a fixed standard of rating. 129). which provided guidance for structuring and conducting an interview. Two different studies. health. This built upon the pioneering work of Bingham and Moore 115 (1931) and resulted in the work of Mandell (1964). In this case. This procedure ensured A brief history of that interviewers had the tools they needed to be successful and that interviews the selection conducted by different interviewers yielded similar results (reliability). and personal history. In the first study. and selfconfidence as the interview'' (p. 537). which included information about their work. When these predictions were compared to the results from the flight school years later. Following the 25-minute interviews. dealt with interviewers' attempts to predict the success of World War II enlistees in flight school. and then to interview the applicants. (1947). social history. a board of interviewers was asked to study applicants' Personal History Inventories. which included such categories as physical characteristics.

The quest for positive attributes Near the middle of the twentieth century. relevant. Perhaps the most significant result of the group interview was the final advantage cited by Brody because leadership.JMH 6. If these guidelines were not followed.3 116 (1) adequate. and scientific approach'' (p. speech attitude toward the group. contribution to group performance. the reliability of the interview declined. and objective information concerning the candidate must be available to the interviewer. He promoted the patterned interview which was a technique that required extensive training for the interviewers. (2) required no question-asking skills from the interviewer. 31) to perform an effective interview. (2) the demands of the situation with respect to which the interview is made must be carefully defined and fully understood by all interviewers. Two new interview techniques surfaced in 1947 that seemed to improve the predictive power of the interview. in which six to 12 participants interacted in a group discussion and the interviewers took on passive roles as listeners and observers. (3) the interviewers must have met with each other in advance and arrived at common standards and criteria of evaluation (p. He claimed that important attributes such as ``appearance and manner. 42). more than the other factors. it probably would not be abandoned. This technique necessitated that the interviewer be ``selected carefully to be sure he is emotionally adjusted and has adequate intelligence'' (p. Owing to the realization that the interview was an inevitable part of the selection process. there seems to be a certain human curiosity which can be satisfied in no other way than by seeing the man in the flesh (p. 170) could be identified in a group interview. was thought to be a good indicator of job success. Any kind of training for interviewers was beneficial to the interview and the complex training that McMurray called for seemed to be quite effective. Brody (1947) was the first to suggest the use of a group interview. Wagner (1949) summarized the sentiment of researchers with this statement: The interview remains popular as a selection procedure despite its questionable reliability. Even if the interview were thoroughly repudiated. leadership. researchers began to accept the notion that the interview was popular despite findings of low predictive power and reliability. (3) provided information concerning the attitude of one candidate toward another. He cited the following advantages of group interviews: (1) a chance to observe candidates for long periods of time. researchers began searching for its strengths. Another new interviewing technique was advocated by McMurray (1947). Rundquist . 108). and (4) measured leadership skills of the candidates (p. 173).

they were able to analyze interviews without intruding on the process. Of those assigned by the interviewing. including the time the interviewer spoke. They used the recorded interviews to do content analysis and determined that the interviewer controlled the length of the interview but the interviewee had more control over the total number of exchanges during the interview. He also showed that sociability could be interview measured well through an interview. These measures could be compiled and compared to determine the average times for interviews in different industries or compare the times of successful and unsuccessful interviewees. 22). In a study of the assignments made by the Army Air Forces Aircraft Warning Unit Training Center. and the average response time. and manipulated interview settings. In similar studies. Putney (1947) uncovered an additional reason to support the use of the interview as a valid selection tool. Chappel took the analyzation process one step further by developing a machine called the Interaction Chronograph that measured the speaking times of interviewer and interviewee. This study. They took a sample of 60 interviews conducted in the employment offices of eight companies.. Springbett (1958) found that interviewers make their decisions during the first few minutes of the interview. 84 percent graduated in the prescribed time. Analyzing the parts The next decade brought about intense analysis of all aspects of the interview. Putney concluded that the mere fact that a candidate had been interviewed made that candidate more likely to achieve an academic rating of ``excellent'' and to graduate on time. For the first time. Researchers measured question response times. while only 29 percent of those who were not interviewed completed the same task. according to Springbett. when interviewers were asked to rate only a single trait. the selection they could do so quite effectively. analyzed the information asked for and given. he researched two groups of students: those who had been interviewed and those who had not been interviewed. W. His A brief history of research showed that.J. the number of questions asked. recorded gestures and body language. Dipboye (1954) and Robinson (1955) divided the interviews that they observed into measurable units. as well as silence times (Matarazzo et al. which comprised one experiment in a military setting and one in an . Because he was heavily influenced by the candidate's physical appearance and application form. He found that the ``simple decision utility'' (p. the interviewer used the interview primarily to search for negative evidence about the candidate. 1956). In one of the most cited selection interview research studies of all time. 145) of the interview was more impressive 117 than the predictive power of the interview.(1947) was one of the first to identify positive attributes of the interview. ``The appearance of the applicant and his application form provide information in the first two or three minutes of the interview which decisively affects the final outcome in 85 percent of the cases'' (p. Daniels and Otis (1950) were the first to record interviews on audiotape in 1950.

projective tests. 1965). This was a 6 percent increase from a 1930 survey (Ulrich and Trumbo. The era of Webster The 1960s showed the birth of ``camps'' or groups of researchers engaged in programmatic activity. 24). Perhaps the best known research from this period is that of Webster (1964) and his graduate students. More support for the interview In 1957. 203). showed that ``the validity achieved from a 30-minute interview was from 0. His results showed that the ratings of liking by the judges correlated highly with their predictive ratings. but even more highly with the supervisors' evaluations. More research in support of the interview surfaced in 1954.perhaps intuitive-reactions to the same data'' (p. reports of projectives.23 to 0. While these correlations differed from Holt's initial clinical prediction. Holt (1958) performed two predictive studies as an effort to improve the methods by which medical men were selected for specialty training by the Menninger School of Psychiatry. He used a variety of paper-and-pencil tests. 10). Sydiaha (1961) focused his research on the role that stereotypes. Bonneau found that the interview was a good predictor of a teacher's ability to establish rapport with students. has never been replicated. he called them ``affective. for a review of that research which gainsays the research of Springbett and his colleagues). 204). unfortunately. but still appears today in literature about the interview (see Buckley and Eder. indeed. Huse (1962). in 1958 and 1959 respectively. Huse concluded that ``the relative validity of predictor ratings based on complete data. they attempted to remake the interview by examining the 118 . typically associated with a particular geographic area or institution'' (Eder et al. are used in interviews to make hiring decisions. and especially peers' evaluations. including tests. Perhaps the interview did. 1988. have some redeeming qualities. revealed little about how the interview was generally applied as a selection tool. In the late 1950s. and the interview was no higher than that for psychometric tests'' (p. rejected the interview as the best predictor of performance. of the Raytheon Corporation. These camps were often very technical and focused on a particular aspect of the interview. or standards against which all applicants are matched for suitability.JMH 6. Huse's research involved rating 107 first-level supervisors from 31 companies.3 industrial setting. A study done by Anderson (1954) supported the validity of the interview. His research. the interview was being used by more firms than ever before and it was receiving increased academic support. a survey of 236 firms showed that 99 percent of the responding firms interviewed applicants before hiring. and interviews conducted by trained psychologists to test the validity of the interview. His study.27 higher than the validity obtained from non-interview data.. In 1964. Both Holt and Loevinger. p. found that likeability could be effectively measured through an interview. such as essay and short answer tests'' (p. which involved the selection of doctoral candidates at NYU. 1989.

They also found that ``while interviewers may share the same ideal applicant stereotype. More research about the interviewer came about after Webster's studies. concluded Carlson. In their study. They found that stereotypes used by the interviewer to judge the applicant diminished as the evaluation of the applicant continued. they concluded that. an interviewer who expects to find a high caliber applicant gives applicants higher ratings. namely. force an increase in the time required to reach a decision about an applicant. p. a test and must meet the same fairness requirements as other types of tests. 157). impaired the judgment of the inexperienced interviewers. ``the interviewer's task should be limited to evaluating a single trait'' (p. Interestingly. He found that inexperienced interviewers did not have less reliable interviews. Another interesting finding about the interviewer came from London and Hakel (1974). 119 Webster's strategy redirected research for the next two decades and was responsible for the methodological shift in emphasis from qualitative to quantitative analysis.. 145 junior and senior university students were asked to estimate a number of factors about . 1989. and recognize that bias affecting the decision for or against an applicant may operate from the beginning of the interview or may develop during the interview depending upon whether one feels at ease with the candidate (p. coupled with the strong enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII. Examining the legal and social aspects of the interview In the USA. Webster advised interviewers or those A brief history of training interviewers to adhere to the following guidelines. For example. The stress of the quota. according to London and Hakel. their differing experiences may have produced differing expectations about the typical applicant'' (p. by definition. Krefting and Brief (1977) found that handicapped individuals were given favorable evaluations. the passing of the Equal Employment Act of 1972 and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 22). but they were more likely to accept bad applicants when they were faced with quotas. Carlson (1967) did a study contrasting the abilities of inexperienced and experienced interviewers to select successful candidates. develop an accurate picture of the kind of person desired in a particular job and train the interviewer to accept this stereotype. ``not necessarily to the selection lead to more valid selection'' but to begin the improvement process: interview The guidelines were as follows: control the order of input of information to the interviewer. Both the ideal candidate stereotype and the typical candidate stereotype have an impact on the interviewer's perception of the candidate. an oral interview of any kind is. 26). ``Interview researchers had a new outcome variable to address beyond reliability and validity. 113).interviewers' decision-making process. whether the employment interview gives unwarranted advantages to members of one group over another'' (Eder et al. turned the prevailing research focus to the legal and social correlates of the interview. due to limitations on time and information. Ulrich and Trumbo (1965) argued that interviewers were faced with an impossible task when they were asked to evaluate candidates. After reviewing current literature.

A total of 73 students considered disabled applicants and 72 students considered non-disabled applicants. 360). The results of this study showed that subjects perceived male applicants as ``more suitable'' (p. The students were provided information about the applicants' job experience and educational background and a picture of the applicant. The disabled applicants were. Attractiveness actually worked against females' attempts to get managerial positions. There was no evidence. the researchers sought to examine the basis on which interviewers may discriminate among job candidates' resumes in the screening   evaluation phase of the selection process. ``No support was found for the prediction that subjects would generally evaluate male applicants more favorably than female ones'' (p. but was an advantage for women only when seeking a non-managerial position'' (p. 677). potential for quantity output. Gender discrimination was also a very popular topic for researchers. and references. however. Heilman and Saruwatari found that ``attractiveness consistently proved to be an advantage for men. evidence of unfair discrimination was not present.3 120 potential applicants for a clerical position. This study involved 23 male and 22 female college students who were asked to evaluate candidates for two different positions. and overall ratings'' (p. When the results of the evaluations were examined. of discrimination based solely in gender. 367). Disability was manipulated through the application form. Later. While this project did not involve an interview process. 42) than female applicants. age. perceived as less healthy and as exhibiting less potential for promotion. potential for quality output. They were also evaluated as having a higher work motivation and as more likely to become a long-term employee.   16). and health report. one managerial and one clerical. but it was clear that women were at risk in employment interview situations'' (p. 30 undergraduate males and 30 male professionals screened resumes of fictional applicants for a fictional position (p. or handicap. After reviewing the efforts of his fellow researchers. Rosen and Mericle (1979) found that evaluators who rated the resumes of male and female applicants offered   male applicants higher starting salaries than the females with comparable resume evaluations.   Women were also shown to be discriminated against in a study of attractive and unattractive applicants conducted by Heilman and Saruwatari (1979). Arvey (1979) summed up the analysis of social impacts of the interview with this statement: ``available evidence left it unclear whether interviewers discriminated on the basis of race. potential for getting along with others. (1975). potential for absenteeism. health. In a study conducted by Dipboye et al. . The students were supplied with information about the applicants' past work experience. The results of the study indicated that ``disability did not have a significant effect on any of the following evaluation criteria: ability. references. potential for tardiness. While this study demonstrated that certain biases against disabled applicants existed. however. 736).JMH 6.

when board and individual interviews were analyzed. They found that. Baron (1986) took a different approach to exploring the reliability of the interview and studied the applicant rather than the interviewer. decisiveness. (1983). research shifted again to the interviewer's capabilities and deficiencies. Latham and Saari also supported the idea that the unstructured interview was ineffective. Personal qualities such as ``oral communication. Wiesner and Cronshaw conducted a study in 1988 that seemed to contest this theory. Eder and Buckley also concluded that the effects of situational factors on interview outcomes should be considered. Dreher et al. ``The more complex the job the greater the difficulty in adequately assessing the candidate's qualifications and. and have adjusted their behaviors accordingly. Eder and Buckley (1988) suggested that interviewers must use different skills when interviewing candidates for more intricate positions. . hence. also found that structured interviews correlated more highly with job requirements than unstructured interviews. motivation or affinity for a particular job''. They also pointed out that these characteristics may have little or nothing to do with the candidates' productivity. they found that ``situational interviewing yielded consistently superior predictive validities''. In 1986. the interviews they conducted were more valid than unstructured interviews. (1987) applied this theory to job behaviors and found that 121 interviews that did not measure relevant job behaviors were less valid than interviews that did. Dreher et al. Analyzing the interviewer and the interviewee In the late 1980s. (1988) and Wiesner and Cronshaw (1988). He reasoned that applicants have become very aware of the significant influence of the interview on hiring decisions. (1980) concluded that interviews based on ``overt behavior'' were more valid than those that focused on less observable applicant characteristics. In their 1984 study. no differences were found between the two approaches. including McDaniel et al. They claimed that when interviewers were adequately trained in patterned interview techniques.Revisiting structure and measurements A brief history of The 1980s brought a revival of researcher interest in the best way to structure the selection an interview and in determining what exactly the interview could measure. The studies that dealt with the structure of the interview all advocated a more structured process. 90). In another study. the more reliance is placed on the interviewer's cognitive skills to form a valid judgment'' (p. Schneider and Schmitt concluded that interviews were best at assessing ``applicant interests. (1988) demonstrated what seemed to be common sense: not all individuals are suited to be evaluators ± individuals are likely to differ in their ability to provide accurate predictions of employee behavior. (1988) found that the use of multiple interviewers was better than relying on individual judgments. and manner of self-preservation'' are what is detected in the interview according to Zedeck et al. In separate studies in 1982 and 1985. Janz and Orpen supported the use of ``patterned behavior interviews''. Other researchers. Arvey et al. interview Latham et al.

The shift toward meta-analysis The 1980s and early 1990s saw the application of a different type of research method called meta-analysis. as a result. This method ``allows for quantitative cumulation of results across studies'' (McDaniel. but the female evaluators did not. such as the interview. 202). conducted by McDaniel et al. Some of the interviewees were also told to wear perfume during their interviews. either exhibiting positive nonverbal cues. Another meta-analytic study about the structure of the interview was reported by Lowry (1994). 1985. The results of the study showed that the male evaluators behaved as Baron predicted. The analysis was based on 245 coefficients derived from 86. or not exhibiting such behaviors. The study yielded the following results regarding the structure of the interview: (1) structure is a major moderator of interview validity. Their meta-analysis included 114 interview validity coefficients and found that Hunter and Hunter's validity was too low for the interview. ``Meta-analytic studies of both the assessment center and interview methods reveal that structured interviews and assessment centers have similar validities'' (p. They were asked to interview applicants and rate their overall impressions of the applicants. 189).JMH 6.. This meta-analysis was questioned ten years later by Huffcutt and Arthur (1994). In 1984. situational. A total of 73 undergraduate students participated in Baron's study. The interviewees had been instructed to act in a specific way during the interview. p. 16).311 . but ``the interview was found to be valid in only 14 percent of studies'' (p. regardless of whether or not they were wearing perfume. and (3) there is a point beyond which additional structure adds little or no incremental validity (p. The research that Hunter and Hunter analyzed showed that ability tests were valid across all jobs in predicting proficiency. examined structured. He called this phenomenon ``too much of a good thing'' (p. Lowry suggested that the implementation of the structured interview instead of the assessment center could save money while preserving validity. Their study summarized results from thousands of validity studies. would receive lower ratings. and psychologically-based interviews. The female evaluators gave applicants high ratings if they exhibited positive nonverbal cues. 78). He compared the structured interview to the assessment center method of selection. Hunter and Hunter claimed that mental ability tests were superior to other predictors. Baron predicted that the applicants who exhibited positive nonverbal cues and wore perfume would appear to be trying too hard to impress the interviewer and. such as smiling and making eye contact.3 122 ``They have sought to enhance their ability to convey a positive impression to interviewers'' (p. 7). Huffcutt and Arthur were also interested in examining the effect of structure on interview validity. Another 1994 study. (2) validity increases as structure increases. 24).

which. Conway et al. Because very different qualities can be measured in each situation. Conclusions and the future of the interview The interview has long been a preferred topic of study for management and psychology researchers. The concept of the meta-analytic study is based on drawing conclusions from existing data. Meta-analysis has not facilitated the . face-to-face contact that humans seek and desire. have attempted to encourage the use of the structured interview. however. recent research efforts have focused more on reexamining old evidence than formulating new research and theoretical approaches (see Buckley and Russell (1997) for a call to researchers to return to theoretical roots in interview research). While extensive work has been done. in turn. The researchers found that ``situational interviews had higher A brief history of validity than did job-related interviews. had higher validities the selection than did psychologically-based interviews'' (p. The study also showed interview what Huffcutt and Arthur (1994) had earlier demonstrated. Others have taken an opposite stance. perhaps. 565). during which an applicant's work experience and personal history could be appraised. citing its higher validity and interrater agreement. 599). negative findings about the predictive power. They added a new dimension to the analyzation of the structured interview. with little or no structure or interviewer involvement. Many scholars. few strides have been taken toward creating a new and better selection tool to replace the interview. After almost 100 years of research on the interview. They also found that highly 123 structured interviews were more valid (0. or validity of the interview have little meaning to the employers and interviewers that depend on the interview as their primary selection tool. during which emergent leadership and attitude toward others could be assessed. The researchers of the 1990s seem to be revisiting the theories that were developed as early as 1929 ± structure is still an asset in an interview. in a combination of the two methods.individuals. promoting the group interview. In fact.67) than unstructured interviews (0. reliability. (1995) published a similar meta-analysis in 1995. The answer lies.34). Until another method is developed that allows employers the same benefits and freedoms as the interview. the interview will continue to be used as a primary hiring tool. and a structured individual segment. that structured interviews had higher validities than unstructured interviews. Only through the use of both types of interviews can an applicant be fully and reliably evaluated. including a number of recent meta-analytic researchers. Its popularity among employers and the general public makes the interview a unique research topic. research on the interview is far from exhausted. They claimed that ``the increasing standardization [of the interview] improved interrater reliability and might also improve construct validity'' (p. an ideal interview would include a group segment. As researchers in the early twentieth century discovered. All of the meta-analytic evidence points to the validity of the structured interview over the unstructured interview. The interview provides the personal.

3 124 development of more effective theoretical approaches. (1979). Charters. p. pp. 3. W. employers will be seeking new and innovative ways to interview applicants. but the quality and the effectiveness of the interview will diminish if innovative ideas are not developed and passed on to employers. R. R. Vol.D.L.V. The interview as a selection tool will not disappear. (1997). (Eds). (1950). J. 86. 14. Miller. Arvey. Fromkin. Dipboye. and Burch. 59). 59-62. As the demands of the fast-paced global economy force organizations to hire highly-skilled employees quickly and economically. attractiveness. ``Relative importance of applicant sex. and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology. W.L.J. 80.W. and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes''. and Jako. H. and Harris. American Management Association.M.D. ``The scientific construction of an interviewing chart''. 16-28. ``Selection interview decision: the effect of interview experience.H. and Moore. 20. Researchers must rise to meet this challenge ± through creativity and theory development. 59-67. Buckley.R. 69. extends. P.JMH 6.A.D. Sage. 39-43.J. and Russell. ``Analysis of counselor style discussion units''. (1954). 1. 60.. ``Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: legal and psychological aspects''.R. pp.. Journal of Management. ``A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews''. Research. M. (1967). 13.A. New York. Buckley. R. Vol. Goodman. (1988b). (1988a). 1-12. (1936).M. Harper & Brothers. Brody. R. Psychological Bulletin.E. 40. Personnel Administrator. (1947). Vol. pp. Personnel. Bingham. Arvey. Vol. ``A method for analyzing employment interviews''.V. (1975). (1931). D. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. C. and Eder. and Wiback.F. 26. Vol. and Smeltzer. pp. K.E. NY. References Adams. ``The employment interview: expecting a quick decision?''. pp. Vol.M. Carlson. (1986). W. Vol. Personnel Psychology. pp. 3-8. ``The discovery of executive talent''. ``Judging candidates by observing them in unsupervised group discussion''.R. 16.. 736-65. R. pp. Personnel Journal. relative quota situation. R. Daniels. Dipboye. R. Annual Convention Series. 21-6. K. (1927). C. Interview researchers have failed to accomplish this over the last 15 years. pp. C. Gould. ``Interview validity for selecting sales clerks''. 425-44.W. pp. pp. pp. Vol. 259-80.. J. (1995). . 1988. and Eder. (1987). ``A qualitative assessment of meta-analytic estimates of interview criterion-related validity''. H. Baron. M. ``B. pp.W.W. Vol. pp. 10-13. R. ``Self-presentation in job interviews: when there can be `too much of a good thing'''. and refines the common body of management knowledge'' (Buckley and Eder. R.R. 170-3. Personnal Psychology. and Otis. The Employment Interview: Theory. Conway.W. Springbett and the notion of the `snap decision' in the interview''. London. Vol. Journal of   Applied Psychology. and applicant sample on interview decisions''. in Eder. W. Personnel Psychology. ``A scholarly discipline builds upon. 565-79. R.L. Vol. Buckley. M. not through rehashing old numbers. How to Interview. reflects. B. Vol. Journal of Consulting Psychology.

``Prediction of industrial success from a standardized interview''. (1994). 442-31. Academy of Management Journal. London. J. C. Greenwich. Journal of Applied Psychology.A. (1962). Eder.W. 96 No. K. (Eds). L. Journal of Applied Psychology.R. CT. Eder. pp. Personnel. and Ferris. 6. Hollingworth. Vol. pp.. US Office of Personnel Management. pp. ``Assessments of higher-level personnel: IV. pp.F. Personnel Psychology. Vol. (1988). (1989).W. D. A.E. ``Clinical and statistical prediction: a reformulation and some new data''. Psychological Bulletin. (1984). pp. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. L. 599-616. E.A. 675-80. 17-31. Vol. DC. 283-313.. 23. Vol. Huffcutt. (1922). 65. in Ferris. Judging Human Character. Research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 174-86. M.T. Vol. NY. (1979). H.D.M.W. G.L. and Wantman. Hunter. Examining Policy Analysis Division. (1982). M. 50308). 79. Personnel Psychology. 41. Journal of Applied Psychology. ``Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured interviews''. S. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. M. Schmidt. Hovland. M. Vol.E. M.D.A. Latham. 19. R. Vol. 537-46. Vol.A. A. pp. 315-27. pp. P. Ash. Pursell. pp. ``Effects of applicant stereotypes.. 157-62.W. Whetzel. 195-205. R. pp. 56. McDaniel. (1974). New York. G.L. and Hunter. C. pp. Vol. ``An investigation of the interview as a technique for selecting aircraft pilots''.A. (OSP-85-1). ``The structured interview: an alternative to the assessment center?''. M. pp. pp. and information on interview impressions''. McDaniel. Appleton. 201-16.P. 33. (1947). Schmidt. (Eds). US Department of Commerce. R. J. ``A meta-analaysis of the validity of methods for rating training and experience in personnel selection''. (1994). Public Personnel Management. G. R.E. Heilman.R. J. ``The employment interview: an interactionist perspective''. W. and Hunter. The Employment Interview: Theory.F. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.D. and Practice.L. and Ferris. P. Kacmar. (1985). ``The impact of applicant disability on evaluative judgments in the selection process''.I. and Maurer. and Campion.A. Office of Staffing Policy. pp. Journal of Applied Psychology. Krefting.P. pp. and Wonderlic.N.Dreher. Huse.W. F.. 263-72. Lowry. R. Personnel Psychology. 184-90. 23 No.. M.J. pp. 75-107. R. 59. (1994). M. (1988). JAI Press. Vol. 4. M. Saari.F. ``Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance''. Washington DC.M.. 577-80. (1947). and Rowland. 1. Vol. ``The situational interview''. L. ``Validating the patterned interview''. (1977). London. Vol.A. (1988). Janz.R. ``The validity of employment interviews: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis''. 67. order. 41. ``Hunter and Hunter revisited: interview validity for entrylevel jobs''. in Eder.R. M. D. and Saruwatari. 79. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. R. The validity of assessment techniques based on systematically varied information''. (Report No. K.M.R. ``The role of the traditional research design in underestimating the validity of the employment interview''. 15. ``Employment interview research: history and synthesis''. (1980). pp. E. and Buckley. pp.E.R. 23. A Meta-Analysis of the Validity of Training and Experience Ratings in Personnel Selection.I. Washington. and Brief. G. and Arthur. ``When beauty is beastly: the effects of applicant sex and information type on preliminary employment decisions''. Vol. E. (1939). A brief history of the selection interview 125 . 72-98. and Hakel. McDaniel. (1958). 1-12. Dunlap. Vol. J. McMurray. and Hancock.. Holt. Sage. Vol.

Vol. (1983). Canadian Journal of Psychology. S. 26.H. (Ed. Foresman. American Psychologist. ``Patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured interviews: a comparative validity study''.A. Zedeck. 36. pp. pp.D. . Staffing Organizations. Wagner. D. pp. (1931). W. Vol. 12. Rundquist. 45. 2.H. O'Rourke. ``Interviewer validity and reliability: an individual analysis approach''.D. Orpen. Journal of Applied Psychology. 393-401. Newman. 41. 17-46. pp. 347-67. 144-5. pp. Vol.M. (1947). L.G. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1-16.F.M. C. ``The selection interview since 1949''. Personnel Psychology. and Trumbo. M. Bobbitt.F. pp. Vol.3 126 Mandell. D. M. (1961). A. ``The moderating impact of interview format and degree of structure on interview validity''.A. Scott. S. pp. 65. 64. (1964). NY.W. Vol. G. (1988). Journal of Association of American Medical Colleges. Personnel Journal. (1947). Suslow. ``The reliability of the interviewing method in an officer candidate evaluation program''. University of Maryland. D. G. Vol. 85-95. F. (1958). E. (1929). N. ``The employment interview: a critical summary''. R. E. Vol. J. in Kelly. Vol. 435-9. 427-40. (1985). pp. Webster. Scott. and Mericle. Sydiaha. Vol. B. MD. (1979). pp. S.D. (1947). pp. 7. S. Personnel Journal. 6. (1916).. 774-6. Moss. (1986). The Selection Process: Choosing the Right Man for the Job. ``Factors affecting the final decision in the employment interview''. 1. 275-90. College Park. New York. pp. and Schmitt. R.C. B. 355-70. 103-9. The Journal of Occupational Psychology. W. Springbett.C. Journal of Psychology. 100-16. ``Bales' interaction process analysis of personnel selection interviews''. American Management Association.A. ``Influence of strong versus weak fair employment policies and applicants' sex on selection decisions and salary recommendations in management simulation''. B.E. ``Measuring judgment and resourcefulness''. 22. 70. Matarazzo. and Matarazzo. Rosen. Vol. pp. pp. ``Scholastic aptitude tests for medical students''. (1949).). (1956). pp. J. ``Development of an interview for selection purposes''. IL.. 63. and Cameron. Ulrich. Vol. Annals of the American Political and Social Sciences. L. 15-22. Vol. Tziner. Personnel Psychology. and Middlestadt. New Methods in Applied Psychology. 13-22. pp. 182-93. Glenview.J.M. 61. pp. Wiesner. Vol. Personnel Administration. (1965).JMH 6. Vol.F. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1964). ``Selection of employees by means of quantitative determinations''. Vol. Schneider. ``Decision making in the employment interview''. Psychological Bulletin.. ``The interaction chronograph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction pattern during interviews''. ``Validity of the placement interview''. R. Putney. and Cronshaw.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful