The authors discussed how interviews accounted for variance above and beyond that of cognitive ability and conscientiousness. However, aren’t they really just comparing a method with constructs? That is, might the interviews be measuring something other than cognitive ability and conscientiousness, and thus they should account for additional variance? If that is the case, then I don’t feel like this article adds much to the literature.
I found it interesting that the more structured the interview, the more variance in work performance was accounted for. I would think that would seem counter intuitive to managers because they may assume that if they can tailor the interview to each applicant they can get a better "feel" for the applicant...Shay might think this too...:)
Was anyone else surprised by the finding that the validity of structured interviews was higher than that of cognitive ability? According to the research cited in this article, cognitive ability and conscientiousness each explain unique variance in performance, and structured interviews have incremental validity above and beyond CA and contentiousness. But, this was only true when structured interviews were used. Does this indicate that unless structured interviews are used, organizations are wasting their resources on interviews and are better off using a test of CA and a personality test focused on conscientiousness?
@ Shane, often times one performance criteria for department managers is their ability to put together a good team. Because they are accountable for the results, I think they want to "own" the process. I also think many of them would respond to clear information about how they might improve their hiring effectiveness, but how this is conveyed is important. Managers may not be selection experts, but they are generally experts on what they want and need in a new hire. Any influence HR/I-O professionals may have will, I think, be dependent on their ability to be helpful without being condescending.
Are structured interviews able to replace CA and conscientiousness tests then or what entails this? It seems that using both a cognitive ability test and a structured interview would be pointless and measuring similar things and wasting money.
Do you think in some of the cases, the ones who are rating in the interview are also providing performance ratings? If so, maybe what is being predicted is that those who receive favorable ratings during the interview (because the interviewer likes the person) are likely to get favorable performance ratings on the job...
The authors suggest that a possible reason that structured interviews showed incremental validity over cog ability and conscientiousness was that they may tap into job knowledge. That makes sense to me - if they are a useful measure of experience at the task level (rather than or or job level).
The authors discussed how interviews accounted for variance above and beyond that of cognitive ability and conscientiousness. However, aren’t they really just comparing a method with constructs? That is, might the interviews be measuring something other than cognitive ability and conscientiousness, and thus they should account for additional variance? If that is the case, then I don’t feel like this article adds much to the literature.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that the more structured the interview, the more variance in work performance was accounted for. I would think that would seem counter intuitive to managers because they may assume that if they can tailor the interview to each applicant they can get a better "feel" for the applicant...Shay might think this too...:)
ReplyDeleteWas anyone else surprised by the finding that the validity of structured interviews was higher than that of cognitive ability? According to the research cited in this article, cognitive ability and conscientiousness each explain unique variance in performance, and structured interviews have incremental validity above and beyond CA and contentiousness. But, this was only true when structured interviews were used. Does this indicate that unless structured interviews are used, organizations are wasting their resources on interviews and are better off using a test of CA and a personality test focused on conscientiousness?
ReplyDelete@ Shane, often times one performance criteria for department managers is their ability to put together a good team. Because they are accountable for the results, I think they want to "own" the process. I also think many of them would respond to clear information about how they might improve their hiring effectiveness, but how this is conveyed is important. Managers may not be selection experts, but they are generally experts on what they want and need in a new hire. Any influence HR/I-O professionals may have will, I think, be dependent on their ability to be helpful without being condescending.
Are structured interviews able to replace CA and conscientiousness tests then or what entails this? It seems that using both a cognitive ability test and a structured interview would be pointless and measuring similar things and wasting money.
ReplyDeleteDo you think in some of the cases, the ones who are rating in the interview are also providing performance ratings? If so, maybe what is being predicted is that those who receive favorable ratings during the interview (because the interviewer likes the person) are likely to get favorable performance ratings on the job...
ReplyDeleteThe authors suggest that a possible reason that structured interviews showed incremental validity over cog ability and conscientiousness was that they may tap into job knowledge. That makes sense to me - if they are a useful measure of experience at the task level (rather than or or job level).
ReplyDeleteCan structured interviews be used to assess CA and conscientiousness?
ReplyDelete