Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2026
07:36
An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
Published on: May 3, 2016
A counterintuitive hypothesis about employment interview validity and some supporting evidence
Frank L Schmidt1, Ryan D Zimmerman
1Department of Management and Organizations, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA. frank-schmidt@uiowa.edu
The Journal of Applied Psychology
|May 27, 2004
Summary
The reliability of structured interviews does not solely explain their validity over unstructured interviews. Multiple unstructured interviews can match the predictive power of a single structured interview for job performance.
Area of Science:
- Industrial-Organizational Psychology
- Human Resources Management
- Organizational Behavior
Background:
- Structured interviews are often considered more reliable and valid than unstructured interviews for predicting job performance.
- A common hypothesis suggests that the enhanced validity of structured interviews stems primarily from their improved reliability.
- Understanding the psychometric properties of different interview formats is crucial for effective personnel selection.
Purpose of the Study:
- To test the hypothesis that the difference in criterion-related validity between unstructured and structured employment interviews is solely due to the greater reliability of structured interviews.
- To investigate the impact of measurement error on the validity of interview scores for predicting job and training performance.
- To compare the predictive validity of multiple unstructured interviews versus a single structured interview.
Main Methods:
- Utilized data from previous meta-analyses across four distinct datasets.
- Applied standard psychometric procedures to correct for measurement error in interview scores.
- Correlated corrected interview scores with measures of job performance and training performance.
Main Results:
- Mixed support was found for the hypothesis; one dataset supported it, while another showed higher true score correlations for structured interviews.
- Two other datasets indicated higher true score correlations for unstructured interviews.
- Averaging 3-4 independent unstructured interviews yielded validity comparable to a single structured interview for predicting job performance.
Conclusions:
- The enhanced validity of structured interviews over unstructured ones is not solely attributable to differences in reliability.
- The number of interviews conducted (multiple unstructured vs. single structured) significantly impacts predictive validity.
- Findings have practical implications for interview selection strategies and theoretical implications for understanding interview validity.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:53Cause and Effect
While variables are sometimes correlated because one does cause the other, it could also be that some other factor, a confounding variable, is actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest. For instance, as sales in ice cream increase, so does the overall rate of crime. Is it possible that indulging in your favorite flavor of ice cream could send you on a crime spree? Or, after committing crime do you think you might decide to treat yourself to a cone?
01:29Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. In the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways.
01:31Confirmation Biases
The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?
01:14Fundamental Attribution Error
According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...
02:09Stereotype Threat and Self-fulfilling Prophecies
When we hold a stereotype about a person, we have expectations that he or she will fulfill that stereotype. A self-fulfilling prophecy is an expectation held by a person that alters his or her behavior in a way that tends to make it true. When we hold stereotypes about a person, we tend to treat the person according to our expectations. This treatment can influence the person to act according to our stereotypic expectations, thus confirming our stereotypic beliefs. Research by Rosenthal and...
01:25Motivational Bias
Cognitive bias results from limitations in thinking and information processing, leading to systematic errors in judgment. Conversely, motivational bias stems from personal desires or emotions, causing distortions in perception to align with self-interest. Motivational bias influences how individuals perceive and attribute causes to events, often shaped by personal needs, goals, and self-esteem preservation. This bias can distort judgment, leading to inaccurate assessments of success, failure,...