This study provides the first comparison of 2 methods proposed to increase the structure of selection interviews: frame‐of‐reference (FOR) rater training for interviewers and providing interviewers with descriptively anchored rating scales. In contrast to descriptively anchored rating scales, evidence for the efficacy of FOR training for interviewers is still missing even though its effects have been established in other domains. To evaluate the effectiveness of the 2 methods, we used a 2 × 2 design in which both methods were manipulated independently. Participants observed and rated different interviewees’ performance in a set of videotaped interviews. We found that both methods led to substantial, and comparable, improvements in both rating accuracy and interrater reliability in comparison to a control condition in which neither method was used. Furthermore, even though both methods have the same aim (i.e., enhancing the evaluation process by providing a common evaluative standard for raters), combining both methods led to further improvements in rating accuracy beyond the effects of the individual methods. Practical implications for selection interviews are discussed.