Does stress impact technical interview performance?

Behroozi, Mahnaz; Shirolkar, Shivani; Barik, Titus; Parnin, Chris

doi:10.1145/3368089.3409712

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They specifically report that predictions based on test scores and interviewing were 30 percent worse than predictions based on test scores alone. More recently, Behroozi, Shirolkar, Barik, and Parnin (2020) have shown that even when tests are conducted in interview formats, such as "whiteboard technical interviews" common in software engineering, the mechanics and pressure of the interview context reduce the efficacy of the technical tests. This effect is heightened especially among minorities and other underrepresented groups (Munk, 2021).…”

Section: Unstructured Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hiring, Algorithms, and Choice: Why Interviews Still Matter

Bhargava

Assadi²

2023

Bus. Ethics Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do organizations conduct job interviews? The traditional view of interviewing holds that interviews are conducted, despite their steep costs, to predict a candidate’s future performance and fit. This view faces a twofold threat: the behavioral and algorithmic threats. Specifically, an overwhelming body of behavioral research suggests that we are bad at predicting performance and fit; furthermore, algorithms are already better than us at making these predictions in various domains. If the traditional view captures the whole story, then interviews seem to be a costly, archaic human resources procedure sustained by managerial overconfidence. However, building on T. M. Scanlon’s work, we offer the value of choice theory of interviewing and argue that interviews can be vindicated once we recognize that they generate commonly overlooked kinds of noninstrumental value. On our view, interviews should thus not be entirely replaced by algorithms, however sophisticated algorithms ultimately become at predicting performance and fit.

show abstract

Section: Unstructured Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hiring, Algorithms, and Choice: Why Interviews Still Matter

Bhargava

Assadi²

2023

Bus. Ethics Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is not only important for future research, but also has practical implications. For example, a lot of hiring processes use technical interviews in front of a whiteboard, which artificially introduce stress and high cognitive load [10]. An alternative solution to evaluate potential talent with measures that allow for accurate and quick responses, without inducing unnecessary stress and cognitive load, would be private interviews, comprehension tasks, or other alternative interview methods, for example, as proposed by Behroozi et al [9].…”

Section: Rqmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlates of programmer efficacy and their link to experience: a combined EEG and eye-tracking study

Peitek

Bergum

Rekrut

et al. 2022

Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Enginee

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite similar education and background, programmers can exhibit vast differences in efficacy. While research has identified some potential factors, such as programming experience and domain knowledge, the effect of these factors on programmers' efficacy is not well understood. Aims: We aim at unraveling the relationship between efficacy (speed and correctness) and measures of programming experience. We further investigate the correlates of programmer efficacy in terms of reading behavior and cognitive load. Method: For this purpose, we conducted a controlled experiment with 37 participants using electroencephalography (EEG) and eye tracking. We asked participants to comprehend up to 32 Java sourcecode snippets and observed their eye gaze and neural correlates of cognitive load. We analyzed the correlation of participants' efficacy with popular programming experience measures. Results: We found that programmers with high efficacy read source code more targeted and with lower cognitive load. Commonly used experience levels do not predict programmer efficacy well, but selfestimation and indicators of learning eagerness are fairly accurate. Implications: The identified correlates of programmer efficacy can be used for future research and practice (e.g., hiring). Future research should also consider efficacy as a group sampling method, rather than using simple experience measures. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI ; HCI design and evaluation methods.

show abstract

“…These studies examine how the skills of potential candidates are tested and which biases are involved. In particular, such studies address wrong assumptions about what interviewers expect [10], psychological aspects of solving coding challenges [18], [19], or the impact of individual characteristics in this context [20]. The results cast reasonable doubts on the ability of current interview practices to fairly find suitable candidates for building diverse software teams [21].…”

Section: B Related Phenomena and Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%