Abstract:SummaryCoaching interviewees to perform in employment interviews can influence the interview scores. We describe different types of coaching, emphasizing interventions designed to focus interviewees on core, interview-relevant content and to help them convey the content accurately (as opposed to interventions designed to teach interviewees to manipulate their scores using peripheral means). We then study the effects of the former type of intervention in relation to the criterion-related validity of a structure… Show more
“…The first level involves making sure that applicants do not get any information about the assessed dimensions (König, Melchers, Kleinmann, Richter, & Klehe, 2007). The second level is making applicants aware of the dimensions on which they would be rated in interviews (Allen, Facteau, & Facteau, 2004;Klehe, König, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers, 2008;Maurer, Solamon, & Lippstreu, 2008;McFarland, Ryan, Sacco, & Kriska, 2004). The third level is giving applicants a list of questions before the interview (Day & Carroll, 2003;Personnel Decisions International, 1997).…”
Section: Discussion and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four studies (Allen et al., ; Day & Carroll, ; Klehe et al., ; Maurer et al., ) compared transparent and nontransparent interviews and found that transparency led to higher interview ratings. Transparency was also shown to increase (a) construct validity (Klehe et al., ); (b) reliability and predictive validity (Maurer et al., ); (c) applicants’ perception of fairness; and (d) it did not decrease criterion‐related validity of interviews (Day & Carroll, ). Yet, König et al.…”
In the 20 years since frameworks of employment interview structure have been developed, a considerable body of empirical research has accumulated. We summarize and critically examine this literature by focusing on the 8 main topics that have been the focus of attention: (a) the definition of structure; (b) reducing bias through structure; (c) impression management in structured interviews; (d) measuring personality via structured interviews; (e) comparing situational versus past‐behavior questions; (f) developing rating scales; (g) probing, follow‐up, prompting, and elaboration on questions; and (h) reactions to structure. For each topic, we review and critique research and identify promising directions for future research. When possible, we augment the traditional narrative review with meta‐analytic review and content analysis. We concluded that much is known about structured interviews, but there are still many unanswered questions. We provide 12 propositions and 19 research questions to stimulate further research on this important topic.
“…The first level involves making sure that applicants do not get any information about the assessed dimensions (König, Melchers, Kleinmann, Richter, & Klehe, 2007). The second level is making applicants aware of the dimensions on which they would be rated in interviews (Allen, Facteau, & Facteau, 2004;Klehe, König, Richter, Kleinmann, & Melchers, 2008;Maurer, Solamon, & Lippstreu, 2008;McFarland, Ryan, Sacco, & Kriska, 2004). The third level is giving applicants a list of questions before the interview (Day & Carroll, 2003;Personnel Decisions International, 1997).…”
Section: Discussion and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four studies (Allen et al., ; Day & Carroll, ; Klehe et al., ; Maurer et al., ) compared transparent and nontransparent interviews and found that transparency led to higher interview ratings. Transparency was also shown to increase (a) construct validity (Klehe et al., ); (b) reliability and predictive validity (Maurer et al., ); (c) applicants’ perception of fairness; and (d) it did not decrease criterion‐related validity of interviews (Day & Carroll, ). Yet, König et al.…”
In the 20 years since frameworks of employment interview structure have been developed, a considerable body of empirical research has accumulated. We summarize and critically examine this literature by focusing on the 8 main topics that have been the focus of attention: (a) the definition of structure; (b) reducing bias through structure; (c) impression management in structured interviews; (d) measuring personality via structured interviews; (e) comparing situational versus past‐behavior questions; (f) developing rating scales; (g) probing, follow‐up, prompting, and elaboration on questions; and (h) reactions to structure. For each topic, we review and critique research and identify promising directions for future research. When possible, we augment the traditional narrative review with meta‐analytic review and content analysis. We concluded that much is known about structured interviews, but there are still many unanswered questions. We provide 12 propositions and 19 research questions to stimulate further research on this important topic.
“…Thus, it remains unclear as to whether interview training can reduce participants’ interview anxiety. For our study we assume that VI training should reduce participants’ interview anxiety in contrast to a control training group because it allows participants to individually experience and actively perform, which is more realistic of a job interview (Maurer, Solamon, & Lippstreu, ). Thus, we propose the following additional meditation mechanism: Hypothesis 2c : The effect of VI training on participants’ interview performance will be mediated by lower interview anxiety. Hypothesis 2d : The effect of VI training on participants’ hireability ratings will be mediated by lower interview anxiety.…”
Section: Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it remains unclear as to whether interview training can reduce participants' interview anxiety. For our study we assume that VI training should reduce participants' interview anxiety in contrast to a control training group because it allows participants to individually experience and actively perform, which is more realistic of a job interview (Maurer, Solamon, & Lippstreu, 2008). Thus, we propose the following additional meditation mechanism:…”
Expanding research on employment interview training, this study introduces virtual employment interview (VI) training with focus on nonverbal behavior. In VI training, participants took part in a simulated interview with a virtual character. Simultaneously, the computer analyzed participants’ nonverbal behavior and provided real‐time feedback for it. The control group received parallel interview training. Following training, participants took part in mock interviews, where interviewers rated participants’ nonverbal behavior, and interview performance. Analyses revealed (a) that participants of VI training showed better interview performance, (b) that this effect was mediated by nonverbal behavior, and (c) that VI training has a positive influence on interview anxiety. These results have important practical implications for applicants, career counseling centers, and organizations.
“…A better understanding of the properties of applicants' responses to behavioral questions could lead to several improvements in interview practice. For example, it may be possible to teach applicants to produce meaningful and representative stories as part of training programs (Maurer et al 2008;Ralston et al 2003). And interviewers may be better trained to help applicants produce such stories (e.g., by appropriate prompting).…”
Purpose Increased use of past behavior questions makes it important to understand applicants' responses. Past behavior questions are designed to elicit stories from applicants. Four research questions were addressed: How do applicants respond to past behavior questions, in particular, how frequent are stories? When applicants produce stories, what narrative elements do they contain? Is story production related to applicants' characteristics? Do responses affect interview outcomes? Design/Methodology/Approach Using a database of 62 real job interviews, the prevalence of five types of applicants' response to past behavior questions were analyzed: story, pseudo-story, exemplification, value/opinion, and self-description. We also coded the narrative content of stories, distinguishing between situations, tasks/actions, and results. We analyzed relations between applicant characteristics (gender, age, personality, self-reported communication and persuasion skills, general mental ability) and response type. We used hierarchical multiple regression to predict hiring recommendations from response type. Findings Stories were only produced 23 % of the time. Stories featured more narrative elements related to situations than tasks, actions, or results. General mental ability and conscientiousness affected response types, and men produced more stories than women. There were differences in the storytelling rate according to the type of competency. Stories and pseudo-stories increased hiring recommendations, and self-descriptions decreased them.Originality/Value Behavioral interviews may not be conducive to storytelling. Recruiters respond positively to narrative responses. More research is needed on storytelling in the selection interview, and recruiters and applicants might need training on how to encourage and tell accurate and representative stories.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
