The stress interview.

Freeman, G. L.; Manson, Grace E.; Katzoff, E. T.; Pathman, Julian H.

doi:10.1037/h0059025

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second highest level is to allow only limited or pre-planned prompts and follow-ups. As examples, suggested probes can be provided (Carlson et al 1971;Mayfield et al, 1980), only probes can be used with the same wording as the assessment dimension, interviewers can be allowed a specified number of follow-up questions (Freeman et al, 1942), or interviewers can be allowed to ask, "Is there anything else you would like to add?" (Robertson et al, 1990).…”

Section: Limit Prompting Follow-up Questioning and Elaboration On Qmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One type that has been widely studied and is relatively structured is situational questions (M. Campion et al, 1988Campion et al, ,1994Delery et al, 1994;Freeman et al, 1942;Hakel, 1971;Latham & Saari, 1984;Latham et al, 1980;Latham & Skarlicki, 1995;Robertson et al, 1990;Schmitt & Ostroff, 1986;Stohr-Gillmore et al, 1990;Walters et al, 1993;Weekley & Gier, 1987). They pose hypothetical situations that may occur on the job, and candidates are asked what they would do.…”

Section: Limit Prompting Follow-up Questioning and Elaboration On Qmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ratings are made on dimensions, ranging from 2 to 12 or more, based on answers to multiple questions or on the entire interview. This level is less structured than rating every answer because judgments are not as linked to individual answers, and there are usually fewer scales than questions so fewer ratings are made, Due to flexibility, this level is used in interviews that span the range of structure on other components, including highly structured (Robertson et al, 1990;Walters et al, 1993), moderately structured ( h e y et al, 1987; Barrett et al, 1967;Borman, 1982;Grove, 1981;Hakel, 1971;Jam, 1982;Landy, 1976;Mayfield et al, 1980;Orpen, 1985;Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995;Reynolds, 1979;Roth & J. Campion, 1992;Yonge, 1956;Zedeck et al, 1983), and fairly unstructured (Anderson, 1954;Bolanovich, 1944;Campbell, 1962;Dougherty et al, 1986;Drucker, 1957;DuBois & Watson, 1950;Fisher et al, 1967;Freeman et al, 1942;Glaser, Schwarz, & Flanagan, 1958;Hilton et al, 1955;Hovland & Wonderlic, 1939;Huse, 1962;Komives et al, 1984;Maas, 1965;Morse & Hawthorne, 1946;Rafferty & Deemer, 1950;Raines & Rohrer, 1955;Reeb, 1969;Shaw, 1952;'Ikankell, 1959;"Ibbiana & Ben-Shakhar, 1982;Waldron, 1974).…”

Section: Rate Each Answer or Use Multiple Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Explanation and alternatives. This component of structure emerged early (Adams & Smeltzer, 1936; Freeman et al, 1942;Smeltzer & Adams, 1936). Interview rating scales reflect measurement developments in other areas.…”

Section: Use Detailed Anchored Rating Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

Campion

Palmer

Campion

1997

Personnel Psychology

405

565

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtually every previous review has concluded that structuring the selection interview improves its psychometric properties. This paper reviews the research literature in order to describe and evaluate the many ways interviews can be structured. Fifteen components of structure are identified that may enhance either the content of the interview or the evaluation process in the interview. Each component is explained in terms of its various operationalizations in the literature. Then, each component is critiqued in terms of its impact on numerous forms of reliability, validity, and user reactions. Finally, recommendations for research and practice are presented. It is concluded that interviews can be easily enhanced by using some of the many possible components of structure, and the improvement of this popular selection procedure should be a high priority for future research and practice.In the 80-year history of published research on employment interviewing (dating back to Scott, 1915), few conclusions have been more widely supported than the idea that structuring the interview enhances reliability and validity.

show abstract

Section: Limit Prompting Follow-up Questioning and Elaboration On Qmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limit Prompting Follow-up Questioning and Elaboration On Qmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rate Each Answer or Use Multiple Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Use Detailed Anchored Rating Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

Campion

Palmer

Campion

1997

Personnel Psychology

405

565

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Freeman and others (39) described the development of a standard "stress interview" as a device to test the changes in behavior of applicants for police jobs under normal and disruptive interview relationships. Their report is an interesting methodological summary of considerable pertinence to students of interview technics.…”

Section: Personality Measurement In Occupational Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chapter VI: Applications of Personality and Character Measurement

Darley¹,

Anderson²

1944

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE PAST TRIENNIUM has witnessed considerable growth in the significance and sophistication of research studies involving the use of personality and character measurement. Of the actual research titles to be reviewed in the first five sections of this chapter, 14 percent are in the field of occupational studies; 19 percent show the effect of societal factors on personality measurements; 29 percent evaluate educational problems and outcomes in terms of measured personality factors; 15 percent apply research methods to clinical problems; and 23 percent deal with causative or conditional factors in personality structure. These classifications and the assignment of articles to them represent a gross index of quantity research within five important types of application.

show abstract

Horse-Sized Ducks or Duck-Sized Horses? Oddball Personality Questions Are Likable (but Useless) for Organizational Recruitment

Zhang

2021

J Bus Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stress interview.

Cited by 25 publications

References 6 publications

A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview

Chapter VI: Applications of Personality and Character Measurement

Horse-Sized Ducks or Duck-Sized Horses? Oddball Personality Questions Are Likable (but Useless) for Organizational Recruitment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About