Chapter 12: Rethinking the Validity Of Interviews for Employment Decision Making: Implications of Recent Developments in Meta-Analysis

Employment interviews are one of the most widely used selection tools across organizations, industries, and countries (Dipboye, 1992, 1997; Dipboye & Jackson, 1999; Ryan, McFarland, Baron, & Page, 1999; Salgado, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2001; Wilk & Cappelli, 2003, Table 1). Interviews also play an important role in government employment decisions, particularly at the Federal level (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 2003). Likewise, employment interviews have long been a focus of both laboratory (e.g., Highhouse & Bottrill, 1995; Motowidlo & Burnett, 1995; Paunonen, Jackson, & Oberman, 1987; Purkiss, Perrewe, Gillespie, Mayes, & Ferris, 2006) and field (e.g., Chapman & Zweig, 2005; Maurer & Solamon, 2006; van der Zee, Bakker, & Bakker, 2002) research. Although the use of employment interviews is widespread, a wealth of research indicates that not all interviews are equally valid predictors of future job performance. In particular, discrepancies in validity have been frequently observed in regard to interview structure. Both narrative (e.g., Arvey & Campion, 1982; Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997) and meta-analytic reviews (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994) have consistently demonstrated that structured interviews are superior in validity to unstructured interviews to varying extents, leading Campion et al. (1997) to conclude that “in the 80-year history of published research on employment interviewing, … few conclusions have been more widely supported than the idea that structuring the interview enhances reliability and validity” (p. 655). Chapman and Zweig (2005) stated, “what is evident from Campion et al.’s seminal article, and those on which it was based, is that one could easily replace the term structured interview with good interview or a valid interview” (p. 675, italics added).