The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta‐analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview*
Abstract
A meta‐analysis of the employment interview was carried out to investigate the impact of interview format (individual vs. board interviews) and interview structure (unstructured vs. structured) on the validity of interviews. A thorough review of the unpublished and published literature worldwide yielded 150 usable validity coefficients for the meta‐analysis. Contrary to the predominantly pessimistic views of previous researchers, the interview was found to be a generally good selection instrument. These findings suggest that the ‘received doctrine’ of interview invalidity is false. However, interview structure moderated predictive validity coefficients to a considerable extent. In fact, structured interviews produced mean validity coefficients twice as high as unstructured interviews. Although considerable variance in structured interviews remained unaccounted for after adjustment for statistical artifacts, all of the variation in observed validity coefficients for unstructured interviews was accounted for. It was concluded that a number of social psychological processes examined in previous interview research would have little effect in moderating the validity coefficients of the unstructured interview. The results also suggest that higher validity coefficients are associated with more reliable interviews and the use of formal job‐analytic information in developing interview questions. Implications for research and practice in personnel psychology are explored.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Hammer, T. H., Anderson, J., Gurdon, M., Jick, T., Petit, A., Stern, R., Schwartz, H., Vardi, Y., & Dunnette, M. D. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391755 · Cited by 11,945
Review of Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
SITGREAVES, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 11,425
Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72 · Cited by 2,107
Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529 · Cited by 769
THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW: A SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF RECENT RESEARCH1
ARVEY, R. D., & CAMPION, J. E. (1982) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1982.tb02197.x · Cited by 539
Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., & Muldrow, T. W. (1979) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.64.6.609 · Cited by 423
SCHMITT, N. (1976) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1976.tb00404.x · Cited by 277
Sackett, P. R., Harris, M. M., & Orr, J. M. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.302 · Cited by 152
Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria.
Bullock, R. J., & Svyantek, D. J. (1985) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.108 · Cited by 108
Cited by
THE RELATIONSHIP OF STAFFING PRACTICES TO ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE
TERPSTRA, D. E., & ROZELL, E. J. (1993) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00866.x · Cited by 587
MORGESON, F. P., REIDER, M. H., & CAMPION, M. A. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.655.x · Cited by 538
Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature.
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.730 · Cited by 470
The use of impression management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type?
Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1200 · Cited by 293
Rosenfeld, J. M., Reiter, H. I., Trinh, K., & Eva, K. W. (2008) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9029-z · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Occupational Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1988-12
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 275-290
- ISSN
- 0305-8107 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2149705496
- Cited by
- 386
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 8.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta‐analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00467.x
- The paper
- Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). A meta‐analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview*. Journal of Occupational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00467.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
