Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
The employment interview is one of the most widely used methods of assessing job applicants. Due to its popularity, a great deal of research on improving the reliability and validity of the interview has been conducted. This body of research has demonstrated that structured interviews, which employ rules for eliciting, observing, and evaluating responses, increase interviewers' agreement on their overall evaluations by limiting the amount of discretion an interviewer is allowed.
The level of structure in an interview can vary according to the constraints placed on the questions asked and evaluation criteria. Interviews with a low degree of structure place no constraints on the questions asked and allow for global evaluation of applicant responses. Interviews with a very high level of structure involve asking all applicants the same exact set of pre-defined lead and probe (i.e., follow-up questions) and are scored according to benchmarks of proficiency. Interviews with higher degrees of structure show higher levels of validity, rater reliability, rater agreement, and less adverse impact.
Interviews also vary according to the specific competencies being measured. Employment interviews can focus on past, present, or future behavior, beliefs, opinions, or attitudes of the applicant. Information may also include behavior observed during the interview itself (e.g., oral communication), work experience, training, education, and career aspirations. Research shows interview questions based on specific job competencies identified through job analysis as being critical to job success demonstrate high levels of validity, rater reliability, and rater agreement.
The most common methods for developing specific, job-related questions are based on either the situational or behavioral description format. Situational interview questions ask applicants to describe what they would do or how they would behave in a situation similar to those encountered on the job. An example of a situational question is, "You have been assigned to work on a project with some of your coworkers. While on the job, you notice several of them goofing off. You know you are falling behind schedule to complete the work by the deadline. What would you do?" This format relies on applicants' ability to project what they might do in a future situation. Behavioral description interview questions ask applicants to describe a past behavior demonstrated in a situation relevant to the competency of interest. An example of this type is, "Describe a situation where you analyzed and interpreted information." This type of interview is based on the behavioral consistency principle that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.
Both methods rely on the development of job-related critical incidents (e.g., examples of notably good or notably bad job performance). Both types of interview formats have proven to be effective. Behavioral description interviews have shown higher levels of validity where the nature of the work is highly complex (e.g., professional and managerial level jobs). Structured interviews are usually scored by a panel in which each member rates applicant responses individually and then participates in a group discussion to resolve significant scoring discrepancies. Faking occurs less frequently during structured interviews than paper-and-pencil inventories measuring the same competencies.
(See Section VI for a summary of each article)
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655-702.
Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 565-579.
Huffcutt, A I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 184-190.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. L. (1998). Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 179-189.
Huffcutt, A. I., Weekley, J. A., Wiesner, W. H., DeGroot, T. G., & Jones, C. (2001). Comparison of situational and behavior description interview questions for higher-level positions. Personnel Psychology, 54(3), 619-644.
McFarland, L. A., Ryan, A. M., Sacco, J. M., Kriska, S. D. (2004). Examination of structured interview ratings across time: The effects of applicant race, rater race, and panel composition. Journal of Management, 30(4), 435-452.
Taylor, P., & Small, B. (2002). Asking applicants what they would do versus what they did do: A meta-analytic comparison of situational and past behavior employment interview questions. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 277-294.
The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) website contains information on interviews.
Back to Top