SELECTION

The recruiting process typically yields a number of applicants whose qualifications must be measured against the requirements of the job. Selection is the process of choosing individuals who have the relevant qualifications to fill existing or projected job openings. Selecting from among applicants inside or outside the organization is a major HR func­tion with far-reaching effects.

Selection
The process of choosing individuals who
have relevant qualifications to fill
existing or projected job openings

Today greater attention is being given to the selection process than ever before. With the increasing emphasis being placed on the human side of competitiveness, making cor­rect hiring decisions is of crucial importance to most any organization. Individuals hired after thorough screening against carefully developed job specifications learn their job tasks readily, are productive, and generally adjust to their jobs with a minimum of difficulty. As a result, both the individual and the organization benefit from a careful selection process.
The greatest impetus to improve the selection process may have come from equal employment legislation, court decisions, and the Uniform Guidelines. What was once the exclusive concern of the employment office may now be carried into the courtroom. Among other factors affecting selection are scarcity of labor supply in high-technology labor markets, increasing geographic immobility of career cou­ples, and changing staff needs due to promotion and turnover.
Where the job tenure of employees is protected by a union agreement or by civil service regulations, there is an additional incentive for management to have sound selection policies and procedures, since it is usually more difficult to discharge unsatisfactory employees who have such protection.
While the selection program typically is the responsibility of the HR department, managerial and supervisory personnel in all the departments of an organization also have an important role in the selection process. The final decision in hiring is usually theirs. It is important therefore that managers understand the objectives and policies relating to se­lection. They should also be thoroughly trained in the most effective and acceptable ap­proaches for evaluating applicants and should be motivated to use them.

Matching People and Jobs

Those responsible for making selection decisions should have adequate informa­tion upon which to base their decisions. Information about the jobs to be filled, knowledge of the ratio of job openings to the number of applicants, and as much relevant information as possible about the applicants themselves are essential for making sound decisions.

 

Use of Job Specifications

The process of analyzing and developing specifications for jobs is the backbone of the matching process. Such factors as skill, effort, responsibility, and physical demands provide the basis for determining what types of information should be obtained from the applicant, from previous employers, and from other sources.
The job specifica­tions also form the basis for the administration of any applicable employment tests. Research has demonstrated that complete and unambiguous job informa­tion reduces the influence of racial and gender stereotypes and helps the inter­viewer to differentiate between qualified and unqualified applicants.
Ordinarily, the managers and supervisors in an organization are well ac­quainted with the requirements pertaining to skill, physical demands, and other factors for jobs in their respective departments. Interviewers and other members of the HR department who participate in selection should maintain a close liaison with the various departments so that they can become thoroughly familiar with the jobs.

 

The Selection Process

In most organizations, selection is a continuous process. Turnover inevitably oc­curs, leaving vacancies to be filled by applicants from inside or outside the orga­nization or by individuals whose qualifications have been assessed previously. It is common to have a waiting list of applicants who can be called when perma­nent or temporary positions become open.
The number of steps in the selection process and their sequence will vary, not only with the organization but also with the type and level of jobs to be filled. Each step should be evaluated in terms of its contribution. The steps that typically make up the selection process are shown below. Not all appli­cants will go through all of these steps. Some may be rejected after the prelimi­nary interview, others after taking tests, and so on.

STEPS IN THE SELECTION PROCESS

Completion of application form Initial interview in HR department Employment tests Background investigation Preliminary selection in HR department Supervisory or team interview Medical examination/drug testing Hiring decision

 

Organizations use several different means to obtain information about applicants. These include application blanks, interviews, tests, medical examinations, and background investigations. Regardless of the method used, it is essential that it conform to accepted ethical standards, in­cluding privacy and confidentiality, as well as legal requirements. Above all, it is essential that the information obtained be sufficiently reliable and valid.

 

Obtaining Reliable and Valid Information

The degree to which interviews, tests, and other selection procedures yield com­parable data over a period of time is known as reliability. For example, unless in­terviewers judge the capabilities of a group of applicants to be the same today as they did yesterday, their judgments are unreliable (i.e., unstable). Likewise, a test that gives widely different scores when it is administered to the same individual a few days apart is unreliable.

Reliability
The degree to which interviews, tests, and
other selection procedures yield comparable data
over time and alternative measures

Reliability also refers to the extent to which two or more methods (inter­views and tests, for example) yield similar results or are consistent. Interrater reliability--agreement between two or more raters--is one measure of a method's consistency. Unless the data upon which selection decisions are based are reliable, in terms of both stability and consistency, they cannot be used as predictors.
In addition to having reliable information pertaining to a person's suitabil­ity for a job, the information must be as valid as possible. Validity refers to what a test or other selection procedure measures and how well it measures it. In the context of personnel selection, validity is essentially an indicator of the extent to which data from a procedure (interview or test, for example) are related to or predictive of job performance or some other relevant criterion.

Validity
How well a test or selection procedure
Measures a person’s attributes

Like a new medi­cine, a selection procedure must be validated before it is used. There are two rea­sons for validating a procedure. First, validity is directly related to increases in employee productivity, as we will demonstrate later. Second, EEO regulations emphasize the importance of validity in selection procedures. Although we commonly refer to “validating” a test or interview procedure, validity in the technical sense refers to the inferences made from the use of a procedure, not to the procedure itself.
The Uniform Guidelinesrecognizes and accepts different ap­proaches to validation. These are criterion-related validity, content validity, and construct validity.

Criterion-related Validity

The extent to which a selection tool predicts or significantly correlates with im­portant elements of work behavior is known as criterion-related validity. Perfor­mance on a test, for example, is compared with actual production records, supervisory ratings, training outcomes, and other measures of success that are appropriate to each type of job. In a sales job, for example, it is common to use sales figures as a basis for comparison. In production jobs, quantity and quality of output may provide the best criteria of job success.

Criterion-related validity
The extent to which a selection tool predicts,
or significantly correlates with, important
elements of work behavior

There are two types of criterion-related validity, concurrent and predictive. Concurrent validity involves obtaining criterion data at about the same time that test scores (or other predictor information) are obtained from current em­ployees. For example, a supervisor is asked to rate a group of clerical employees on the quantity and quality of their performance. These employees are then given a clerical aptitude test, and the test scores are compared with the supervisory rat­ings to determine the degree of relationship between them.

Concurrent validity
The extent to which test scores (or other predictor
information) match criterion data obtained at about
the same time from current employees

Predictive validity, on the other hand, involves testing applicants and obtaining criterion data after they have been on the job for some indefinite period. For example, applicants are given a clerical aptitude test, which is then filed away for later study. After the individuals have been on the job for several months, supervisors, who should not know the employees’ test scores, are asked to rate them on the quality and quantity of their performance. Test scores are then compared with the supervisors’ ratings.

Predictive validity
The extent to which applicants’ test scores match
criterion data obtained from those applicants/employees
after they have been on the job for some indefinite period

Regardless of the method used, cross-validation is essential. Cross-validation is a process in which a test or test battery is administered to a different sample (drawn from the same population) for the purpose of verifying the results ob­tained from the original validation study.

Cross-validation
Verifying the results obtained from a validation study
by administering a test or test battery to a different
sample (drawn from the same population)

Correlational methods are generally used to determine the relationship be­tween predictor information such as test scores and criterion data. The correlation scatterplots below illustrate the difference between a selection test of zero validity (A) and one of high validity (B). Each dot represents a person. Note that in scatterplot A there is no relationship between test scores and suc­cess on the job; in other words, the validity is zero. In scatterplot B, those who score low on the test tend to have low success on the job, whereas those who score high on the test tend to have high success on the job, indicating high validity.

 

In actual practice we would apply a statistical formula to the data to ob­tain a coefficient of correlation referred to as a validity coefficient. Correlation coefficients range from 0.00, denoting a complete absence of relationship, to +1.00 and to -1.00, indicating a perfect positive and perfect negative relation­ship, respectively.
The higher the overall validity, the greater the chances of hiring individuals who will be the better performers. The criterion-related method is generally preferred to other validation approaches because it is based on empirical data.
It is advisable for organizations to employ the services of an industrial-organizational psychologist experienced in test validation to de­velop the selection procedures.

Content Validity

Where it is not feasible to use the criterion-related approach, often because of limited samples of individuals, the content method is used. Content validity is assumed to exist when a selection instrument, such as a test, adequately samples the knowledge and skills needed to perform a particular job.

Content validity
The extent to which a selection instrument,
such as a test, adequately samples the knowledge
and skills needed to perform a particular job

The closer the content of the selection instrument is to actual work samples or behaviors, the greater its content validity. For example, an exami­nation for accountants has high content validity when it requires the solution of accounting problems representative of those found on the job. Asking an ac­countant to lift a sixty-pound box, however, is a selection procedure that has content validity only if the job description indicates that accountants must be able to meet this requirement.
Content validity is the most direct and least complicated type of validity to assess. It is generally used to evaluate job knowledge and skill tests. Unlike the criterion-related method, content validity is not expressed in correlational terms. Instead, an index that indicates the relation­ship between the content of the test items and performance on the job is computed from evaluations of a panel of experts. While content validity does have its limitations, it has made a positive contribution to job analysis procedures and to the role of expert judgment in sampling and scoring procedures.

Construct Validity

The extent to which a selection tool measures a theoretical construct, or trait, is known as construct validity. Typical constructs are intelligence, mechanical comprehension, and anxiety. They are in effect broad, general categories of hu­man functions that are based on the measurement of many discrete behaviors.­ For example, the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test consists of a wide variety oftasks that measure the construct of mechanical comprehension.

Construct validity
The extent to which a selection tool
measures a theoretical
construct or trait

Measuring construct validity requires showing that the psychological trait is related to satisfactory job performance and that the test accurately measures the psychological trait. There is a lack of literature covering this concept as it relates to employment practices, probably because it is difficult and expensive to validate a construct and to show how it is job-related.

 

Sources of Information about Job Candidates

Many sources of information are used to provide as reliable and valid a picture as possible of an applicant's potential for success on the job. The potential contributions of application forms, biographical information blanks, background investigations, lie detector tests, honesty tests, and medical examinations are the most common sources of information. Interviewing and testing play a major role in selection.

 

Application Forms

Most organizations require application forms to be completed because they pro­vide a fairly quick and systematic means of obtaining a variety of information about the applicant. As with interviews, the courts have found that many questions asked on application forms disproportionately discriminate against females and minorities and often are not job-related. Application forms should therefore be developed with great care and revised as often as necessary.
Application forms serve several purposes. They provide information for de­ciding whether an applicant meets the minimum requirements for experience, education, etc. They provide a basis for questions the interviewer will ask about the applicant's background. They also offer sources for reference checks. For cer­tain jobs, a short application form is appropriate.
Even when applicants come armed with elaborate resumes, it is important that they complete an application form early in the process. Individuals fre­quently exaggerate or overstate their qualifications on a resume. One technique for anticipating problems of misrepresentation is to ask applicants to transcribe specific resume material onto a standardized application form. The applicant is then asked to sign a statement that the information contained on the form is true and that he or she accepts the employer's right to terminate the candidate's employment if any of the information is subsequently found to be false.

 

Biographical Information Blanks (BIB)

One of the oldest methods for predicting job success uses biographical informa­tion about job applicants. It covers such items as hobbies, club mem­berships, sales experience, and investments. Certain responses to these items were found to be predictive of success on the job.
Like application blanks, BIBs reveal information about a person's history that may have shaped their behavior. Sample questions from a BIB might include:

·   At what age did you leave home?
·   How large was the town/city in which you lived as a child?
·   Did you ever build a model airplane that flew?
·   Were sports a big part of your childhood?
·   Do you play any musical instruments?

Both the BIB and the application form can be scored like tests. And because biographical questions rarely have obviously right or wrong answers, BIBs are dif­ficult to fake. The development of a scoring system requires that the items that are valid predictors of job success be identified and that weights be established for dif­ferent responses to these items.
By totaling the scores for each item, it is possible to obtain a composite score on the blank as a whole for each applicant. Studies have shown that an objective scoring of BIB and application forms is one of the most potentially valid methods that can be used to predict job success. This method has been useful in predicting all types of behavior, including employee theft.

 

Background Investigations

When the interviewer is satisfied that the applicant is potentially qualified, information about previous employment as well as other information provided by the applicant is investigated. Former employers, school and college officials, credit bureaus, and individuals named as references may be contacted for verifi­cation of pertinent information such as length of time on the job, type of job, performance evaluation, highest wages, academic degrees earned, possible crimi­nal record, and credit rating.
Most of this information is now readily available on existing computer databases. An Employment Management Association sur­vey found that 93 percent of companies participating in the survey investigate information supplied by job applicants. The most common ruse, according to employers, is to exaggerate one's college background.

Checking References

Organizations use both the mail and the telephone to check references. But while references are commonly used to screen and select employees, they have not proved successful for predict­ing employee performance. Written letters of reference are notoriously inflated, and this limits their validity. Generally, telephone checks are preferable because they save time and provide for greater candor.
The most reliable information usually comes from supervisors, who are in the best position to report on an ap­plicant's work habits and performance. It is often advisable, however, to obtain written verification of information relating to job titles, duties, and pay levels from the former employer's HR office.
Since enactment of the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), which gave students and their parents the right to inspect student per­sonnel files, university administrators and faculty have been reluctant to provide anything other than general and often meaningless positive statements about student performance. The principles involved in FERPA came to apply to em­ployees and their personnel records as well. As a result, most employers prefer us­ing the telephone to check references.
Inadequate reference checking can contribute to high turnover, employee theft, and white-collar crime. By using sources in addition to former employers, organizations can obtain valuable information about an applicant's character and habits. For example, it is legal to use court records, litigation, bankruptcy, and workers’ compensation records of applicants as long as the prospective em­ployer is consistent in the use of information from these records.
In recent years there have been a growing number of cases in which organi­zations have been charged with “negligently” hiring or retaining employees who later commit crimes. Typically, the suits charge that the organization has failed to adequately check references, criminal records, or general background that would have shown the employee's likelihood for aberrant behavior. Rulings in the cases, which range from theft to homicide, are making employers even more aware of the importance of checking applicant references.

Requiring Signed Requests for References

As a legal protection for all concerned, it is important to ask the applicant to fill out forms permitting information to be solicited from former employers and other reference sources. Even with these safeguards, many organizations are reluctant to put into writing an evaluation of a former employee. One reason is that several firms have been sued by former employees who discovered that they had been given poor recommendations. As a result of such experiences, some employers even hesitate to answer questions and/or verify information about former em­ployees over the phone.
Individuals have a legal right to examine letters of reference about them (unless they waive the right to do so) where protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 or state laws. While the Privacy Act applies only to the records maintained by federal government agencies, it has influenced many employers to “clean up” per­sonnel files and open them up to review and challenge by the employees con­cerned. Furthermore, over half of the states have privacy legislation.

Using Credit Reports

The use of consumer credit reports by employers as a basis for establishing an ap­plicant's eligibility for employment has become more restricted. Under the fed­eral Fair Credit Reporting Act, an employer must advise applicants if such reports will be requested. If the applicant is rejected on the basis of the report, the appli­cant must be advised of this fact and be provided with the name and address of the reporting agency.
If an employer plans to use a more comprehensive type of consumer report, such as an investigative consumer report, the applicant must be advised in writ­ing. An investigative consumer report includes information based upon personal interviews with the applicant's friends, neighbors, and associates. The applicant must be told that, upon written request, additional disclosure concerning the complete nature and scope of the investigation will be provided.

The Polygraph

The polygraph, or lie detector, is a device that measures the changes in breath­ing, blood pressure, and pulse of a person who is being questioned. It consists of a rubber tube around the chest, a cuff around the arm, and sensors attached to the fingers that record the physiological changes in the examinee as the exam­iner asks questions that call for an answer of yes or no. Questions typically cover such items as whether a person uses drugs, has stolen from an employer, or has committed a serious undetected crime.
The growing swell of objections to the use of polygraphs in employment situations culminated in the passage of the federal Employee Polygraph Protec­tion Act of 1988. The act prohibits the use of a lie detector for prehire screening and random testing and applies to all private employers except pharmaceutical companies and companies that supply security guards for health and safety opera­tions.
It defines the term “lie detector” to include the polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, and any similar mechanical or electrical device used to render a diagnostic opinion about the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.
Other provisions of the act set qualification standards for polygraph exam­iners, conditions for examinations, and disclosure of information where the use of the polygraph is authorized. Because of the law, employers have had to resort to such alternatives as written tests of honesty and background checks of appli­cants. Among the organizations most affected are Wall Street firms, banks, and retail companies, which used to rely heavily on polygraphs. Employers in Europe still use this approach frequently.

Honesty and Integrity Testing

In response to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, many employers have dramatically increased their use of pencil-and-paper honesty and integrity tests. These tests have commonly been used in settings such as retail stores where em­ployees have access to cash or merchandise. Common areas of inquiry include beliefs about frequency and extent of theft in our society, punishment for theft, and perceived ease of theft.
A comprehensive analysis of honesty tests reveals that they are valid for predicting job performance as well as a wide range of disruptive behaviors such as theft, disciplinary problems, and absenteeism. Nevertheless, HRM specialists should use the results from such tests very cautiously and most certainly in con­junction with other sources of information.

Graphology

Graphology, a term that refers to a variety of systems of handwriting analysis, is being used by  some employers to make employment decisions. Graphologists obtain a sample of handwriting and then examine such characteristics as the size and slant of letters, amount of pressure applied, and placement of the writing on the page. From their observations they draw inferences about the writer’s person­ality traits, temperament, cognitive abilities, and social traits.
Graphology is used extensively in France, Germany, Switzerland, Israel, and the United King­dom in making employment decisions. Now handwriting analysis is quietly spreading through corporate America.
Organizations using handwriting analysis say they prefer it to typical per­sonality tests because it only requires job candidates to take a few minutes to jot down a short essay. By contrast, a battery of personality tests and interviews with psychologists can take several hours and can cost thousands of dollars.
In addi­tion, the available evidence shows graphology to be a reliable predictor of person­ality when compared with other psychological tests. However, its predictive validity for job performance and occupational success remains questionable. In the academic community, where formal and rigorous validity studies are custom­ary, use of graphology for employment decisions has been viewed with consider­able skepticism.

Medical Examination

The medical examination is one of the later steps in the selection process because it can be costly The use of the preemployment medical examination varies ac­cording to industry, but about one-half of the companies surveyed by the Bureau of National Affairs give preemployment examinations to prospective employees.
A medical examination is generally given to en­sure that the health of applicants is adequate to meet the job requirements. It also provides a baseline against which subsequent medical examinations can be com­pared and interpreted. The latter objective is particu­larly important in determinations of work-caused disabilities under workers' compensation law.
In the past, requirements for such physical charac­teristics as strength, agility, height, and weight were often determined by an employer's unvalidated notion of what should be required. Many such requirements that tend to discriminate against women have been questioned and modified so as to represent typical job demands.
While there is much publicity about acquired im­mune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), corporate testing for the presence of the HIV virus is conducted in only 6 percent of the companies surveyed by the American Management Association. Nearly two-thirds of those firms reporting that they were conducting HIV tests were health care providers; an additional 14 percent were government and military units.
In some cases, medical testing can be considered an invasion of privacy and may be in violation of the law. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act severely limits the types of medical inquiries and examinations that employers may use. The ADA pro­hibits companies from screening out a prospective employee because he or she has an elevated risk of on-the-job injury or a medical condition that could be aggravated because of job demands. However, the ADA does not prevent testing of applicants or employees for illegal drug use.

Drug Testing

A growing number of employers use drug tests to screen applicants and current employees for drug use. Urine sampling is the preferred form of drug testing; it is used by 96 percent of AMA-surveyed employers who do drug testing. More so­phisticated tests are used to validate positive findings. Some of the sharpest criticism of drug testing attacks the technology and standards by which tests are conducted.
With most employers, applicants who test positive have virtually no chance of being hired. However, employees who test positive are typically referred for treatment or counseling or receive some sort of disciplinary action.
Since passage of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, applicants and em­ployees of federal contractors, Department of Defense contractors, and those un­der Department of Transportation regulations are subject to testing for illegal drug use.

Employment Tests

 

Since the development of the Army Alpha Test of mental ability during World War I, tests have played an important part in the HR programs of both public and private organizations. Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over 90 percent of companies surveyed by the Bureau of National Affairs re­ported using tests. By 1976, however, only 42 percent were using tests.
In the past decade, there has been a dramatic resurgence of employment testing. In part, this indicates both that employers today are less fearful of lawsuits challenging the soundness of their tests and that there is a return to a focus on individual competence. Objective standards are coming back in both education and em­ployment. Concurrently, methodological changes have made it easier to demon­strate test validity. Too often employers have relied exclusively on the interview to measure or predict skills and abilities that can be measured or predicted more accurately by tests.
Tests have played a more important part in government HR programs where hiring on the basis of merit is required by law. Government agencies experienced the same types of problems with their testing programs as did organizations in the private sector. However, their staffs were forced to improve their testing pro­grams rather than to abandon them.
Many organizations utilize professional test consultants to improve their testing programs and to meet EEO requirements. While it is often advisable to use consultants, especially if an organization is considering the use of personality tests, managers should have a basic understanding of the technical aspects of testing and the contributions that tests can make to the HR program.

 

The Nature of Employment Tests

An employment test is an objective and standardized measure of a sample of be­havior that is used to gauge a person's knowledge, skills, abilities, and other char­acteristics (KSAO) in relation to other individuals. The proper sampling of behavior--whether verbal, manipulative, or some other type--is the responsi­bility of the test author. It is also the responsibility of the test author to develop tests that meet accepted standards of reliability.
Data concerning reliability are ordinarily presented in the manual for the test. While high reliability is essential it offers no assurance that the test provides the basis for making valid judgments. It is the responsibility of the HR staff to conduct validation studies before a test is adopted for regular use. Other considerations are cost, time, ease of administra­tion and scoring, and the apparent relevance of the test to the individuals being tested—commonly referred to as “face validity.” While face validity is desirable, it is no substitute for technical validity. Adopting a test just because it appears relevant is bad practice; many a “good-looking” test has poor validity.

 
Classification of Employment Tests

Employment tests may be classified in different ways. Generally, they are viewed as measuring either aptitude or achievement. Aptitude tests refer to measures of a person's capacity to learn or acquire skills. Achievement tests refer to measures of what a person knows or can do right now.

Aptitude tests
Measures of a person’s capacity to
learn or acquire skills

Achievement tests
Measures of what a person knows
or can do right now

Cognitive Ability Tests

Cognitive ability tests measure mental capabilities such as general intelligence, verbal fluency, numerical ability, and reasoning ability. There are a host of paper-and-pencil tests that measure cognitive abilities, including the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB), the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the Graduate Management Aptitude Test (GMAT), and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.
Although cognitive ability tests can be developed to measure very special­ized areas such as reading comprehension and spatial relations, many experts believe that the validity of cognitive ability tests simply reflects their con­nection to general intelligence. Measures of general intelligence (e.g., IQ) have been shown to be good predictors of performance across a wide variety of jobs.

Personality and Interest Inventories

Whereas cognitive ability tests measure a person's mental capacity, personality tests measure dispositional characteristics such as extroversion, inquisitiveness, and dependability. Interest tests, such as the Kuder Inventory, measure an appli­cant's preferences for certain activities over others (such as sailing versus poker).
The predictive validity of personality and interest inventories historically has been quite low. However, several firms have successfully employed an "ex­ecutive battery" composed of several attitudinal and interest tests to predict managerial success. Beyond the initial hiring decision, personality and interest inventories may be most useful for helping with occupational selection and ca­reer planning.

Physical Ability Tests

In addition to learning about a job candidate's mental capabilities, employers fre­quently need to assess a person's physical abilities as well. Particularly for de­manding and potentially dangerous jobs like those held by firefighters and police officers, physical abilities such as strength and endurance tend to be not only good predictors of performance, but of accidents and injuries.
Despite their potential value, physical ability tests tend to work to the disad­vantage of women and disabled job applicants, a tendency that has led to several lawsuits. As with other methods for screening potential employees, the use of physical ability tests should be carefully validated on the basis of the es­sential functions of the job.

Job Knowledge Tests

Government agencies and licensing boards usually develop job knowledge tests, a type of achievement test designed to measure a person’s level of understanding about a particular job. Most civil service examinations, for example, are used to determine whether an applicant possesses the information and understanding that will permit placement on the job without further training.  Job knowledge tests also have had a major role in the enlisted personnel programs of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. They should be considered as useful tools for private and public organizations.

Job Sample Tests

Job sample tests, or work sample tests, require the applicant to perform tasks that are actually a part of the work required on the job. Like job knowledge tests, job sample tests are constructed from a carefully developed outline that experts agree includes the major job functions; the tests are thus considered content-valid. They are often used to measure skills for office and clerical jobs.
Job sample tests have also been devised for many diverse jobs: a map-reading test for traffic control officers, a lathe test for machine operators, a complex coordination test for pilots, an in-basket test for managers, a group discussion test for supervisors, a judgment and decision-making test for administrators, to name a few. The U.S. Air Force has also used job samples for enlisted personnel in eight different specialty areas. In an increasing number of cases, job sample tests are aided by computer simulations, particularly when test­ing a candidate might prove to be dangerous. The reports are that this type of test is cost-effective, reliable, valid, fair, and acceptable to applicants.

The Employment Interview

Traditionally, the employment interview has had a very important role in the se­lection process--so much so that it is rare to find an instance where an em­ployee is hired without some sort of interview. Depending upon the type of job, applicants may be interviewed by one person, by members of a work team, or other individuals in the organization.
While researchers have raised some doubts about its validity, the interview remains a mainstay of selection because:

• It is especially practical when there are only a small number of applicants
• It serves other purposes, such as public relations
• Interviewers maintain great faith and confidence in their judgments.

 

Nevertheless, the interview can be plagued by problems of subjectivity and personal bias.

 

Interviewing Methods

Interviews differ according to the methods used to ob­tain information related to an applicant's attitudes, feelings, and skills. The most significant difference lies in the amount of structure, or control, that is exercised by the interviewer. In the highly structured interview, the interviewer deter­mines the course that the interview will follow using questions. In the less-structured interview, the applicant plays a larger role in determining the discussion course. An examination of the different types of inter­views from the least structured to the most structured will reveal the differences.

The Nondirective Interview

In the nondirective interview, the interviewer carefully refrains from influencing the applicant's remarks. The applicant is allowed the maximum amount of freedom in determining the course of the discussion. The interviewer asks broad, open-ended questions--such as "Tell me more about your experiences on your last job"-- and permits the applicant to talk freely with a minimum of interruption.

Nondirective interview
An interview in which the applicant is allowed the maximum
amount of freedom in determining the course of the discussion,
while the interviewer carefully refrains from influencing
the applicant’s remarks

The nondirective interviewer listens carefully and does not ar­gue, interrupt, or change the subject abruptly. The interviewer also uses follow-up questions to allow the applicant to elaborate, makes only brief re­sponses, and allows pauses in the conversation; the pausing technique is the most difficult for the beginning interviewer to master.
The greater freedom afforded to the applicant in the nondirective interview is particularly valuable in bringing to the interviewer's attention any infor­mation, attitudes, or feelings that may often be concealed by more-structured questioning. However, because the applicant determines the course of the inter­view and no set procedure is followed, little information that comes from these interviews enables interviewers to cross-check agreement with other interview­ers. Thus the reliability and validity of the nondirective interview is minimal. This method is most likely to be used in interviewing candidates for high-level positions and in counseling.

The Structured Interview

 

More attention is being given to the structured interview as a result of EEO re­quirements and a concern for maximizing validity of selection decisions. Because a structured interview has a set of standardized questions (based on job analysis) and an established set of answers against which applicant responses can be rated, it provides a more consistent basis for evaluating job candidates. The HR department could develop a structured interviewing process with the following characteristics. The program:

1.  Is based exclusively on job duties and requirements critical to job performance
2.  Uses four types of questions: situational questions, job knowledge questions, job sample/simulation questions, and worker requirements questions
3.  Has sample answers, determined in advance, to each question and interviewee responses are rated on a five-point scale explicitly defined in advance
4.  Uses an interview committee so that interviewee responses are evaluated by several raters
5.  Consistently follows the same procedures in all instances to ensure that each applicant has exactly the same chance as every other applicant

• Is documented for future reference and in case of legal challenge

Structured interview
An interview in which a set of standardized
questions having an established set
of answers is used

A structured interview is more likely to provide the type of information needed for making sound decisions. It also helps to reduce the possibility of legal charges of unfair discrimination. Employers must be aware that the interview is highly vulnerable to legal attack.
Most employment interviewers will tend toward either a nondirected or a structured format. However, there are other methods that are utilized for special purposes.

The Situational Interview

 

One variation of the structured interview is called the situational interview. With this approach, an applicant is given a hypothetical incident and asked how he or she would respond to it. The applicant's response is then evaluated relative to preestablished benchmark standards. Interestingly, many organizations are using the situational interview to select new college graduates. Listed below is a sample question from a situational interview used to select ana­lyzer technicians at a chemical plant.

Situational interview
An interview in which an applicant is given
a hypothetical incident and asked how
he or she would respond to it

SAMPLE SITUATIONAL QUESTION

It is the night before your scheduled vacation. You are all packed and ready to go. Just before you get into bed, you receive a phone call from the plant. A problem has arisen that only you can handle. You are asked to come in to take care of things. What would you do in this situation?

The Behavioral Description Interview

Similar to a situational interview, a behavioral description interview (BDI) fo­cuses on real work incidents. However, while a situational interview addresses hypothetical situations, the BDI format asks the job applicant what he or she ac­tually did in a given situation. For example, to assess a potential manager's ability to handle a problem employee, an interviewer might ask, “Tell me about the last time you disciplined an employee.” Such an approach to interviewing, based on a critical incidents job analysis, assumes that past performance is the best pre­dictor of future performance.

Behavioral description interview (BDI)
An interview in which an applicant is asked
questions about what he or she actually
did in a given situation

The Panel Interview

Another type of interview involves a panel of interviewers who question and ob­serve a single candidate. In a typical panel interview the candidate meets with three to five interviewers who take turns asking questions. After the interview they pool their observations to reach a consensus about the suitability of the candidate.

Panel interview
An interview in which a board of interviewers
questions and observes a single candidate

HRM specialists using this method report that panel interviews provide several significant advantages over traditional one-to-one interviews, including higher validity because of mul­tiple inputs, greater acceptance of the decision, and faster decision time.

The Computer Interview

Recently, a growing number of organizations have begun using computers to help with the interviewing process. Many firms have developed expert systems to gather preliminary information as well as compare candidates. Typically, the system asks candidates 75 to 125 multiple-choice questions tailored to the job and then compares the applicant’s responses with either an ideal profile or with profiles developed on the basis of other candidates’ responses.
The computer can generate a printed report that contains the applicant's response summary, an itemized list of contradictory responses, a latency response report (time delays for each answer), a summary of potentially problematic responses, and a list of structured interview questions for the job interviewer to ask.
In addition to the benefits of objectivity, some research evidence suggests that applicants may be less likely to engage in “impression management” in computerized interviews than in face-to-face interviews. So far, organizations have used the computer mainly as a com­plement to, rather than as a replacement for, conventional interviews.

 

Guidelines for Employment Interviewers

Organizations should exercise considerable caution in the selection of employ­ment interviewers. Qualities that are desirable include humility; the ability to think objectively; freedom from overtalkativeness, extreme opinions, and biases; maturity; and poise. Given the importance of diversity in the work force, experi­ence in associating with people from a variety of backgrounds is also desirable.
A training program should be provided on a continuing basis for employ­ment interviewers and at least periodically for managers and supervisors in other departments. Many books on employment interviewing are available as guides. For the individual who desires to explore the topic in depth, a wealth of informa­tion is available in books, journals, and the WWW.
There have been several reviews of research studies on the employment in­terview. Each of these reviews discusses and evaluates numerous studies con­cerned with such questions as "What traits can be assessed in the interview?" and "How do interviewers reach their decisions?" Listed below are some of the major findings of these studies.

• Structured interviews are more reliable than unstructured interviews.
• Interviewers are influenced more by unfavorable than by favorable information.
• Interrater reliability is increased when there is a greater amount of information about the job to be filled.
• A bias is established early in the interview, and this tends to be followed by either a favorable or an unfavorable decision.
• Intelligence is the trait most validly estimated by an interview, but the interview information adds nothing to test data.
• Interviewers can explain why they feel an applicant is likely to be an unsatisfactory employee but not why the applicant may be satisfactory.
• Factual written data seem to be more important than physical appearance in determining judgments. This increases with interviewing experience.
• An interviewee is given a more extreme evaluation (positive/negative) when preceded by an interviewee of opposing value (positive/negative).
• Interpersonal skills and motivation are probably best evaluated by the interview.
• Allowing the applicant time to talk makes rapid first impressions less likely and provides a larger behavior sample.
• Nonverbal as well as verbal interactions influence decisions.
• Experienced interviewers rank applicants in the same order. Although they differ in the proportion that they will accept. There is a tendency for experienced interviewers to be more selective than less experienced ones.

 

The figure below summarizes the variables and processes involved in the employ­ment interview. The figure shows that a number of applicant characteristics may influence the perception of the interviewer and thus the hiring decision. In ad­dition, many interviewer and situational factors may also influence the percep­tual and judgmental processes. For example, knowing the race and sex of an applicant may shape the expectations, biases, and behaviors of an interviewer, which in turn may affect the interview outcome. Even a limited understanding of the variables, such as those shown below, can help increase the interviewing effec­tiveness of managers and supervisors.

VARIABLES IN THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW
APPLICANT Age, race, sex, etc. Physical appearance Educational and work background Job interests and career plans Psychological characteristics: attitude, intelligence, motivation, etc. Experience and training as interviewee Perceptions regarding interviewer, job, company, etc. Verbal and nonverbal behavior		SITUATION Political, legal, and economic forces in marketplace and organization Role of interview in selection system Selection ratio Physical setting: comfort, privacy, number of interviewers Interview structure		INTERVIEWER Age, race, sex, etc. Physical appearance Psychological characteristics: attitude, intelligence, motivation, etc. Experience and training as an interviewer Perceptions of job requirements Prior knowledge of applicant Goals for interview Verbal and nonverbal behavior
		Employment Interview
		Interview Outcome

 

Interviewer training programs should include practice interviews conducted under guidance. Practice interviews may be recorded on videotape and evaluated later in a group training session. Some variation in technique is only natural. However, the following list presents ten ground rules for employment interviews that are commonly accepted and supported by research findings.

• Establish an interview plan. Examine the purposes of the interview and determine the areas and specific questions to be covered. Review job requirements, application-form data, test scores, and other available information before seeing the applicant.
• Establish and maintain rapport. This is accomplished by greeting the applicant pleasantly, by explaining the purpose of the interview, by displaying sincere interest in the applicant, and by listening carefully.
• Be an active listener. Strive to understand, comprehend, and gain insight into what is only suggested or implied. A good listener's mind is alert, and face and posture usually reflect this fact.
• Pay attention to nonverbal cues. An applicant's facial expressions, gestures, body position, and movements often provide clues to that person’s attitudes and feelings. Interviewers should be aware of what they themselves are communicating nonverbally.
• Provide information as freely and honestly as possible. Answer fully and frankly the applicant's questions. Present a realistic picture of the job.
• Use questions effectively. To elicit a truthful answer, questions should be phrased as objectively as possible, giving no indication of what response is desired.
• Separate facts from inferences. During the interview, record factual information. Later, record your inferences or interpretations of the facts. Compare your inferences with those of other interviewers.
• Recognize biases and stereotypes. One typical bias is for interviewers to consider strangers who have interests, experiences, and backgrounds similar to their own to be more acceptable. Stereotyping involves forming generalized opinions of how people of a given gender, race, or ethnic background appear, think, feel, and act. The influence of sex-role stereotyping is central to sex discrimination in employment. Avoid the influence of “beautyism.”  Discrimination against unattractive persons is a persistent and pervasive form of employment discrimination. Also avoid "halo error," or judging an individual favorably or unfavorably overall on the basis of only one strong point (or weak point) on which you place high value.
• Control the course of the interview. Establish an interview plan and stick to it. Provide the applicant with ample opportunity to talk, but maintain control of the situation in order to reach the interview objectives.
• Standardize the questions asked. To increase reliability and avoid discrimination, ask the same questions of all applicants for a particular job. Keep careful notes; record facts, impressions, and any relevant information, including what was told to the applicant.

 

Types of Preemployment Questions to Ask

The entire subject of preemployment questioning is complex. There are differing and sometimes contradictory interpretations by the courts, the EEOC, and the OFCCP about what is lawful and unlawful. Under federal laws there are no ques­tions that are expressly prohibited. However, the EEOC looks with disfavor on direct or indirect questions related to race, color, age, religion, sex, or national origin. Some of the questions that interviewers once felt free to ask are now po­tentially hazardous.
Federal courts have severely limited the area of questioning. An interviewer, for example, can ask about physical disabilities if the job involves manual labor, but not otherwise. Several states have fair employment practice laws that are more restrictive than federal legislation. In general, if a question is job-related, is asked of everyone, and does not discriminate against a certain class of applicants, it is likely to be acceptable to government authorities.
Particular care has to be given to questions asked of female applicants about their family responsibilities. It is inappropriate, for example, to ask, “Who will take care of your children while you are at work?” or “Do you plan to have chil­dren?” or “What is your husband’s occupation?” or “Are you engaged?” It is, in fact, inappropriate to ask applicants of either gender questions about matters that have no relevance to job performance.
Employers have found it advisable to provide interviewers with instructions on how to avoid potentially discriminatory questions in their interviews. The examples of appropriate and inappropriate questions may serve as guidelines for application forms as well as preemployment interviews. Complete guidelines may be developed from current information available from district and regional U.S. EEOC offices. Once the individual is hired, the information needed but not asked in the in­terview may be obtained if there is a valid need for it and if it does not lead to discrimination.

 

Reaching a Selection Decision

While all of the steps in the selection process are important, the most critical step is the decision to accept or reject applicants. Because of the cost of placing new employees on the payroll, the short probationary period in many organizations, and EEO/AA considerations, the final decision must be as sound as possible. Thus it requires systematic consideration of all the relevant information about applicants. It is common to use summary forms and checklists to ensure that all of the pertinent information has been included in the evaluation of applicants.

 

Summary of Information about Applicants

Fundamentally, an employer is interested in what an applicant can do and will do. An evaluation of candidates on the basis of assembled information should focus on these two factors. The “can-do” factors include knowledge and skills, as well as the aptitude (the potential) for acquiring new knowledge and skills. The "will-do" factors include motivation, interests, and other personality characteristics. Both factors are essential to successful perfor­mance on the job. The employee who has the ability (can do) but is not moti­vated to use it (will not do) is little better than the employee who lacks the necessary ability.
It is much easier to measure what individuals can do than what they will do. The "can-do" factors are readily evident from test scores and verified informa­tion. What the individual will do can only be inferred. Responses to interview and application-form questions may be used as a basis for obtaining information for making inferences about what an individual will do.

 

Decision Strategy

The strategy used for making personnel decisions for one category of jobs may differ from that used for another category. The strategy for selecting managerial and executive personnel will differ from that used in selecting clerical and technical personnel. While many factors are to be con­sidered in hiring decisions, the following are some of the questions that managers must consider:

1.  Should the individuals be hired according to their highest potential or according to the needs of the organization?
2.  At what grade or wage level should the individual be started?
3.  Should initial selection be concerned primarily with an ideal match of the employee to the job, or should potential for advancement in the organization be considered?
4.  To what extent should those who are not qualified but are qualifiable be considered?
5.  Should overqualified individuals be considered?
6.  What effect will a decision have on meeting affirmative action goals and diversity considerations?

 

In addition to these types of factors, managers must also consider which ap­proach they will use in making hiring decisions. There are two basic approaches to selection: clinical and statistical.

Clinical Approach

In the clinical approach to decision making, those making the selection decision review all the data on applicants. Then, based on their understanding of the job and the individuals who have been successful in that job, they make a decision. Different individuals often arrive at different decisions about an applicant when they use this approach because each evaluator assigns different weights to the applicant's strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, personal biases and stereotypes are frequently covered up by what appear to be rational bases for accep­tance or rejection.

Statistical Approach

In contrast to the clinical approach, the statistical approach to decision making is more objective. It involves identifying the most valid predictors and weighting them through statistical methods such as multiple regression. Quantified data such as scores or ratings from interviews, tests, and other procedures are then combined according to their weighted value. Individuals with the highest combined scores are selected. A comparison of the clinical approach with the statistical approach in a wide variety of situations has shown that the statistical approach is superior. Although this superiority has been recognized for many decades, the clinical approach continues to be the one most commonly used.
With a strictly statistical approach, a candidate's high score on one predic­tor (e.g., cognitive ability test) will make up for a low score on another predictor (e.g., the interview). For this reason, this model is a compensatory model. How­ever, it is frequently important that applicants achieve some minimum level of proficiency on all selection dimensions. When this is the case, a multiple cutoff model can be used in which only those candidates who score above the cutoff on all dimensions are considered. The selection decision is made from that subset of candidates.

Compensatory model
Selection decision model in which a high
score in one area can make up for a low
score in another area

Multiple cutoff model
Selection decision model that requires an
applicant to achieve some minimum level of
proficiency on all selection dimensions

A variation of the multiple cutoff is referred to as the multiple hurdle model. This decision strategy is sequential in that after candidates go through an initial evaluation stage, the ones who score well are provisionally accepted and are assessed further at each successive stage. The process may continue through several stages (hurdles) before a final decision is made regarding the candidates. This approach is especially useful when either the testing or training procedures are lengthy and expensive.

Multiple hurdle model
A sequential strategy in which only the applicants
with the highest scores at an initial test stage
go on to subsequent stages

Each of the statistical approaches requires that a decision be made about where the cutoff lies. The cutoff point is the score above which a person should be considered and below which the person should be rejected. The score that the applicant must achieve is the cutoff score. Depending upon the labor supply, it may be necessary to lower or raise the cutoff score.
While the most valid predictors should be used with any selection strategy, there is a related factor that contributes to selecting the best-qualified persons. It is selectivity, or having an adequate number of applicants or candidates from which to make a selection. Selectivity is typically expressed in terms of a selec­tion ratio, which is the ratio of the number of applicants to be selected to the total number of applicants. A ratio of 0.10, for example, means that 10 percent of the applicants will be selected. A ratio of 0.90 means that 90 percent will be se­lected. If the selection ratio is low, only the most promising applicants will nor­mally be hired. When the ratio is high, very little selectivity will be possible, since even applicants having mediocre ability will have to be hired if the vacancies are to be filled.

Selection ratio
The number of applicants compared
with the number of persons hired
 

The Final Decision

After a preliminary selection has been made in the employment department, those applicants who appear to be most promising are then referred to depart­ments having vacancies. There they are interviewed by the managers or supervi­sors, who usually make the final decision and communicate it to the employment department. Because of the weight that is usually given to their choices, man­agers and supervisors should be trained so that their role in the selection process does not negate the more scientific efforts of personnel in the HR department.
In large organizations, notifying applicants of the decision and making job offers is often the responsibility of the HR department. This department should confirm the details of the job, working arrangements, wages, etc., and specify a deadline by which the applicant must reach a decision. If, at this point, findings from the medical examination are not yet available, an offer is often made con­tingent upon the applicant's passing the examination.
In government agencies, the selection of individuals to fill vacancies is made from lists or registers of eligible candidates. Ordinarily, three or more names of individuals at the top of the register are submitted to the requisitioning official. This arrangement provides some latitude for those making a selection and, at the same time, preserves the merit system.

 

 

SUMMARY

The selection process should provide as much reliable and valid information as possible about applicants so that their qualifications can be carefully matched with job specifications. The information that is obtained should be clearly job-related or predictive of success on the job and free from potential discrimination.
Reliability refers to the consistency of test scores over time and across measures. Validity refers to the accuracy of measurement. Validity can be assessed in terms of whether the measurement is based on a job specification (content validity), whether test scores correlate with performance criteria (predictive validity), and whether the test accurately measures what it purports to measure (construct validity).
Interviews are customarily used in conjunction with application forms, bio­graphical information blanks, references, background investigations, medical examinations, cognitive ability tests, job knowledge tests, and work sample tests.
While the popularity of tests had declined somewhat since the passage of EEO laws, in recent years there has been a dramatic resurgence of testing. The value of tests should not be overlooked since they are more objective than the interview and can provide a broader sampling of behavior.
Cognitive ability tests are especially valuable for assessing verbal, quantitative, and reasoning abilities. Personality and interest tests are perhaps best for placement. Physical ability tests are most useful for predicting job performance, accidents, and injuries, particu­larly for demanding work. Job knowledge and work sample tests are achievement tests that are useful for determining if a candidate can perform the duties of the job without further training.
The interview is an important source of information about job applicants. It can be unstructured, wherein the interviewer is free to pursue whatever ap­proach and sequence of topics might seem appropriate. Alternatively, an inter­view can be structured, wherein each applicant receives the same set of questions having preestablished answers.
Some interviews are situational and can focus on hypothetical situations or actual behavioral descriptions of previous work experi­ences. Interviews can be conducted by a single individual, a panel, or via a computer interface. Regardless of the technique chosen, those who conduct in­terviews should receive special training to acquaint them with interviewing methods and EEO considerations. The training should also make them more aware of the major findings from research studies on the interview and how they can apply these findings.
In the process of making decisions, all "can-do" and "will-do" factors should be assembled and weighted systematically so that the final decision can be based on a composite of the most reliable and valid information. While the clinical ap­proach to decision making is used more than the statistical approach, the former lacks the accuracy of the latter.

KEY TERMS
Achievement tests Aptitude tests Behavioral description interview (BDI) Compensatory model Concurrent validity Construct validity Content validity Criterion-related validity Cross-validation Multiple cutoff model Multiple hurdle model	Nondirective interview Panel interview Predictive validity Reliability Selection Selection ratio Situational interview Structured interview Validity Validity generalization