Less Isn’t More: Structure in Employment Interviews

Topic: Interviewing, Selection, Human Resources
Publication: Personnel Psychology (SPRING 2011)
Article: Is more structure really better? A comparison of frame-of-reference training and descriptively anchored rating scales to improve interviewers’ rating quality.
Authors: K. G. Melchers, N. Lienhardt, M. V. Aarburg, & M. Kleinmann
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada

Interviews remain one of the most common methods that organizations use to select new employees. Additionally, one of the most consistent recommendations in I/O psychology is that structuring interviews improves their ability to improve the selection process and make successful hires. Although the strength of structured interviews over unstructured interviews is well-documented, previous research has been inconsistent in identifying how different methods of adding structure to interviews may relate to one another. A new study by Melchers and colleagues begins to address this issue.

Continue reading

What’s All the Training FOR (Frame of Reference)?

Topic: Training
Publication: The Journal of Applied Psychology (2008)
Article: Using frame-of-reference training to understand the implications of rater idiosyncrasy for rating accuracy.
Blogger: Rob Stilson

Frame of Reference (FOR) training is intended to get all raters on the same metric to mitigate idiosyncrasies caused by raters whose ideas about what is important when rating performance differ from the organization’s standards.  Someone is high on idiosyncrasies if his/her dimensions for performance (what they consider important to performance) do not match up with the organization’s standards of performance.  An individual is low on idiosyncrasies if his/her dimensions for performance are similar to the organization’s standards of performance.

The authors of this article wanted to determine how FOR training would affect two types of raters, those who were high on idiosyncrasies and those who were low on idiosyncrasies.

Continue reading