This article (Huffcutt et al., 2013) focuses on the reliability of interviews. The more error introduced in interviews, the less reliable they are. The researchers targeted different sources of error, both from the interviewee and interviewers. Interviewees can introduce error into an interview when they answer similar questions from the same or multiple interviewers differently, while interviewers introduce error when they interpret, evaluate, and rate identical responses differently.
The researchers found that the more structured the interviews, the more reliable the interview results tended to be. In addition, panel interviews were more reliable than single-interviewer interviews. The more reliable interviews can be, the more capable they are of statistically predicting the future job performance of candidates who become hires.
In industrial and organizational psychology, there is often a conflict between research and personal experience, and research findings often go against our gut instincts. For example, sometimes interviewers pick up on slight nuances in interviewee responses or behavior. They may then use these observations or opinions to judge the suitability of a candidate, despite deviating from the structured scoring protocol in place. Still, this study shows that an even-handed, consistent approach toward all candidates is bound to work best from a reliability standpoint.
Huffcutt, A. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Weyhrauch, W. S. (2013). Employment Interview Reliability: New meta-analytic estimates by structure and format. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(3), 264–276.
Image credit: Unsplash+