Validating the interview selection process
This means that any examination of the validity of interviews needs to take these differences into account.
This is why meta-analyses have been an important source of information about the factors that influence the validity of interviews.
Weisner and Cronshaw (1988) found a slightly higher coefficient of .26 with supervisor ratings of performance.
Many of these average coefficients are for a range of different types of interviews.
There is also evidence that interview performance is related to performance on more elaborate and complex selection methods such as assessment centres (Dayan, Fox & Kasten, 2008).
Therefore, typical selection interviews tend to have broad construct validity: this is perhaps re-assuring as they tend to dominate many selection procedures.
In one of the most substantial meta-analyses of interviews Mc Daniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, and Maurer, (1994) reviewed 245 different validity coefficients from studies of interviews.
Campion, Palmer and Campion (1997) provided a more detailed analysis of the determinants of the predictive validity of interviews and concluded that predictive validity was improved by certain design characteristics.
A quick task: Think back to your own experiences of being a candidate in selection interviews. (1997) also found that the way that data was collected and evaluated also had a significant impact on the validity of the interview.
The issue of incremental validity is perhaps less important for selection interviews than it is for other methods of assessment.
Given that an interview forms the bulk of many selection processes, the fact that it captures data on individual differences that are also captured by other selection methods is perhaps desirable.