The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis.

This meta-analytic review presents the findings of a project investigating the validity of the employment interview. Analyses are based on 245 coefficients derived from 86,311 individuals. Results show that interview validity depends on the content of the interview (situational, job related, or psychological), how the interview is conducted (structured vs. unstructured; board vs. individual), and the nature of the criterion (job performance, training performance, and tenure; research or administrative ratings). Situational interviews had higher validity than did job-related interviews, which, in turn, had higher validity than did psychologically based interviews. Structured interviews were found to have higher validity than unstructured interviews. Interviews showed similar validity for job performance and training performance criteria, but validity for the tenure criteria was lower. The interview is a selection procedure designed to predict future job performance on the basis of applicants' oral responses to oral inquiries. Interviews are one of the most frequently used selection procedures, perhaps because of their intuitive appeal for hiring authorities. Ulrich and Trumbo (1965) surveyed 852 organizations and found that 99% of them used interviews as a selection tool. Managers and personnel officials, especially those who are interviewers, tend to believe that the interview is valid for predicting future job performance. In this article, we quantitatively cumulate and summarize research on the criterion-related validity of the employment interview. Our purpose in this article is threefold. First, we summarize past narrative and quantitative reviews of criterion-related validity studies of the employment interview. Second, we report research that extends knowledge of the criterion-related validity of interviews through meta-analyses conducted on a more comprehensive database than has been available to earlier investigators. Third, we examine the criterion-related validity of different categories of interviews that vary in type and in structure.