Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research investigated empirical issues regarding the validity of individual interviewers’( N = 62) ratings collected after a structured interview. Each interviewer rated an average of 25 interviewees. One hypothesis examined but not supported was that systematic interviewer errors will attenuate interview validity when data are aggregated across interviewers. Also investigated was the validity of ratings averaged across interviewers compared to consensus ratings; consensus ratings were shown to have significantly but probably not practically higher validities. Third, a meta‐analysis of individual interviewer validities revealed that all of the variance in validities could be attributed to sampling error. Results and implications are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pulakos et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: