I have participated in several interviews for part time jobs and internships, and my experiences have varied. Some interviews felt organized and fair, while others felt rushed or based more on personal impressions. After reviewing this week’s lectures and readings, I better understand how reliability, validity, and utility affect interview effectiveness.
The most effective interviews I have experienced were structured. Interviewers asked similar questions to all candidates and focused on job related skills. This increased reliability because everyone was evaluated using the same standards. These interviews also had higher validity because the questions were directly related to the position, such as teamwork, communication, and problem solving. Behavioral questions helped interviewers better predict how candidates would perform on the job, which improves hiring decisions (Campion et al., 1997).
Less effective interviews were informal and unstructured. In some cases, the interviewer relied heavily on small talk or personal opinions. This reduced reliability and increased bias because candidates were not evaluated consistently. These interviews also lacked validity since the questions were not clearly connected to job performance. As a result, their overall utility was lower because they were less effective at identifying the best candidate.
If I could advise employers on improving their interviews, I would suggest using structured interviews with standardized questions and clear rating scales. Interviewer training would also help reduce bias. These changes would improve reliability, validity, and utility, leading to better hiring outcomes (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
References
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). Personnel Psychology.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). Psychological Bulletin.
