Looking back on interviews I’ve participated in, I’ve noticed a big difference between effective and ineffective approaches. The most effective interviews were structured and clearly connected to the job itself. Interviewers asked consistent, job related questions, often focused on past experiences or realistic scenarios. This made the process feel more fair and reliable, since each candidate was evaluated using the same criteria. Reliability is important because it ensures consistency and reduces random error in decision-making.
These interviews also had stronger validity, meaning they actually measured what mattered for the job. For example, behavioral questions like “Tell me about a time you solved a problem on a team” directly related to real workplace situations. According to the course material, selection methods should assess only the relevant aspects of job performance, which is exactly what these types of questions do.
On the other hand, some interviews I’ve experienced were very informal and conversational. While they felt more relaxed, they lacked structure and often relied on first impressions. This made them less reliable, since different candidates were asked different questions. They also had lower validity because decisions were sometimes based on personality or “gut feeling” rather than actual job-related skills. These issues can reduce utility, since poor hiring decisions can waste time and resources.
If I could give advice to employers, I would recommend using structured interviews with standardized questions and scoring systems. They should also focus on job relevant competencies and consider combining interviews with other selection tools, like work samples or situational judgment tests. Overall, improving reliability and validity in interviews will lead to better hiring decisions and more effective outcomes for the organization.