From what I’ve seen as a jobseeker, interviews can come across as either planned and fair or random and frustrating. Analyzing these experiences from the perspective of ‘reliability, validity of the interview and utility’ can contribute to clarifying why some interviews are more effective than others. My best interviews have been structured. Interviewers used standardized, job-related questions and assessed responses against established standards. Structured interviews are reliable because they provide consistency across candidates and help mitigate potential interviewer (Cieri,2026). Unstructured interviews, in contrast, in which questions differ substantially and scoring is informal, are also subjective and depend on first impressions, making them less reliable.
Validity was best when interview questions were firmly grounded in the job performance. Behavioral interview questions, which ask candidates to describe how they responded in the past, were compelling because past behavior is among the best predictors of future performance. (Cieri,2026).
Personalistic or “culture fit” interview questions that lacked the grounding in job requirements were judged to be less valid and did not measure KSAOs correctly. Outline – Selection. All of this leaves utility in the interest of both employers and applicants. When the benefits of an employee or a job outweighs the time and cost involved, selection methods are most useful; utility is directly affected by validity, administrative fees, and the value of the job to the organization.
Well-developed interviews clarified expectations and enabled me to assess whether there was a strong person–job and person–organization fit. Some advice to employers? I suggest conducting job analyses, using structured behavioral interviews, and developing a benchmark answer / a scoring guide. Consequently, these practices improve reliability, enhance validity, and ultimately increase the overall utility of the interview process.
