Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:06:52.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interviewer Resistance to Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

James O’Brien
James O’Brien*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
*
E-mail: jobrie3@uwo.ca, Address: University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 367 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Aubrey Dan Program in Management and Organizational Studies, Faculty of Social Science, University of Western Ontario

References

Altman, D., & Bland, M. (1995). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. British Medical Journal, 311, 485.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 79, 655–702.Google Scholar
Chapman, D., & Zweig, D. (2005). Developing a nomological network for interview structure: Antecedents and consequences of the structured selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 58, 673–702.Google Scholar
Gehrlein, T. M., Dipboye, R. L., & Shahani, C. (1993). Nontraditional validity calculations and differential interviewer experience: Implications for selection interviews. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 457–469.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.Google Scholar
Graves, L. M., & Karren, R. J. (1999). Are some interviewers better than others? In Eder, R. W. & Harris, M. (Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 243–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 333–342.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184–190.Google Scholar
Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In Koehler, D. J. & Harvey, N. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316–337). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Whitney, D., & Smith, M. (1996). Individual differences in interviewer ratings: the impact of standardization, consensus discussion, and sampling error on the validity of a structured interview. Personnel Psychology, 49, 85–102.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2007). How to think straight about psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Sager, C. E., Burnfield, J. L., & Heffner, T. S. (2006). The variability of criterion-related validity estimates among interviewers and interview panels. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 193–205.Google Scholar