Was misst das strukturierte Einstellungsinterview? - Studien zur Konstruktvalidität des Multimodalen Interviews
Loading...
Files
Date
Authors
Publisher
Philipps-Universität Marburg
Supervisors
Abstract
Employment interviews enjoy a large acceptance throughout the
world although their prognostic validity was considered bad for a long time.
In the meantime, however, there are some meta-analyses, which document the
prognostic validity and reliability by the so-called structured interview.
In particular the behaviour description interview (BDI) and the situational
interview (SI) became generally accepted in the scientific literature.
Both are also components of the multimodal interview (MMI) of Schuler
(1989, 1992).
Research, however, is needed with the investigation of the construct validity.
So far validity-studies were almost exclusively accomplished in the sense of a
nomological net, and therefore research analysed the relationships between the
interview total score and different external constructs (e.g. verbal
intelligence, self monitoring). With this procedure it still remains unclear
to what extent structured interviews succeed in measuring the dimensions
(e.g. team ability and assertiveness) specified in the work analysis.
One possibility to work on this question is to analyse convergent validity and
discriminant validity of the dimensions assessed within the selection
instrument. Following Kolk (2002) this procedure is termed internal
construct validitation, and it is usually done with the help of the
multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).
Even though a corresponding procedure has been common for years in the
assessment center research, only one comparable interview study (Schuler, 1989
resp. Schuler & Funke, 1989) has been conducted.
Without reporting the empirical data, the authors came to the conclusion that
the construct validity of structured interviews is small.
The accurate measurement of the dimensions is, however, a fundamental
condition for the construction of prognostically valid selection instruments.
Therefore the goal of the present dissertation is to investigate the (internal)
construct validity of the structured interview and possible factors of
influence.
In the first study (N = 110), the construct validity of the multimodal
interview (MMI) was examined. While the analyses of the multitrait-multimethod
matrix (MTMM) indicate a low (internal) construct validity (mean convergent
validity .24 and mean discriminant validity .41), the inspection of the
nomological net allows the conclusion of positive construct validity.
In a further evaluation the effects on the multitrait-multimethod matrix are
examined which result from the fact that identical dimensions are partly
judged by identical observers and partly by different observers (common
observer variance). In contrast to assessment center research these turn
out as negligible.
Which consequences result from recognizing dimensions on performance and
convergent validity? Kleinmann (1993) could show that participants in an
assessment center (AC) perform better if they accurately identify the
dimensions. He also could demonstrate that the extent of recognizing the
dimensions affects convergent validity. In our second study (N = 95),
the substantial considerations and results of this investigation were
transferred to the structured interview and replicated.
Furthermore the correlations between evaluation in the AC respective interview
and the extent of recognizing the dimensions in the AC respective interview
were computed. The results indicate that recognizing the dimensions is an
ability or a talent, which can be measured relatively independently from
the underlying selection instrument.
Which effects does the announcement of the dimensions (transparency) have on
the construct validity in the structured interview? We followed up this
question in two independent experimental studies (study A with N = 123,
B with N = 176). Compatible conclusions resulted for both studies.
Thus we observed in both studies an increase in performance with transparency.
This could not be expected due to assessment center (AC) research.
However, as predicted, we could confirm a higher observer agreement in the
transparency condition. In addition we could show that conforming with our
hypothesis, internal construct validity of the MMI increases with transparency.
Furthermore, as expected in study B, the correlation between MMI and a
criterion (AC) tended to be lower under conditions of transparency than
under non-transparency.
The implications of these results for practice and suggestions for further research are discussed.
Review
Metadata
Contributors
Supervisor:
Dates
Created: 2003Issued: 2003-05-08Updated: 2018-06-29
Faculty
Fachbereich Psychologie
Publisher
Philipps-Universität Marburg
Language
ger
Data types
DoctoralThesis
Keywords
assessment centermultitrait multimethod matricesconstruct validitystructured interviewpersonnel selectionconfirmatory factor analysis
DFG-subjects
Strukturiertes InterviewAssessment CenterKonstruktvaliditätPersonalauswahlMultitrait-multimethod matrix, Strukturgleichungsmodell
DDC-Numbers
150
show more
Richter, Gerald: Was misst das strukturierte Einstellungsinterview? - Studien zur Konstruktvalidität des Multimodalen Interviews. : Philipps-Universität Marburg 2003-05-08. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17192/z2003.0109.
License
This item has been published with the following license: In Copyright