In recruitment, interviews are some of the most commonly used techniques for selections. However, many researchers have constantly criticised this process, but this is used in most of the selection processes. The report will study that how valid and reliable these two tasks are and for that it is important to discuss the meaning and definition of validity and reliability (Schaufeli and Taris, 2014). Another important discussion in the report will be the variety of interviews that begins with traditional types, will be explained and analysed in the report. Another important point to be discussed in the report is standardising, and improvement of the whole process is also very important, and it helps in bringing reliability and validity in the process (Schaufeli and Taris, 2014).
There will be an outlook that will discuss that not every process can be reliable and valid. This part of the report will discuss the selection process and interviews as the main topic that will refer mainly to these two terms (Huang et al, 2013.). Moreover, the report will deal with personal interview of the candidate, and it excludes many things like screening on telephone or selection methods that face many weaknesses and this is why it will clearly become an interview that is not at all valid and reliable by nature, but it does fill some important vacant posts which cannot be replaced (Huang et al, 2013.).
How might employee selection process be improved in terms of validity and reliability?
First, it is important to understand the meaning of reliability and validity in connection with the recruitment process. Reliability means that selection process, tests and also results that ensures that the process is consistent with nature and do not have incidences where it vary with the timeline, place or different kind of subjects at the same time (Huang et al, 2013.). Reliability helps in measuring the consistency that helps in prediction and the person doing it continues to predict the overall performance with an equal degree of success. In other words, when there are two interviews at different place and time and the interviewer is also different, with different question under the same type of condition and also happens to have same applicants that will help in bringing same kind of outcomes which means the most suitable candidate will be chosen (Sadikoglu and Zehir, 2010). It is also possible that to maintain the overall conditions, the main applicants and the overall structure is also maintained along with other conditions of the assessment. Therefore, by comparing the results, information about the reliability can be understood. However, conducting these tests are not a very process and many times it is impossible to get the guarantee for equal conditions for every series as well as it also helps in providing important sets of questions with somewhat similar context but with different formulations (Sadikoglu and Zehir, 2010). Moreover, there are a number of applicants that are also willing to take part in the selection process for the second time, and this is why there are few features from many issues that arise after testing the reliability. As far as, validity is concerned, its measurement is not very easy and it is also important to understand that both the concepts are interconnected with each other (Sadikoglu and Zehir, 2010). Reliability is important and a prerequisite step for validity which means that it is important at the same time is not sufficient to ensure validity. This can be easily explained as when a test is unreliable by nature, and then it produces a result that is a very different assumption from the present behaviour of an individual, then how can someone believe it can give good results for future behaviour (Nuechterlein et al, 2008). In the whole selection process, validity holds an important place as it refers to the extent to which performance of the selection can be attached to the performance of the job. The main purpose of validity is to measure the correctness of the prediction that can make from success in the employment. Validation consists of factors that can analyse the match between the expected or predicted performance and the final performance (Nuechterlein et al, 2008). Validity can be further described as a case where when employees are selected in a selection process or an interview and eventually that consists of the best solutions out of all other candidates for the specific job. There are some concerns regarding verifications of the validity and although, it is specifically suitable for two only where one will ask for the same candidate again, and it is not easy to decide whether they are willing to participate or not, (Kluemper and Rosen, 2009). It is clearly very difficult to determine that the interviews are reliable or not and also the recruitment methods are valid or not. Although both the concept help in setting the standards that are very useful to build the confidence in the complete process of selection (Kluemper and Rosen, 2009).
Interview are of different types but can be classified in three important types: -
The individual interview is when every candidate has to compete directly with one another candidate or interviews in series that takes various forms of series interviews (Matthes and Kohring, 2008). Above all, there are number of panel interview where proper interrogation can be conducted and therefore it is right to imagine different situation with number of positions for the interviewers that the manager of the department in small companies, or a personal manager who has some technical understanding or the panel of many senior officials who are sitting at one place and have a large committees at some of the public services and there is also a variation in many opportunities and possibilities (Matthes and Kohring, 2008).
The obvious or the traditional interview has many features that can be questioned from time to time regarding validity and reliability and under normal conditions it is not structured. It is important to understand that the person who interviews from time to time questions many applicants always has a different set of questions (Marsh et al, 2008). The first step is to examine the situation step by step and considers all the weaknesses in it. There are a number of reasons for not to have belief in the consistency of the overall results since the interviews are carried by a human being after all, and this is why, there will always be some amount of mistake in the judgement of a person by his or her behaviour or mood (Marsh et al, 2008).
Personal communication is very crucial, and it bears all the disadvantages or shortcomings, and this is why it cannot be called as a perfect method for right judgement. The overall process of communication also helps in understanding some normal obstacles that are bound to happen like perception filtering while receiving, or decoding the complete message (Easterbrook et al, 2008). This is why, when the two interviewers will not be able to interpret or even assess the information in the same manner and even the same interrogator or interviewer will interview every candidate differently and will have some fluctuation in interpreting the data or assessing the complete period (Easterbrook et al, 2008). Therefore, it can state securely that when an examiner rejects one person just because he is in no mood or do not like his or her work or because of the bad weather although recommend him or her on different other incidences. There are a number of other factors as well that plays a very crucial role here as well like when there is a study that shows the judgement were actually influenced by the series of interviews and the manager who interviewed three or four candidates that are not appropriate, when interviews the slightly better candidate, he or she receives a favourable response (Highhouse, 2008). There is also an interruption at many occasions that proves that interview may come out to be very disastrous to achieve the consistency. Here the candidate many times, becomes insecure which do not happen otherwise. Moreover, he or she can be worse in comparison to other candidates without any obstacle (Lievens et al, 2008). Similarly, people can easily create a number of deficiencies in the validity process and especially in a situation when a judgement has to be taken everything get affected, and it is important to consider it all since it is something related to a meeting between two strangers and it is impossible that any person is not biased in one or the other way (Turker, 2009). Some people will conveniently argue that by having long conversations may overcome the fear and people get comfortable in sharing right information. Further, it may also help in curing the halo effect and because the main question here is to overcome the first impression and spend sufficient amount of time to other people and not just 5 minutes (Sackett, and Lievens, 2008).
There is horn effect which just cannot be avoided in normal circumstances and there are some interviewers who are content while applying and through their resume and this is why, it tend to have some question that confirms that the first impression is completely prejudiced (Davenport, 2013). In this specific case, it is not necessary that how long one interview takes. Moreover, there are some interviews that cannot be avoided and it is therefore artificially distorted completely and comes under completely stressful circumstances. This is a situation which hardly comes in the job for which the candidate is applying for (Romano et al, 2009). There are some extreme opinions that also suggests that the only type of validity that the interview have is just to test that whether people have the capacity to cope with any stressful situation. This also refers to many arguments that show that it is important for many areas to have a suitable performance that cannot be tested in a discussion (Romano et al, 2009).
It is important to ask a right question while demonstrating the abilities or at the time of testing them that can be repeated from time to time in some completely different situations at work for a very long period (Herriot, 1989). Team work and coordination cannot be tested in a situation which is more confronted easily. This is why, it is important to prove that these traits with the use of other methods and at the same time, there have been many attempts that can easily improve the whole suitability of the interviews. There can be just one concept that can be referred to the role of interviewer or selector (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2012). The main feature of a selector is that he or she should have a skill of minimum talking and ask all questions that are open by nature, have an unbiased approach, be well aware of the first impression and how to exercise the halo effect and also be able to take proper notes. Also, the length must vary in this situation and the measures that seem to be convincing initially can be questioned at the later stage and they must be exhaustive by nature (Pilbeam, and Corbridge, 2010). These measures do not seem convincing with respect to reliability and validity, and this can be very counterproductive at a time. It is important to note here that different type of treatment automatically shows an unequal or biased treatment since one get more time to present his ideas or capabilities than another (Pilbeam, and Corbridge, 2010).
The report has discussed in detail about the reliability and validity tests and how both the tests help in improving the selection process in a company and whether the traditional method is better or far from fulfilling the basic standards of a good process of section and recruitment.
Gatewood, R., Feild, H. and Barrick, M., 2015. Human resource selection. Nelson Education.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Taris, T.W., 2014. A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43-68). Springer Netherlands.
Huang, Y.H., Zohar, D., Robertson, M.M., Garabet, A., Lee, J. and Murphy, L.A., 2013. Development and validation of safety climate scales for lone workers using truck drivers as exemplar. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 17, pp.5-19.
Sadikoglu, E. and Zehir, C., 2010. Investigating the effects of innovation and employee performance on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm performance: An empirical study of Turkish firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 127(1), pp.13-26.
Nuechterlein, K.H., Green, M.F., Kern, R.S., Baade, L.E., Barch, D.M., Cohen, J.D., Essock, S., Fenton, W.S., Frese III, F.J., Gold, J.M. and Goldberg, T., 2008. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 1: test selection, reliability, and validity. American Journal of Psychiatry.
Kluemper, D.H. and Rosen, P.A., 2009. Future employment selection methods: evaluating social networking web sites. Journal of managerial Psychology, 24(6), pp.567-580.
Matthes, J. and Kohring, M., 2008. The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), pp.258-279.
Marsh, H.W., Jayasinghe, U.W. and Bond, N.W., 2008. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American psychologist, 63(3), p.160.
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.A. and Damian, D., 2008. Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. In Guide to advanced empirical software engineering (pp. 285-311). Springer London.
Highhouse, S., 2008. Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), pp.333-342.
Lievens, F., Peeters, H. and Schollaert, E., 2008. Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research. Personnel Review, 37(4), pp.426-441.
Turker, D., 2009. Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of business ethics, 85(4), pp.411-427.
Sackett, P.R. and Lievens, F., 2008. Personnel selection. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, pp.419-450.
Davenport, T.H., 2013. Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press.
Romano, P.S., Mull, H.J., Rivard, P.E., Zhao, S., Henderson, W.G., Loveland, S., Tsilimingras, D., Christiansen, C.L. and Rosen, A.K., 2009. Validity of selected AHRQ patient safety indicators based on VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Health services research, 44(1), pp.182-204.
Herriot, P. (ed.) 1989 Assessment and Selection in Organizations. Chichester: John Wiley.
Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. 2012 Human Resource Management at Work. Fourth Edition. London: CIPD.
Pilbeam, S. and Corbridge, M. 2010 People Resourcing and Talent Planning: HRM in Practice. London: CIPD.