Reliability addresses whether a selection device measures the same characteristic consistently. For example, if a test is reliable, any individual’s score should remain fairly stable over time, assuming that the characteristics it’s measuring are also stable. The importance of reliability should be self-evident. No selection device can be effective if it’s low in reliability. Using such a device would be the equivalent of weighing yourself every day on an erratic scale. If the scale is unreliable—randomly fluctuating, say, 10 to 15 pounds every time you step on it—the results will not mean much. To be effective predictors, selection devices must possess an acceptable level of consistency.

Any selection device that a manager uses—such as application forms, tests, interviews, or physical examinations—must also demonstrate validity. Validity is based on a proven relationship between the selection device used and some relevant measure. For example, we mentioned earlier a firefighter applicant who was wheelchair bound. Because of the physical requirements of a firefighter’s job, someone confined to a wheelchair would be unable to pass the physical endurance tests. In that case, denying employment could be considered valid, but requiring the same physical endurance tests for the dispatching job would not be job related. Federal law prohibits managers from using any selection device that cannot be shown to be directly related to successful job performance. That constraint goes for entrance tests, too; managers must be able to demonstrate that, once on the job, individuals with high scores on such a test outperform individuals with low scores. Consequently, the burden is on the organization to verify that any selection device it uses to differentiate applicants is related to job performance.

Managers can use a number of selection devices to reduce accept and reject errors. The best-known devices include written and performance-simulation tests and interviews. Let’s briefly review each device, giving particular attention to its validity in predicting job performance.

Typical written tests include tests of intelligence, aptitude, ability, and interest. Such tests have long been used as selection devices, although their popularity has run in cycles. Written tests were widely used after World War II, but beginning in the late 1960s, fell out of favor. They were frequently characterized as discriminatory, and many organizations could not validate that their written tests were job related. Today, written tests have made a comeback, although most of them are now Internet based.16 Experts estimate that online personality tests are used by employers to assess personality, skills, cognitive abilities, and other traits of some 60 to 70 percent of prospective employees.17 Managers are increasingly aware that poor hiring decisions are costly and that properly designed tests can reduce the likelihood of making such decisions. In addition, the cost of developing and validating a set of written tests for a specific job has declined significantly.

Research shows that tests of intellectual ability, spatial and mechanical ability, perceptual accuracy, and motor ability are moderately valid predictors for many semiskilled and unskilled operative jobs in an industrial organization.18 However, an enduring criticism of written tests is that intelligence and other tested characteristics can be somewhat removed from the actual performance of the job itself.19 For example, a high score on an intelligence test is not necessarily a good indicator that the applicant will perform well as a computer programmer. This criticism has led to an increased use of performance-simulation tests.

What better way to find out whether an applicant for a technical writing position at Apple can write technical manuals than to ask him or her to do it? That’s why there’s an increasing interest in performance-simulation tests. Undoubtedly, the enthusiasm for these tests lies in the fact that they’re based on job analysis data and, therefore, should more easily meet the requirement of job relatedness than do written tests. Performance-simulation tests are made up of actual job behaviors rather than substitutes. The best-known performance-simulation tests are work sampling (a miniature replica of the job) and assessment centers (simulating real problems one may face on the job). The former is suited to persons applying for routine jobs, the latter to managerial personnel.

The advantage of performance simulation over traditional testing methods should be obvious. Because its content is essentially identical to job content, performance simulation should be a better predictor of short-term job performance and should minimize potential employment discrimination allegations. Additionally, because of the nature of their content and the methods used to determine content, well-constructed performance-simulation tests are valid predictors.

The interview, along with the application form, is an almost universal selection device. Few of us have ever gotten a job without undergoing one or more interviews. The irony of this is that the value of an interview as a selection device has been the subject of considerable debate.20

Interviews can be reliable and valid selection tools, but too often they’re not. To be effective predictors, interviews need to be:

• structured,

• well organized, and have

• interviewers asking relevant questions.21

But those conditions don’t characterize many interviews. The typical interview in which applicants are asked a varying set of essentially random questions in an informal setting often provides little in the way of valuable information. All kinds of potential biases can creep into interviews if they’re not well structured and standardized.

What does research tell us about interviewing?

• Prior knowledge about the applicant biases the interviewer’s evaluation.

• The interviewer tends to hold a stereotype of what represents a good applicant.

• The interviewer tends to favor applicants who share his or her own attitudes.

• The order in which applicants are interviewed will influence evaluations.

• The order in which information is elicited during the interview will influence evaluations.

• Negative information is given unduly high weight.

• The interviewer may make a decision concerning the applicant’s suitability within the first four or five minutes of the interview.

• The interviewer may forget much of the interview’s content within minutes after its conclusion.

• The interview is most valid in determining an applicant’s intelligence, level of motivation, and interpersonal skills.

• Structured and well-organized interviews are more reliable than unstructured and unorganized ones.22

One last popular modification to interviews has been the behavioral or situation interview.23 In this type of interview, applicants are observed not only for what they say, but also how they behave. Applicants are presented with situations—often complex problems involving role playing—and are asked to “deal” with the situation. This type of interview provides an opportunity for interviewers to see how a potential employee will behave and how he or she will react under stress. Proponents of behavioral interviewing indicate such a process is much more indicative of an applicant’s performance than simply having the individual tell the interviewer what he or she has done. In fact, research in this area indicates that behavioral interviews are nearly eight times more effective for predicting successful job performance.24

Interviewers who treat the recruiting and hiring of employees as if the applicants must be sold on the job and exposed only to an organization’s positive characteristics are likely to have a workforce that is dissatisfied and prone to high turnover.25

During the hiring process, every job applicant develops a set of expectations about the company and about the job for which he or she is interviewing. When the information an applicant receives is excessively inflated, a number of things happen that have potentially negative effects on the company: (1) Mismatched applicants are less likely to withdraw from the search process. (2) Inflated information builds unrealistic expectations so new employees are likely to become quickly dissatisfied and to resign prematurely. (3) New hires are prone to become disillusioned and less committed to the organization when they face the unexpected harsh realities of the job. (4) In many cases, these individuals feel that they were misled during the hiring process and may become problem employees.

To increase job satisfaction among employees and reduce turnover, managers should consider a realistic job preview (RJP).26 An RJP includes both positive and negative information about the job and the company. For example, in addition to the positive comments typically expressed in the interview, the applicant is told of the less attractive aspects of the job. For instance, he or she might be told that there are limited opportunities to talk to coworkers during work hours, that chances of being promoted are slim, or that work hours fluctuate so erratically that employees may be required to work during what are usually off hours (nights and weekends). Research indicates that applicants who have been given a realistic job preview hold lower and more realistic job expectations for the jobs they will be performing and are better able to cope with the frustrating elements of the job than are applicants who have been given only inflated information. The result is fewer unexpected resignations by new employees. For managers, realistic job previews offer a major insight into the HRM process.

Presenting only positive job aspects to an applicant may initially entice him or her to join the organization, but it may be a decision that both parties quickly regret.