[MUSIC] Alternatives to structured interviews. To make an informed evidence based decision whether or not to use structured interviews or any other selection method. It is necessary to make a comparison with available alternatives. A very wide range of selection methods are used around the world. In France for example, graphology, the analysis of a candidate's handwriting remains very widespread. A candidate applying for a job in France will routinely be asked to make the application in his or her own handwriting. Though it must be said it is also occasionally used in the UK and elsewhere. The logic of graphology is seductive. We all have different handwriting styles so that must implicate something. Doesn't it? Well, actually not, or at least as far as predicting job performance is concerned. The British Psychological Society, in 1993, published a review on research on graphology over the previous 30 years, and concluded that it was not a viable method of job prediction. But in the limited time and space we have today, I'm going to limit my comparisons to just three methods with proven good to high predictive validity. Cognitive ability tests, work sample tests and assessment centers. And we shall ask whether or not they should be used instead of structured interviews some or all of the time. Firstly then, cognitive ability or intelligence tests. Is the answer to selectional promotion problem just to appoint the person with the highest IQ? What is certainly true is that cognitive ability tests have been reliably demonstrated to have high predictive power across a wide range of jobs and occupations. IQ is strongly related to an ability to learn new skills. So intelligent employees will tend to respond well to any future training. Cognitive ability tests are also fairly cheap and you don't need different tests for different jobs. The same test will do just fine across a wide range of jobs. So high predictive power, a wide range of applications, and relatively low cost. There are some serious positives for cognitive ability tests. But, and it is a big but, there is a downside. Cognitive ability tests are discriminatory. Individuals from certain ethnic or other groups score less well on standard CATs. And for those groups, the test score underestimates their actual job performance. In some countries, notably the USA, this has led to legal challenges against their use. So there has to be considerable precaution in the use of CATs through they undoubtedly provide very useful information. The second alternative is a Work Sample Test. A Work Sample Test involves as the name suggests, doing a sample as the work required for the job. So a work sample test for a bricklayer would involve building a wall. For a chauffeur, it would involve driving a car. For a chef, cooking a meal, and so on. It is not surprising that work sample tests have high predictive power. The candidates are just being asked to do in the test what they're going to have to do in the job. From the candidate's point of view, too, they have the advantage of making it clear what the job will actually involve. But they are often expensive. A realistic reproduction of the work task may involve material, equipment and so on. Each test is also going to be very job specific. A different job, even a slightly different job, requires a different test. Well there is no doubt that work sample tests are a very effective technique. And an employer should certainly considering using them for some jobs. If you're considering employing a brick layer or a chef. It could well be the best option. Because the candidate's ability to do the job, could be demonstrated relatively, in a work samples test. Whereas for other jobs, the time scales required to demonstrate competence or the sensitivity of the task would make the valid method nonviable. Thirdly and lastly here, assessment centers. Assessment centers have grown a lot in popularity in recent decades, and they are not a place, but a method. The method involves bringing candidates together in small groups of, say, five to ten and putting them through a series of tests including interviews and work samples, leaderless discussion groups, and so on, over a period of a day, or several days. So they're extremely thorough and allow the assessors to get a very detailed look at the candidate and his or her strengths and weaknesses. Candidates tend to like them because there are procedures providing a range of opportunities to demonstrate their full potential. However the fact is the overall assessment centers have less predictive power than some of the components of the assessment center. In particular work samples, cognitive ability tests or structured interviews. So if you want higher prediction at lower cost, go for one of those. In the next and last session on interviews, we're going to discuss some other forms of interview before summarizing the practical conclusions of what we have covered, thank you. [MUSIC]
