A Novel Fuzzy Scoring Approach of Behavioural Interviews in Personnel Selection
Keywords:Personnel selection, Fuzzy Scoring, behavioural interview, storytelling.
AbstractThe need for a behavioural interview scoring strategy is a critical element in order to ensure an optimal organizational human capital. Behavioural interview based on storytelling approach is a technique through which career seekers are required to provide clear details of how they have handled such workloads in the past. The whole literature assumes the existence of strong correlations between the score received on the selection interview and subsequent job performance, so in this paper we intend to highlight the relationship between these two assessments as well as the modelling using fuzzy logic of a CAR alternative system for scoring the selection interview. The results demonstrated that there is a very significant association between the classic interview score and work performance (r=0.894 to p<0.01). Furthermore, there is also a significant correlation coefficient of r=0.925 at a p<0.01, between the fuzzy CAR score and job performance, thus the validity and the optimization of the procedure are fully proven.
Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K. & Gilliland, S. W. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and above g and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, 53, 325−351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00204.x
Day, A. L. & Carroll, S. A. (2003). Situational and patterned behavior description interviews: A comparison of their validity, correlates, and perceived fairness. Human Performance, 16, 25−47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1601_2
Gibb, J. L. & Taylor, P. J. (2003). Past experience versus situational employment: Interview questions in a New Zealand social service agency. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 41, 371−383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411103041003008
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V. & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x
Honer, J., Wright, C. W. & Sablynski, C. J. (2007). Puzzle interviews: What are they and what do they measure? Applied H.R.M. Research, 11, 79−96.
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L. & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897−913. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.897
Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., Lievens, F., Kleinmann, M., Brändli, M., Fraefel, L. & König, C. J. (2013). Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 326-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031257
Klehe, U. & Latham, G. (2005). The predictive and incremental validity of the situational and patterned behavior description interviews for team playing behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 108−115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00305.x
Klehe, U. & Latham, G. (2006). What would you do – really or ideally? Constructs underlying the behavior description interview and the situational interview in predicting typical versus maximum performance. Human Performance, 19, 357−382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1904_3
Lievens, F., De Corte, W. & Brysse, K. (2003). Applicant perceptions of selection procedures: The role of selection information, belief in tests, and comparative anxiety. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 67−77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00227
Lievens, F., Highhouse, S. & De Corte, W. (2005). The importance of traits and abilities in supervisors' hirability decisions as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 453−470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26093
Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L. Baron, H. & Page, R. (1999). An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 52, 359-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00165.x
Taylor, P. J. & Small, B. (2012). Asking applicants what they would do versus what they did do: A meta-analytic comparison of situational and past behavior employment interview questions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 277−294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317902320369712
Topor, D. J., Colarelli, S. M. & Han, K. (2007). Influences of traits and assessment methods on human resource practitioners' evaluations of job applicants. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 361−376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9033-6
Wilk, S. L. & Cappelli, P. (2003). Understanding the determinants of employer use of selection methods. Personnel Psychology, 56, 103-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00145.x
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs