REGULAR ARTICLE

Structured or unstructured personnel interviews?

by Amir Azarpazhooh, William H. Ryding, and James L. Leake

Amir Azarpazhooh, DDS, MSc, Abstract

FRCD(C), is a PhD/Specialty student in The challenge for health care managers is finding, hiring and retaining appropriately
the Department of Endodontics, a re-
qualified and motivated employees. One useful method of gaining information about
searcher with the Community Dental
Health Services Research Unit, and a and insight into a candidate is interviewing, which can be classified as structured,
part-time lecturer in Dental Public Health unstructured or semi-structured. The disadvantages of unstructured interviews are
with the Faculty of Dentistry, University
reviewed; ways to enhance the psychometric properties of interviews by adding struc-
of Toronto.
ture are reviewed and summarized; and the possible reasons for underutilization of
structured interviews are explored.
Willliam H. Ryding, BDS, DPD, MBA, is
the director of the dental programs
of two public health agencies in Ontario Résumé
(Hastings and Prince Edward Counties Le défi pour les gestionnaires de soins consiste à trouver, à embaucher et à retenir des
Health Unit, Belleville and Haliburton,
employés compétents et motivés. L’entrevue est une méthode utile pour obtenir un
Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health
Unit, Port Hope). He is also an adjunct aperçu du candidat et de l’information à son sujet. Cette entrevue peut être struc-
professor with the Faculty of Dentistry, turée, non structurée ou semi-structurée. Les auteurs ont analysé les inconvénients
University of Toronto.
des entrevues non structurées. De plus, ils ont analysé et résumé les moyens
James L. Leake, DDS, MSc, DDPH, d’améliorer les caractéristiques psychométriques des entrevues en les structurant da-
FRCD(C), is a Professor Emeritus in the vantage. Enfin, ils ont évalué les raisons possibles de la sous-utilisation des entrevues
Department of Community Dentistry,
structurées.
Faculty of Dentistry at the University of

T
Toronto.

he World Health Report 2000 broadly defines human resources for

health as “…the stock of all individuals engaged in the promotion,
protection, or improvement of population health.“1 Every health care
system should have skilled personnel in order to function effectively
and to maintain high-quality services. Human resources are the most
significant component of any health system and can account for nearly one
half of the system’s total expenses.
The performance of any health care system depends on the availability, ef-
fort and skill mix of the appropriately qualified and motivated personnel.2
Therefore, the challenge for health care managers is finding, hiring and re-
taining the right employees. By meeting this challenge, health care managers
can deliver high-quality services while minimizing staff turnover costs.3

Human resource selection

Unstructured interview
In health care, interviewing is a popular method for uncovering the knowl-
edge, skills, abilities and behaviours of prospective personnel.3 It is consid-
ered a useful method of gaining information about and insight into the
person.4 Interviews can be classified according to their degree of structure.
They can be structured, unstructured or semi-structured, the latter a combi-
nation of the first two.
The most common format is an unstructured or non-directive interview,
which is unplanned, haphazard and inconsistent,5 and defined by informal,
conversational questions. There is no formalized scoring guide to assess the
quality of each answer.6, 7

Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008 33

Azarpazhooh, Ryding, and Leake

Since the 1960s, testing has been affected by three major terned,” in this review the term “structured” describes formal-
legal developments:7 ized structured interviews.
Structure is defined as “… a series of job-related questions
1. Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity) of the U.S. Civil with pre-determined answers that are consistently applied
Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 and enacted on No- across all interviews for a particular job.”7 Huffcutt and
vember 21, 1991 as The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which pro- Arthur15 defined interview structure as “…the reduction in pro-
hibits any tests to be designed, intended or used to cedural variance across applicants, which can translate into
discriminate against protected groups;8 the degree of discretion that an interviewer is allowed in con-
ducting the interview.” Campion et al.16 defined structure as
2. Court cases resulting from Title VII such as Griggs vs. “…any enhancement of the interview that is intended to in-
Duke Power Co.9 and Albemarle Paper Co. vs. Moody,10 crease psychometric properties by increasing standardization
which prohibit tests and other selection criteria if they or otherwise assisting the interviewer in determining what
have an adverse impact on protected minorities and are questions to ask or how to evaluate responses.” This stan-
not entirely job-related; and dardization ensures that candidates are consistently evalu-
ated. Applicant answers to the same questions are graded and
3. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Proce- anchored and the scores compared at the end of the inter-
dures, which define the requirements of the design and view.
implementation of selection systems.11 In a structured interview, interviewers can pay more atten-
tion to candidate responses as structure may reduce infor-
In Canada, interviewers must be familiar with the Employ- mation-processing requirements and potential for overload.
ment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Recom- Also, responses can be judged more systematically and accu-
mendations for interviewing from the Canadian Human Rights rately using pre-defined evaluation standards.16
Commission12 are summarized in Table 1. The literature re-
lated to selection interviewing between 1918 until the late Search strategy
1980s assumed that employment interviewing, as a selection A comprehensive literature search was conducted as fol-
method, had limited validity or predictive value of future job lows: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and its allied versions, Cumulative
performance,3 little effectiveness and potential for discrimi- Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, Evidence Based
nation and bias.13 They also criticized those interviews as a Medicine of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,
nearly worthless selection tool that often did more harm than Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of
good.13 Other disadvantages of unstructured informal inter- Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EMBASE, Health and Psy-
views are as follows:7 chosocial Instruments, HealthSTAR/Ovid Healthstar, and In-
ternational Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Also the World Wide
• highly susceptible to distortion, bias and legal attack; Web was searched using Google Scholar, Google Books and
• usually indefensible if legally contested; Google for the first 100 English-language sites with the title
• no real validity, although they may have apparent validity, “Structured Interview.” The results were imported into End-
• no evidence of reliability; Note software reference manager Version 8.0 and duplicates
• subject to various errors (such as halo, first impression, removed. Reference lists of identified articles were checked.
contrast effect, similarity, leniency or severity, central ten- The following journals were hand searched to identify other
dency and stereotypes); articles and additional information relevant to the research
• not totally job-related; question:
• highly inconsistent due to being the most flexible selec-
tion technique; • HR Professional from August/September 2002 to February/
• subject to interviewer bias to his/her preferred qualities; March 2006,
• interviewers uninformed about the selection mistakes; • Journal of Applied Psychology from 1995 to present, and
and • Personnel Psychology from 1995 to present.
• unsubstantiated confidence in this method.
Finally, two human resource managers, the librarian at Rot-
Structured interview – The alternative man School of Management at the University of Toronto and
In the 1980s, Arvey and Campion14 reviewed articles on em- the Director of the Personnel Psychology Centre of the Public
ployment interviews between 1975 and 1982 and concluded Commission of Canada for the Organizational Readiness Of-
that the use of a panel interview and job analysis to form fice, Public Works and Government Services Canada were con-
questions could improve interview reliability and validity. tacted for further information.
Since then, researchers have suggested the use of more for-
malized structured interviews to avoid perceived flaws. While
other terms have been used interchangeably with “structure,”
for example, “standardized,” “guided,” “systematic“ and “pat-

34 Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008

 STRUCTURED OR UNSTRUCTURED PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS?
TABLE 1
Screening and selection in employment interviews

Subject Avoid asking Preferred Comment

Name - about name change, whether changed by ask after selection if necessary to check on pre-
court order, marriage, or other reason viously held jobs or educational credentials
- maiden name

Address for addresses outside Canada ask place and duration of current or recent
address

Age for birth certificates, baptismal records, or about ask whether applicant is eligible to work under if precise age required for benefit plans or other
age in general Canadian laws regarding age restrictions legitimate purposes, it can be determined after
selection

Sex - males and females to fill in different applica- ask whether attendance requirements can be during the interview or after selection, the appli-
tions met cant, for purposes of courtesy, may be asked
- about pregnancy, child bearing plans, or preferred salutation (e.g., Dr., Mr., Mrs., Miss,
child care arrangements or Ms.)

Marital status - whether applicant is single, married, - if transfer or travel is part of the job, can he or information on dependants can be determined
divorced, engaged, separated, widowed or she meet these requirements? after selection if necessary
living common-law - are there any circumstances that might prevent
- whether applicant's spouse may be transferred completion of a minimum service commitment?
- about spouse's employment

Family status about number of children or dependants, child ask if applicant is able to work the required contacts for emergencies and/or details on de-
care arrangements hours and, where applicable, overtime pendants can be determined after selection

National or - about birthplace, nationality of ancestors, since those entitled to work in Canada must be proof of eligibility to work (papers, visas, etc.)
ethnic origin spouse, or other relatives citizens, permanent residents, or hold a valid can be requested after selection
- whether born in Canada for proof of work permit, applicants can be asked whether
citizenship they are legally entitled to work in Canada

Military service about military service in other countries inquire about Canadian military service where
the law gives preference to veterans

Language - mother tongue ask if applicant understands, reads, writes, or testing or scoring applicants for language profi-
- where language skills obtained speaks languages required for the job ciency is not permitted unless job-related
Race or colour about or making any inquiry into race or eye,
skin or hair colour

Photographs for photo to be attached to application or sent photos for security passes or company files can
to interviewer before interview be taken after selection

Religion - whether applicant will work a specific reli- explain the required work shift, and ask employer is bound to reasonably accommodate
gious holiday whether the schedule poses problems for the employee's religious beliefs
- about religious affiliation, church membership, applicant
frequency of church attendance
- for references from clergy or religious leader

Height and no inquiry unless there is evidence they are gen-

weight uine occupational requirements
Disability - for a list of all disabilities, limitations or health The employer should disclose any information
problems on medically related requirements or standards
- whether applicant drinks or uses drugs, has early in the application process, and then ask
ever received psychiatric care or been hospi- whether applicant has any condition that could
talized for emotional problems or received affect his or her ability to do the job, preferably
worker's compensation during a pre-employment medical examination.
A disability is only relevant to applicant’s ability
to do the job if it:
- threatens the safety or property of others
- prevents the applicant from safe and adequate
job performance even when reasonable efforts
are made to accommodate the disability
Medical whether applicant is currently under a physi- medical exams should be conducted after selec-
information cian's care, or receiving counselling or therapy tion and only if an employee's condition is re-
- name of family doctor lated to job duties; employment offer can be
made conditional on successful completion of
medical exam
Pardoned whether applicant has ever been arrested if bonding is a job requirement, ask whether inquiries about criminal record or convictions
conviction and/or convicted or has a criminal record applicant is eligible are discouraged unless related to job duties
Sexual about applicant's sexual orientation contacts for emergencies and/or details on de-
orientation pendants can be determined after selection
the same restrictions that apply to questions
References asked of applicants apply when asking for
employment references
Source: Adopted from Canadian Human Rights Commission. 12

Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008 35

Azarpazhooh, Ryding, and Leake
Results 7. Social pressures: Highly trained, structured interviewers may
Structured interviews have more predictive validity than be perceived as incongruent with, or even counter to, an
unstructured interviews. McDaniel et al.17 conducted a sys- organization’s philosophy or objectives, thus disap-
tematic review and meta-analysis of 160 studies of correla- proved by the organization. Also, negative applicant reac-
tions between interviews and job performance with over tions might lead to premature withdrawal from selection
25,000 subjects. They found that structured interviews, espe- procedures, negative public relations for organizations,
cially when the content of the interview was job specific, were reduced attractiveness of organizations and rejection of
more valid predictors of future performance than unstructured job offers.22
interviews. The typical correlation between the structure and
future performance was almost 0.20. Structure of “structured” interview
Despite the predictive validity of the structured interview, Campion et al.16 reviewed 200 articles and books in order to
its enhanced psychometric properties, fairer elements and summarize, integrate and evaluate how interviews can be
ability to treat the interviewees equally and fairly, it is not structured to improve psychometric properties and reduce
commonly used in personnel selection, for a variety of rea- any biasing effects, therefore improving validity and reliabil-
sons.16, 18-20 ity. They identified 15 components and divided them into two
categories: content, which is the nature of the information
1. Lack of familiarity or awareness: The evidence supporting the that is gathered during the interview, and the evaluation
structured interview is often published in academic jour- process, which helps the interviewer judge the collected in-
nals that are rarely accessible to human resource man- formation.
agers. Furthermore, the validation studies are very The following is a brief summary of the components iden-
complex and technical and not easily understood without tified by Campion et al.16 Components 1-7 are content related
appropriate training. and the rest are evaluation related. While not all components
can be used in every situation, the interview can be easily en-
2. Questioning the credibility: Even if practitioners are aware of hanced by using at least some of the many possible structure
the evidence of structured interviews and cognitive tests, components. These components together with their distinc-
the credibility, relevance and practical usefulness of the tions and implications for each component are summarized in
evidence-based practices may be questioned. Table 2.

3. Legal concerns: Some practitioners incorrectly assume that 1. Base questions on a job analysis
the use of cognitive tests could lead to charges of dis- According to both professional and legal testing guide-
crimination; they do not appreciate that unstructured in- lines, job analysis is the essential requirement for develop-
terviews are subject to validation requirements and to ing valid, structured interviews. Job analyses include
greater legal risk due to their subjective nature.7 worker-oriented methods to determine the knowledge,
skills, abilities and other attributes essential to developing
4. Resource constraint: Lack of resources, budget, time and ex- interview questions, and job-oriented methods to deter-
perienced human resources could lead to underutiliza- mine tasks, equipment and situations in order to word
tion of structured interviews. questions based on the proper terminology and context.

5. Interviewers’ frustration: Experienced interviewers may desire 2. Ask exact same questions of each candidate
the autonomy, challenge and authority given to them in Standardization of questioning is the simplest and earli-
the unstructured interview; a standardized procedure est component of structure that emerged in the literature; it
could be seen as reducing interviewing to a boring, mind- is the defining characteristic of structured interviews. Inter-
less and monotonous exercise,16 which might lead to the views are essentially psychological tests and, as such,
interviewer’s loss of control over the interview and selec- should be standardized. Using the same questions converts
tion decision.21 the interview from a conversation into a scientific instru-
ment.
6. Potential users’ negative reactions: Campion et al.16 predicted
that interviewers would react negatively only to some ele- 3. Limit prompting, follow-up questioning and elaboration on questions
ments of interview structure as summarized in Appendix Although the essential character of the interview is the
1. Others have suggested that highly standardized inter- “dynamic interaction between two people,” the use of
views with components such as limited prompting and prompts and follow-up questions can lead to bias in gather-
follow-up, longer interviews, control of ancillary informa- ing information.
tion and no questions from candidates may cause un-
favourable reactions from both candidates and inter- 4. Use better types of questions
viewers.16 In comparison, unstructured interviews are This includes both the content of the question and the way
more flexible, they allow the communication of attentive, it is asked. The literature shows that certain types of ques-
warm and socially perceptive interviewers,20 and enable tions are used more frequently than others:
the applicants to present themselves more favourably.22

36 Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008

 STRUCTURED OR UNSTRUCTURED PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS?

(a) Future behaviour or situational questions: to explore greater structure with multiple ratings as they can be more
candidate reactions to hypothetical job situations; detailed and thorough.
(b) Past behaviour questions: to explore candidate’s re-
sponsibilities in past jobs, or a particular event and 9. Use detailed anchored rating scales
his/her role in it; should relate to specific behavioural At least four types of anchors have been used:
requirements of the position being offered; (i) Scaled examples: Example answers or illustrations
(c) Background questions: focusing on work experience ed- that candidates might use based on pilot interviews,
ucation and other qualifications related to the position; previous records of answers or brainstorming with
(d) Job knowledge questions: to determine relevant spe- job experts;
cific job knowledge, education or training and support- (ii) Narrative descriptions or definitions of the quality of
ive documentation; answers in order to avoid interviewers’ tendency to
(e) Job samples or simulations related to current job tasks; look for exact matches with example answers;
and (iii) Evaluations of the answers (e.g., excellent, good,
(f) Willingness questions: to explore the candidate’s un- poor); and
derstanding of the job requirements (e.g., travel, shift (iv) Relative comparisons (e.g., answers by the top 20%
work). of candidates).

5. Use longer interview or more questions 10. Take detailed notes

Within reasonable limits, longer interviews (i.e., either The justification for the ratings should be documented to
administration time or the number of questions) should be help reduce memory decay and avoid recency and primacy
well structured as they can provide much more information. effects, especially when ratings are made at the end of the
Time limits vary from 3 to 120 minutes, with a mean of 38.95 interview or are based on multiple questions.
(SD = 25.79) in 38 studies; in 14 studies, the number of Note-taking can be extensive or brief, mandatory or op-
questions range from 4 to 34 with a mean of 16.50 (SD = tional; it can record candidate answers or facts about cre-
8.71). Two-thirds of the interviews in the reviewed literature dentials, or evaluations or judgments, and can occur during
are between 30 and 60 minutes and half contain 15 to 20 or after the interview.
questions.
11. Use multiple interviews
6. Control ancillary information The use of multiple interviewers improves reliability and
Uncontrolled use of ancillary information (such as appli- validity, for example:
cation forms, work histories, test scores, recommendations, (a) it helps interviewers avoid irrelevant inferences
results of previous interviews, transcripts, personnel files) about variables that are not job-related,
can seriously threaten the validity and reliability of the inter- (b) it reduces the impact of idiosyncratic biases among
views if the same information is not available for all candi- individual interviewers,
dates or interviewers, or if interviewers evaluate the (c) it helps avoid random errors,
information differently. To enhance structure, ancillary infor- (d) it results in better recall of information,
mation should be used as a separate predictor, or the inter- (e) it results in more accurate predictions due to the
view should be structured so the information for all range of information and judgments that different in-
candidates is available and evaluated in a standardized man- terviewers contribute, and
ner. (f) the combined scores tend to be more reliable; more
interviewers normally result in a longer test.
7. Do not allow questions from candidate until after the interview
Candidates normally have questions about the organiza- 12. Use same interviewer(s) across all candidates
tion and the job; however, uncontrolled candidate questions An important component of structured interviews is hav-
threaten standardization by changing the interview content ing the same interviewer(s) participate in each interview.
in unpredictable ways. Candidates should be advised at the The interview structure decreases as the number of inter-
outset that they will be given an opportunity to ask ques- viewers increases. As a minimum, at least one interviewer
tions outside of the interview. should be common to all panel interviews.

8. Rate each answer or use multiple scales 13. Do not discuss candidates or answers between interviews
This component has two elements. First is the timing There is a natural tendency for panel interviewers to dis-
frame, that is, rating during or at the end of the interview; cuss candidates both outside of the hiring process and among
the former is more structured than the latter as individual themselves. This may enter irrelevant information into the
responses and the consequent judgments are more directly evaluation process, and can lead to instrumentation effects
linked to each other. such as changing standards between interviews. The interview
The second component is the number of ratings, that is, structure ranges from prohibiting interviewers to discuss can-
multiple ratings or only a single global rating; there is didates between interviews to providing no such direction.

Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008 37

 Azarpazhooh, Ryding, and Leake

TABLE 2
Components of structured interview and their distinctions and implications

Component Distinctions and/or implications for degree of structure

Base questions on a job analysis Job analysis (by worker-oriented or job-oriented methods) is the essential requirement for developing valid, structured interviews

Ask exact same questions of 1 Exact same questions in the exact same order for all candidates
each candidate 2 Same questions but with more flexibility in order to customize the interview based on the interesting lines of discussion
Questions can be asked from the lists of specific initial questions, example questions or arrays or patterns of questions
3 No actual question. Interviewers may focus on outlines of topics or job requirements and the desirable candidate attributes to
fulfill them. Scales or forms may also be completed
Content related components

4 No structure, therefore more freedom for interviewers to ask whatever questions/hybrids

Limit prompting, follow-up question- 1 Prompting, follow-up questioning or elaboration are totally prohibited
ing, and elaboration on questions 2 Only limited or pre-planned prompts and follow-up questions are allowed
3 Unlimited use of probes and follow-ups are allowed and even encouraged
4 No guidance

Use better types of questions Both for the content of the question and the way it is asked

Use longer interview/ Within reasonable limits, longer interviews (administration time and/or number of questions) can provide much more information
more questions

Control ancillary information To enhance structure, ancillary information should be used as a separate predictor, or the interview should be structured so the
information is available for all candidates and evaluated in a standardized manner

Do not allow candidate questions Candidates should be provided an opportunity to ask questions in a non-evaluation time outside the interview
until after the interview

Rate each answer or use multiple 1 Rating each answer as it is given, often with scales tailored to each question
scales 2 Multiple ratings at the end on dimensions/scales, ranging from 2-12 or more, based on answers to multiple questions or entire
interview
3 Overall judgment or prediction at the end of the interview (older approach)

Use detailed anchored 1 Multiple types of anchors

rating scales 2 Single type of anchor; either example answers or descriptions of answers
3 Unanchored scales or numbers or adjectives as anchors (older interviews)
4 No quantitative judgments but written summaries, relative rankings, or group discussion

Take detailed notes 1 Extensive, required note-taking of answers during the interview
Evaluation related components

2 Optional or brief notes of either answers or evaluations, often only at the end of interview
3 No note-taking

Use multiple interviewers 1 Panel, board, or group interview in which multiple interviewers participate together and hear the same candidate’s responses.
The literature suggests a maximum of 5 and an average of 2 or 3 interviewers as the most common panel size.
2 Serial interview, in which multiple interviewers conduct separate interviews. However, the same questions are typically not
asked in serial interviews to avoid repetition
3 One interviewer

Use same interviewer(s) across The structure ranges from one person conducting all interviews to different people conducting each interview. However, since hav-
all candidates ing one interviewer is often impractical, the level of structure is a matter of degree; fewer interviewers are considered to produce a
more structured interview. In case of a panel interview, one member should be common to all interviews.

Do not discuss candidates or The interview structure ranges from prohibiting interviewers to discuss candidates between interviews to providing no such direction
answers between interviews

Provide extensive interview See Table 4 for more details

training

Use statistical rather than clinical To enhance structure, reduce subjectivity through the use of statistical procedures rather than interviewer judgments
prediction

Source: Adopted from Campion MA, Palmer DK, Campion, JE.16

38 Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008

 STRUCTURED OR UNSTRUCTURED PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS?

14. Provide extensive interviewing training TABLE 3

The formal training of interviewers is one means of ensur- Important topics and process for a good structured interviewing training program
ing that the interview process is implemented correctly;
training is commonly undertaken by organizations to im- Topics
prove their interview process and outcome. Some of the im-
portant topics and process for a well-structured interview • The theory and process of structured human resource recruitment and retention
• How to prepare for interviews including how to write interview questions or, more typ-
training program are summarized in Table 3. ically, how to use questions already written
• How to perform a job analysis and how to develop or select existing questions that
15. Use statistical rather than clinical prediction relate to the specific skill sets required by the job
Since each interviewer weighs differently the information • Understanding the importance of establishing the correct level of rapport between
the candidate and the interviewer(s) and reviewing rapport building techniques
collected in an interview, one method of enhancing structure • Asking questions and, where discretion allows, choosing which questions to select
is to reduce subjectivity through the use of statistical proce- and how and when to probe
dures rather than interviewer judgments. • How to evaluate answers
There are three approaches in the use of statistical pre- • How to use rating scales and avoid rating errors
• Understanding the importance of taking appropriate notes to assist rating decisions
diction: and to build supporting documentation
• Understanding and applying equal employment opportunity laws and requirements
(i) Multiple ratings from different questions or dimen- • Making hiring decisions: how hiring decisions should be made from interview results,
sions combined using a predictions formula. The for- such as weighting questions and using ranking or cut-off scores
mula can use differential weights for each rating, or Process
unit weighting (e.g., weights of 1.0).The latter is most
• Lectures
common due to its simplicity, lack of need for crite-
• Discussions
rion data or cross-validation, and likely comparable • Modeling: behavioural modeling to show correct interviewing procedures
results; • Practice and role-playing
• Feedback from the trainer and fellow participants
• Videotaping for modeling proper behaviours, presenting candidates to the trainees to
(ii) Combining data across interviewers by using averag-
evaluate and recording interviews for feedback
ing or summing as a statistical or clinical approach • Instructional materials such as manuals
in which interviewers discuss differences to reach • Small, interactive classes
consensus. The least structured approach is to have • Limited to one or two days in duration
one person combine information after the interview
on a case-by-case basis to make final decisions; and Source: Adopted from Campion MA, Palmer DK, Campion, JE.16

(iii) Combining interview information with ancillary infor- Chapman and Zweig22 concluded that the four-factor frame-
mation after the interview can substantially affect work of Evaluation Standardization, Question Consistency,
validity. In order to make data comparable, reduce Question Sophistication and Rapport Building can be adopted
subjectivity and allow data to be combined, weights for predicting validity and psychometric properties of struc-
need to be developed by converting scores to per- tured interviews, applicant reactions and recruiting success.
centiles or standard scores based on consistent rules.
Conclusion
How much structure is needed? This review presents evidence comparing structured ver-
Recently, Chapman and Zweig22 conducted an important sus unstructured interviews in recruiting health care person-
study to understand how much structure makes an interview nel. Interviewing is used universally as part of the employee
“structured.” Their study is the first to establish an empirical selection process; to enter the workforce in the developed
link between formal interviewer training and increasing inter- world, virtually everyone will undergo at least one employ-
view structure elements. ment interview.13 Regardless of which technique is used,
The researchers found that trained interviewers had more health managers should be aware of the prohibited ground of
standardized and formalized evaluation processes, employed discrimination. Employers should check with their human re-
more sophisticated questioning strategies, and in one sam- source department for specific guidance (see Table 1, as an
ple, were more consistent in their questioning practices. Also, example).
they found that Question Sophistication, as a component of The limitations and legal concerns of unstructured inter-
highly structured interviews, is also positively related to in- views and the large body of supportive evidence and ideas for
terviewer training. Furthermore, they found that higher levels structured interviews offer little justification for the contin-
of Rapport Building, although associated with less interview ued use of unstructured interviews.16 Health care managers
structure, are viewed favourably. Even trained interviewers, should be trained in and implement structured interviews
while adhering to researchers’ recommendations regarding routinely. The established validity and recognized fairness of
Question Consistency, Evaluation Standardization and Ques- this technique negate any inconvenience for participants. Fur-
tion Sophistication, ignored recommendations to reduce Rap- thermore, the components that may result in the most nega-
port Building. tive expected user impact (e.g., limiting prompting,

Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008 39

Azarpazhooh, Ryding, and Leake

controlling ancillary information, disallowing questions from 12. Canadian Human Rights Commission. Guide to screening and
candidates) may be the least critical to the interview’s psy- selection in employment;1999. Available from:
chometric performance.16 Interviews can be enhanced by im- [Link]
plementing some or all of the possible components of [Link]
structure. This practice would enhance the effectiveness of 13. American Psycological Association. Improving employment
personnel selection and organizations would reap the bene- interviews. Washington, DC; Author;2006.
fits of employing a quality, stable workforce. 14. Arvey RD, Campion JE. The employment interview: A summary
and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology,1982;
References 35:281-322.
1. World Health Organization. World health report 2000: Health 15. Huffcutt AI, Arthur W Jr, Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited.
systems: Improving performance. Geneva:Author;2000. Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psy-
2. World Health Organization. Human resources for health: De- chology, 1994;79:184-90.
veloping policy options for change (Draf discussion paper). 16. Campion MA, Palmer DK, Campion JE. A review of structure in
Geneva: Author;November 2002. the selection interview. Personnel Psychology,1997;50:655-
3. Foster C, Godkin L. Employment selection in health care: The 702.
case for structured interviewing. Health Care Management Re- 17. McDaniel M, Whetzel DL, Schmidt FL, Maurer SD. The validity
view,1998;23(1):46-51. of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-
4. Heery E, Noon M. “interview” A dictionary of human resource analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,1994;79:599-615.
management. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford: Oxford Uni- 18. Oviatt BM, Miller WD. Irrelevance, intransigence, and business
versity Press;2001. Available from: [Link] professors. Academy of Management Executive,1989;3:304-12.
[Link]/views/[Link]?subview=Main&entry=t162.e630 19. Terpstra DE, Rozell EJ. Why some potentially effective staffing
5. Heery E, Noon M. “structured/unstructured interview” A dic- practices are seldom used. Public Personnel Management,
tionary of human resource management. Oxford Reference 1997;26:483-95.
Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2001. Available from: 20. van der Zee KI, Bakker AB, Bakker P. Why are structured inter-
[Link] views so rarely used in personnel selection? Journal of Ap-
view=Main&entry=t162.e630; 2001 plied Psychology,2002;87(1):176-84.
6. Way SA, Thacker J. Selection practices: Where are Canadians 21. Schmitt N. The current and future status of research on the
organizations? HR Professional,1999;16(5):34. employment interview. In: Eder RW, Harris MM, editors. The
7. Pursell ED, Campion MA, Gaylord SR. Structured interviewing: employment interview handbook (pp.355-68). Thousand Oaks,
Avoiding selection problems. Personnel Journal,1980;59(11): CA: Sage;1999.
907-12. 22. Chapman DS, Zweig David I. Developing a nomological net-
8. Civil Rights Act; July 2, 1964. work for interview structure: Antecedents and consequences
9. Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971). of the structured selection interview. Personnel Psychology,
10. Albemarle Paper Co. vs. Moody. 422 U.S. 407 (1975). 2005;58(3):673-702.
11. Section 60-3. Uniform guidelines on employee selection pro-
cedure (1978); 43 FR 38295;August 25, 1978.

40 Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008

 APPENDIX 1
The effects of Campion et al.’s 15 components on reliability, validity and user reactions

Component Reliability Validity User Reactions

Job-relatedness Reduced deficiency Reduced Reduced equal employment bias Candidate Interviewer
contamination opportunity and legal exposure reactions reactions

1. base questions on a Not expected to enhance reliability √ √ √ √ √ √

job analysis or a low positive relationship be- Enhances perceptions (by focusing the inter-
tween job analysis and reliability of face validity view on job-related
content)

2. Ask exact same 1 Increase inter-rater and test- X √ √ √ Both positive and Both positive and neg-
questions of each retest reliability of the content 1 Not omitting 1 Preventing discus- 1 Obvious fairness of negative effects on ative effects on reac-
candidate of the interview questions sion of tangential asking all candi- reactions tions
2 Less opportunity for interviewer- 2 Focusing the topics and other dates the same
candidate interactions with the discussion on one biasing influences questions
same questions topic at a time on questions 2 Limits many sources
3 Increase in candidate consis- 2 Reducing cognitive of potential bias in
tency because questioning will overload of the in- the interview
follow a controlled and pre- terviewer by focus- 3 More defensible
dictable pattern ing attention only by attorneys
4 Increase consistency of the in- on specific ques-
terview tions
5 Increase internal consistency/
reliability

3. Limit prompting, 1 Increase in inter-rater reliability X X X √ X X

follow-up questioning of the content because of varia- If they introduce extra- The potential for asking
and elaboration on tion between interviewers on neous information into illegal questions or
questions the types and extent of prompts the interview, or if they showing favouritism
used coach candidates into through coaching is
2 Increase in test-retest reliability giving the right reduced
and decrease in interviewer- answers
candidate interactions because
the same interviewer might use
different prompts and follow-
ups across candidates
3 Increase in candidate consis-
tency because questioning
would be less spontaneous

4. Use better types of Reliability has not been examined √ √ √ √ √ √

questions in isolation

5. Use longer interview or 1 Internal consistency/reliability √ √ X Not mentioned X X

larger number of 2 Indirectly affects test-retest and Overly long;
questions inter-rater reliability of the eval- interviews may collect
uation process because longer too much information
interviews may produce more causing information
stable and comparable meas- overload and thereby
urements reducing quality of the
decision

Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008

41
STRUCTURED OR UNSTRUCTURED PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS?
42
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
The effects of Campion et al.’s 15 components on reliability, validity and user reactions

Component Reliability Validity User Reactions

Job-relatedness Reduced deficiency Reduced Reduced equal employment bias Candidate Interviewer
contamination opportunity and legal exposure reactions reactions

6. Control ancillary Increase the test-retest and inter- X X √ √ X X

information rater reliability of the interview With-holding this infor- Withholding this infor- If it prevents the consid- If an interviewer is un- If interviewer does not
mation could increase mation could reduce eration of personal, aware of relevant infor- have access to relevant
Azarpazhooh, Ryding, and Leake

deficiency if it is valid contamination if it is family, social or other mation that was information before the
not valid or is used in- information unrelated submitted on applica- interview
correctly to the job tions and resumes be-
fore the interview

7. Do not allow questions 1 Increase in test-retest and inter- √ X √ Not mentioned X X

from candidate until rater reliability due to the stan- If it precludes relevant It prevents interviewers It restricts their freedom
after the interview dardized content information from from using the nature and may lead to an
2 Enhance candidate consistency emerging of candidate questions awkward conversation
and reduce effects of inter- to judge candidates
viewer-candidate interactions

1 Increase test-retest and inter- √ √ √ Not mentioned √ √

8. Rate each answer or use rater reliability because each Only relevant behav- Unless ratings are Unless interviewers feel
multiple scales rating is based on the response iours are evaluated made in an obvious rushed making ratings
to the same question, is less manner that creates during the interview
cognitively complex evaluation apprehen-
2 Increase in internal consistency sion for the candidates
due to more ratings

Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008

9. Use detailed anchored Increase in test-retest and inter- √ √ √ √ √ √
rating scales rater reliability and inter-rater
agreement as they are pre-
sumed to enhance objectivity

10. Take detailed notes 1 If interviewers take detailed √ √ √ √ X √/X

notes, evaluation should be Distracting If requirements for de-
more consistent, thus increasing tailed notes are bur-
test-retest and inter-rater densome; also reduce
reliability eye contact, increase
2 There should be less disagree- evaluation apprehen-
ment on what candidates said, sion, and decrease
thus higher inter-rater agree- conversational natural-
ment ness
3 Enhance recall in interviews

11. Use multiple interviewers 1 More reliable √ √ √ √ X √

2 Increase in inter-rater agree- Panels can be stressful
ment for candidates. If panel
3 Increase in internal consistency members ask questions
4 Dilution of interviewer-candi- too quickly and over-
date interactions load the candidate

12. Use same interviewer(s) 1 Increase in test-retest reliability Not mentioned Not mentioned √ X Unaffected Not mentioned
across all candidates 2 Less error variance If it makes the process
appear more idiosyn-
cratic and subjective
 APPENDIX 1 (continued)
The effects of Campion et al.’s 15 components on reliability, validity and user reactions

Component Reliability Validity User Reactions

Job-relatedness Reduced deficiency Reduced Reduced equal employment bias Candidate Interviewer
contamination opportunity and legal exposure reactions reactions

13. Do not discuss 1 Increase in test-retest reliability ? X √ X √ X

candidates or answers because it reduces the potential
between interviews for changing standards and
other instrumentation effects
2 Decrease in inter-rater reliabil-
ity and agreement because it
prevents differences in evalua-
tions from being identified and
corrected

14. Provide extensive 1 Increase in all forms of test- √ √ √ √ √ √

interviewing training retest and inter-rater reliability
and agreement
2 Increase in consistency and de-
creasing differences in interac-
tion
3 Decrease in internal consis-
tency because many programs
encourage avoiding the ap-
pearance of "halo" effects
(i.e., high correlations among
ratings)

15. Use statistical rather 1 Increase in reliability √ √ √ √ Unaffected √/X

than clinical prediction 2 Increase in internal consistency Discussing each rating
because a mechanical formula can make the process
for combining items should in- more effortful
crease item-total correlations

Source: Adopted from Campion MA, Palmer DK, Campion, JE.16

Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Winter/Hiver 2008

43
STRUCTURED OR UNSTRUCTURED PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS?