Skip to main content.

Technical Affairs

Mike Aamodt, Associate Editor

This month's column answers a reader's question about structured interviews and contains yet another piece of HR Humor.

Question

What is the difference between a structured interview and a behavioral interview?

Answer

There is actually no difference between the two. Structured interview is the term more commonly used by academics and behavioral interview is the term more commonly used by consultants. However, because I have a lot more space to fill for this column, let's talk about what makes an interview a "structured" or "behavioral" interview.

Definition of a Structured Interview

For an interview to be considered "structured", it must have the following characteristics:

  1. The questions must be job-related and based on a job analysis

  2. Each applicant is asked the same questions (different follow-up questions are allowed)

  3. There is a standard scoring system used to score the applicant's answers to the questions.

This definition is important because many HR professionals believe that they are conducting structured interviews when in fact they are not. Asking everyone the same questions does not make an interview "structured" or "behavioral." Often the questions are not job-related (e.g., Where do you see yourself in five years? What was your favorite class in college?), and there is seldom a systematic method for scoring the answers. Why is the definition important? Research clearly shows that structured interviews are one of the most valid methods for selecting employees and that unstructured interviews are not good predictors of future performance.

Structured Interview Questions

There are five types of questions that are asked in a structured interview: clarifiers, qualifiers, skill-level determiners, past-focused (behavioral) questions, and future-focused (situational) questions.

Clarifiers are questions that clarify information on the applicant's resume or application blank. For example, an applicant might indicate that she was a member of the AMFAM club in college and a clarifier would be to ask what the AMFAM club is. Another example would be an applicant with a two-year gap between jobs. A logical clarifier is to ask what the applicant was doing during those two years. The answers to clarifiers are not used to predict future performance, thus they are not scored.

Qualifiers are questions that determine if the applicant has the minimal qualifications for the job. Such questions are usually scored on a pass/fail basis and might include:

  1. Can you work on weekends?

  2. Would you be able to work overtime on short notice?

  3. Do you have a valid driver's license?

  4. Do you think HR people are the smartest people in the world? (Just kidding on this one)

Skill-level determiners are questions designed to tap an applicant's skill or knowledge level. Examples of such questions are:

  1. How do you determine if adverse impact occurred after using a test?

  2. What type of wine goes best with fish?

  3. Why is the Miranda decision important in law enforcement?

  4. When do you stop administering CPR?

Past-focused questions, also called behavioral questions, are designed to tap an applicant's experience. For example:

  1. Think about a time when you had to deal with an angry customer. What did you do?

  2. Tell me about the best Web page you ever designed.

  3. When your officers made mistakes in their reports, how did you correct them?

Future-focused questions, also called situational questions, are designed to tap an applicant's decision-making and problem-solving skills. These are ideal for entry-level jobs in which you don't expect the applicant to have the experience necessary to answer past-focused questions. Examples of these questions include:

  1. Suppose you heard a coworker sexually harass another coworker. What would you do?

  2. Imagine that you stopped a motorist for speeding and she claimed to be going into labor. You don't see any signs of her going into labor. What would you do?

  3. A customer claims that his steak was not cooked properly. What would you do?

Structured Scoring Systems

Depending on the type of question asked, there are three major approaches to scoring structured interview questions:

Correct/Incorrect: When asking qualifiers or skill-level determiners, often the best scoring approach is to score the question as being correct (1) or incorrect (0). For many qualifiers, the scoring is pass/fail.

Typical Answer Approach: This is probably the most common of the scoring methods. With this method, a panel of subject-matter experts (SMEs) generates a list of all possible answers to each question. Each of these possible answers is then given a score (usually between 1 and 5) and becomes a benchmark answer. An applicant's answer to a question is then compared to the benchmark answers. For example, suppose that an applicant was asked how he would handle a coworker who was not pulling his share of the weight. A typical answer scoring system might look like this:

  1. I would tell my coworker that I would beat him senseless if he didn't work harder

    I would quit working as hard so that I wouldn't feel like a chump

  2. I would ignore the situation

    I would yell at my coworker each time I saw that he wasn't working

  3. I would go to my supervisor

    I would leave an anonymous note letting him know he is not working hard enough

  4. I would talk to the other coworkers and have all of us meet with him

  5. I would talk to my coworker in private and then go to my supervisor if things didn't improve

An applicant answering the question by stating that he "would discuss his concerns about the employee with his supervisor" would get a score of 3 on the question. The problem with this approach is that there are hundreds of answers that can be obtained for each question. Thus, benchmark answers need to constantly be updated. A common problem that also occurs with this approach is that applicants give answers that include elements from the lowest benchmark and elements from the highest benchmark.

Key Issues Approach: This is my favorite method. A panel of SMEs reads each interview question, and then determines the key issues that should be included in the ideal answer. For example, suppose that a question asked an applicant how to deal with an angry customer. The key issues in the answer might include:

  1. Allow the customer to vent

  2. Empathize with the customer

  3. Apologize early

  4. Ask what can be done to make the situation right

  5. Acknowledge the need to get the customer away from other customers if he continues to be loud

  6. Get the customer to a supervisor if the situation does not calm down

If an applicant responded by saying that he would "apologize and get the customer a complementary drink" he would get one point for the apology and no other points. What I like most about this method is that you don't have to think of every possible answer an applicant can come up with. A further benefit is that in creating the key, current employees get a chance to think about the best way to handle job-related situations - in essence, determining the key issues becomes a training session.

 

HR Humor

Short Human Resource Books

We probably have all received an e-mail or two containing lists of "short books" such as Al Gore's Guide to Humor or The Amish Phone Book. Below is a list of HR books that wouldn't need many pages to fill.

  1. Thank You Letters From Fire Fighters Who Failed the Promotion Exam

  2. Selection Tests With No Adverse Impact

  3. The Book of Available Qualified Job Applicants

  4. Examples of Unfavorable Letters of Recommendation

  5. Compliments from the EEOC and OFCCP

  6. The Consultant's Guide to Free Selection Tests

  7. Take Your Time: Openings That Don't Need to Be Filled Yesterday

  8. The Guide to Overstaffed Human Resource Departments

  9. Statistical Analyses That Make Sense

  10. Projects Our Consulting Firm Can't Do

  11. Thinking Outside the Box: A List of Phrases We Can't Get Enough Of

  12. Easy-to-Understand Government Regulations

  13. What We Know About the Construct Validity of Biodata and Assessment Centers

  14. Popular Promotion Exams

  15. Projects That Took Less Time To Complete than Originally Thought

 

Mike Aamodt, a Professor of Psychology at Radford University serves as our Associate Editor for the Technical Affairs column and as our unofficial humor editor. If you have a technical question you want answered/discussed, wish to comment on this month's article, or want to share a humor item please contact Mike. He may be reached by email (maamodt@runet.edu), phone (540) 831-5513 or fax (540) 831-6113.

© Copyright 2001 by the IPMA Assessment Council. All rights reserved.