Changes for page Criterion Based Interview

Last modified by Ivan Kharitonov on 2022/01/30 17:24

From version < 13.1 >

edited by Randell Greenlee
on 2021/11/09 10:12

To version < 10.3 >

edited by Randell Greenlee
on 2021/11/09 09:51

< >

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Title

@@ -1,1
          +1,1 @@
--Criterion Based Interview
++Role Play

Content

@@ -4,11
          +4,9 @@
  = Description =
--|(((
--The Criterion Based Interview (also called STAR method) is comparable in many ways to the competency-based interview. It gives the candidate the opportunity, guided by directional questions, to demonstrate his/her skills, based on a concrete situation that happened in the own professional life.
++The candidate is placed in a situation with an actor as counterpart. The actor steers the situation, based on a predefined scenario, passing specific realistic situations. Observation is done based on a checklist.
--By focussing on the measurable aspects of a task, and narrowing, but deepening the focus, this is a good method to get a second opinion where competences did not become visible in testing or portfolio (not good or bad). The method needs highly skilled assessors. It is useful as extra tool to assess skills that are not observed (in positive nor negative way) It can also be used for situations that can’t be simulated, like an accident, audience panic or fire. This method can be also be used for problem solving, reflective or organising skills and for underpinning knowledge that doesn't become visible in the skill itself.
--)))
++The role play is effective for testing communicative and social competences like interviewing, rhetoric, argumentation, empathy, assertiveness, persuasiveness, sensitivity (behavioral observation). It's also useful for assessing operational readiness, goal orientation, frustration tolerance, persistence, problem solving skills, analytic skills, decision making skills. and. It can test the skill of adapting communication and language to different target groups. The setting of the role play can be a difficult collaborator interview, a conflict with a leading person, a critical incident on the workplace, a discussion with a designer or a discussion with a technical director.
  ----
@@ -17,20
          +17,26 @@
  === Validity ===
  |(((
--In the Criterion Based Interview, the basic assumption is that past behavior allows a prediction for future behavior. The validity depends on this basic assumption. The following value demonstrates the prediction rate for job success through the assessment method. It should be noted that in the assessment context, job success is only indirectly relevant in the context of validation.
++The validity of the method is increased by the tasks being appropriate for the competences to be measured. Above all, interpersonal and artistic skills can be assessed with the role play. The following communicative and social skills can be assessed: interviewing, rhetoric, reasoning, empathy, assertiveness, persuasiveness and sensitivity. In order to increase the validity, the selected role-playing situations should be representative of the event technology. It is important to make the situation challenging and relevant. The situations need to occur regularly in real life. As the scenario only reflects one concrete situation there is a risk that it doesn't reflect all situations in professional practice. However, the method is close to real life and is well controllable.
--Standardized interviews have a validity of .71
++A particular challenge for the validity of the role play is the requirement on the candidate to be active as an actor. Care should be taken here to make it clear that the acting performance is not assessed. The candidate should be able to develop his role freely and without pressure in order to be able to express his inherent competencies.
--(Obermann 2018: 114). According to Schmidt & Hunter (2000), the prognostic validity of structured interviews is .51.
--
--The candidate wants to sell himself in the best way, which limits the validity.
++According to Obermann (2018), the relationship between job success and the results of role play is .16. This corresponds to a very low correlation. It should be noted, however, that in the assessment context, job success is only indirectly relevant in the context of validation.
  )))
  === Reliability ===
  |(((
--For hiring interviews, the interrater reliability is .68, which corresponds to a good or substantial reliability. Even if the assessment context in the validation process differs from the recruitment process, it can certainly be said that there is good reliability when the criteria-based interviews are carried out correctly. The reliability is increased by the questions being pre-formulated in advance and the wording remaining the same. This increases comparability with other interviews. To ensure objectivity in the evaluation, the interviews should be recorded and evaluated by several assessors.
++The role play should be constructed in such a way that the competences to be measured should not be reflected in a single situation. Otherwise there is a risk that the candidate will accidentally behave correctly. If several situations are to reveal the same competencies, the reliability is increased.
++The situations and the start of the conversation should be clearly worded. Unclear formulations can lead to the candidate misunderstanding the task and situation, which disrupts reliability. Language barriers should also be taken into account accordingly. The starting position is identical for each candidate if the scenario is well developed. But the path can be different and contain unpredicted situations. The assessor needs to find a balance to steer on one hand, but leave the initiative to the candidate on the other.
++
++Various factors can limit the candidate's concentration and performance:
++
++poor room lighting or ventilation, disturbing sources of noise, lack of equipment, poor health or psychological condition of the candidate (e.g. fear, stress).
++
++The reliability is increased by not changing the order of the methods. In this way, the assessment processes remain comparable.
++
  The assessors / observers should be extensively trained to ensure evaluation and interpretation, to ensure comparability and objectivity. It should be clear which behaviors can be attributed to certain skills. So, reliability is enforced by a good scoring structure.
  The behavior of the interlocutors is standardized by means of a written instruction. This is a prerequisite for objectivity, which in turn ensures that different results are due to the performance of the participants and not to variations in the interlocutors.
@@ -38,9
          +38,9 @@
  == Limitations ==
--The interview does not allow to observe/confirm the capacity of the participant to actually carry out a task. The method is very intensive and time consuming for assessors.
++Role plays are less suitable for assessing knowledge-based skills. Likewise, no competencies are expressed that are expressed in written and drawn results. The methodology is less usefull for observing physical skills, exept if combined with an observation in a simulated environment.
--It can only be used for a limited set of competences.
++To check how the candidate behaves in a non-simulated environment, real-life observations should be preferred. A good scenario should be able to bring forward knowledge based skills.
  ----
@@ -49,34
          +49,25 @@
  == Tips ==
  |(((
--The interview should follow a biographical approach, which helps the assessor to understand the career path of the participant.
++Educate the assessee that their acting performance is not being tested. He should behave as he would in everyday work. The atmosphere should be as realistic as possible. Assessee and interlocutors (= role players) need prior written information. This gives the other party information on how to react to certain situations and questions. The person watching should not have direct eye contact with the assessee. In advance, it is recommended for observer training to practice role-playing with video analysis. Assessors need to be trained for the specific scenario's, idealy in interaction with their collegues.
--Ensure that all assessors use the same path/structure. The variations should be limited. Continue questioning untill you reach the desired focus. Use simple open questions (e.g. who, when, where, why, how, for how long, …). Don't judge in your answers or sub questions. Listen actively, show interest, listen to what is said in between the lines, ask deeper if needed, but give the candidate the lead.
--
--Disruptive factors should be minimized by a high degree of standardization.
++It can help to get the candidate on the right track to use some properties (assessories) to visualise the role of the actor (for example a typical piece of clothing, documents, models, ...). Make clear the candidate is playing his/her own role in the given situation.
  )))
  == Traps ==
--|(((
--The personal interests and opinions of the interviewer can interfere with the interview process (bias). To avoid this distortion, the interviewer has to make himself aware of his / her perception tendencies. Attractiveness, size, eloquence, humor, clothing style, nervousness and gender
++The situation characteristics from the requirements analysis cannot be implemented carefully enough. This can have the consequence that the behavior is not relevant for the competence to be tested. Sentences like "In reality I would do it completely differently." are signs of this. There is a risk for socialy expected answers and behavior.
--of the participant can influence the assessment of the assessors, even though they have no information about the tested competence. The context can also influence the candidate.
++If the assessor has no experience with role-playing games, an unpredictable momentum can develop which affects the comparability. Assessors need to be aware of the reasons for all scenario steps and have to balance natural behaviour and following the storyline of the scenario that leads to the visibility of the skills. Errors can be a high level of willingness to compromise or hardness. Principle of local independence: The interview partner must act neutrally in the individual situations, even if the assessee had a poor start in a previous situation. Otherwise only the overall performance can be assessed, but not individual competencies. Avoid that the same assessor is playing different roles for the same candidate.
--It should be noted that this interview should not assume the role of an oral test, even though the boundaries might be blurry at some points.
++A short instruction in the role play overemphasizes the situational flexibility. Communicative observations can take place less.
--There is a risk that, especially in sub questions, the assessor suggests the answers unconsciously. The direction of the interview is depending on the candidate and the sub questions of the assessors.
--)))
++Uncertainties about the setting (e.g. Has the exercise already started? Who ends the conversation?) should be avoided. Other participants should not act as conversation partners as this does not standardize the exercise. An assessor can't be the role player at the same time.
  == Scoring Tools ==
--Before the interview, the assessor determines which
++There could be used a check List and notes about the behaviour of the candidat with reference to the expected behaviour. The criteria should be derived from the sectoral layer skills, in other words, they are a concretisation of the visible, observable result of the skill in a specific situation. As the situation can differ, the scoring tool will be more general and leave more room for interpretation than other methods.
--answers to the questions receive positive and which answers receive negative points. The "positive indicators" and the "negative indicators" can be compared in a table. The "negative indicators" can also be divided into "minor negative indicators" and "decisive negative indicators". The respective extent to which the indicators match with the answers is rated on a scale of 0-4 (0 = no evidence; 1 = poor; 2 = areas of concern; 3 = satisfactory; 4 = good to excellent). A good list of what is expected needs to be used. The list should reflect the skills assessed.
--
--
--If the method is used as backup, scoring lists from other methods can be used.
--
  ----
  = Implementation =
@@ -83,48
          +83,40 @@
  == Information for Standard ==
--If the interview is foreseen in the assessment, the context, the focus, the time and criteria are described. If the method is used as backup, it should be mentioned with other methods.
++The standard must describe the specific situations, incentives and expected complexity of the skills to be assessed.
  == Development ==
--|(((
--The main development is in the training of the assessors to use the method. But some scheme with questions and sub questions can support the assessors.
++The development of an observation in a simulated environment starts with the analysis of the skills that need to be evaluated. Since not every skill can be tested in all variations, representative situations are chosen to reflect the mastery of the general skill. The skills are built into a well-chosen scenario that reflects a real-life experience, but also integrates behavioural incentives and choices. The candidate is asked to perform a task, but the environment limits or alters the way the task is performed. In this way, the candidate must make his/her own decisions.
++The activities should reflect different contexts. Often a skill or behavior is built in twice to improve reliability and avoid "false positives".
++Assessment facilities must be tested and updated before they are used with "real" candidates.
--The method is based on an interviewing technique using principles of the STARR method:
--
--* S(ituation): What was the situation? - description of a past work situation
--* T(ask): What was your task? - clarification of the responsibilities of the candidate
--* A(ction): What actions did you take, what did you do? - explanation of the performed action
--* R(esult): What was the result, what happened? - statement about the results
--* R(eflection): What did you learn? - evaluation of the situation from his/her perspective today.
--)))
--|(((
--
--)))
--
  == Needs/Set-Up ==
--The interview needs to be conducted by two assessors in order to avoid bias of the result (sympathy etc.) or might even require a written transcript for evaluation. It needs a quiet room (with a table, chairs, ...) and plenty of time.
++This is an observation in a “real life” professional setting. It must be organized as a normal day in the life of the candidate (= working day). One assessor could be acting as a “colleague” the other would assess from a distance. There could also be trained “colleagues” (must not have an assessor qualification), who “work with” the candidate in the observation environment. This is only necessary when a colleague is “physically” necessary to assess the competence at hand. One assessor can't oversee all activities, idealy there are at least two assessors, one who is observing from a distance and a second one observing close.
++Technical competence is relatively easy to assess. Knowledge behind the action can be assessed in most cases, if the test is prepared in the proper way. Competences are tested in the “group” working environment, as it is in reality. Several competences can almost always be assessed at one time. The proper atmosphere is very important.
++The assessments could be done at educational institutions with the necessary equipment.
  == Requirements for Assessors ==
--The assessor needs basic skills in conducting unbiased interviews. He needs professional skills in order to be able to deduce appropriate competencies from the candidate's report.
++Assessors need competences for valid observations, such as those that can be acquired in observer training courses. They should have a basic knowledge of diagnostics, be able to deal with perceptual effects (e.g. errors of observation and assessment) and be able to recognize their own subjectivity. A professional competence is essential for the evaluation of the candidate's performance against the background of the assessment standard. It is also needed to construct a work situation appropriate to the competences to be assessed.
  == Examples ==
--The situation for the interview, which is assumed, may be the observance of safety precautions during the planning of previous light settings.
++For the skill "Working on heights" a candidate should perform several activities on ladders, scaffolding, … Based on a checklist, his/her behaviour is observed.
  == In Combination with ==
--|A post-box exercise or role play would be required in addition. Often a competence focussed interview is used as backup if other test didn't show certain competences (not positive or negative).
++This Method can be combined with a criterion focused interviews to fill the gaps or skills that have not been observed (not negative or positive). It can be combined with a multiple choice or open answer test for knowledge that is not made visible in practice.
  = References/Notes =
--* Catalogus Assessmentmethodes voor EVC, Agentschap Hoger Onderwijs, volwassenenonderwijs, Kwalificaties en Studietoelagen, Ministery of education and training of the Flemish community (2015). Online: [[http:~~/~~/www.erkennenvancompetenties.be/evc-professionals/evctoolbox/bestanden/catalogus-assessmentmethodes-evc-2015.pdf>>http://www.erkennenvancompetenties.be/evc-professionals/evctoolbox/bestanden/catalogus-assessmentmethodes-evc-2015.pdf]]. (last 17.08.2020)
--* ISC Professional (2016): Competency-Based Interviews. Online: [[https:~~/~~/www.interview-skills.co.uk/freeinformation/interview-guide/competency-basedinterviews>>https://www.interview-skills.co.uk/freeinformation/interview-guide/competency-basedinterviews]] (last 27.7.2020)
--* Obermann, C. (2018): Assessment Center. Entwicklung, Durchführung, Trends. Mit neuen originalen AC-Übungen.
--6., vollständig überarb. u. erw. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
--* Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (2000). Messbare Personenmerkmale:Stabilität, Variabilität und Validität zur Vorhersage zukünftiger Berufsleistung und berufsbezogenen Lernens. In: M. Kleinmann & B. Strauß (Hrsg.), Potentialfeststellung und Personalentwicklung (S. 15–43). Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.
++* Catalogus Assessmentmethodes voor EVC, Agentschap Hoger Onderwijs, volwassenenonderwijs, Kwalificaties en Studietoelagen, Ministery of education and training of the Flemish community (2015). Online: [[http:~~/~~/www.erkennenvancompetenties.be/evc-professionals/evc-toolbox/bestanden/catalogus-assessmentmethodes-evc-2015.pdf>>http://www.erkennenvancompetenties.be/evc-professionals/evc-toolbox/bestanden/catalogus-assessmentmethodes-evc-2015.pdf]]  (last 17.08.2020)
++* Jhpiego (2011): Simulation Training for Educators of Health Care Workers. Online: [[http:~~/~~/reprolineplus.org/system/files/resources/simulation_facilitatorsguide.pdf>>http://reprolineplus.org/system/files/resources/simulation_facilitatorsguide.pdf]]  (last 05.08.2020)
++* Multiprofessional Faculty Development (2012): Teaching and Learning in Simulated Environments. Online: [[https:~~/~~/faculty.londondeanery.ac.uk/e-learning/teaching-clinical-skills/teaching-and-learning-in-simulated-environments>>https://faculty.londondeanery.ac.uk/e-learning/teaching-clinical-skills/teaching-and-learning-in-simulated-environments]]  (last 05.08.2020)
++* Scottish Qualifications Authority (2019): Guide to Assessment. Online: [[https:~~/~~/www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/Guide_To_Assessment.pdf>>https://www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/Guide_To_Assessment.pdf]]  (05.08.2020)
++* Vincent-Lambert, C. / Bogossian, F. (2006): A guide for the assessment of
++* clinical competence using simulation. Online: [[https:~~/~~/pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bda7/dae4871a49e19fd2cc186823379518e39192.pdf>>https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bda7/dae4871a49e19fd2cc186823379518e39192.pdf]]  (last 05.08.2020)
  == AT ==

Changes for page Criterion Based Interview

Summary

Details

TeBeVAT Menu