Wiki-Quellcode von Criterion Based Interview

Version 17.1 von Eric deRuijter am 2021/11/24 10:29

version	line-number	content
2.1	1	{{box cssClass="floatinginfobox" title="Contents"}}
	2	{{toc/}}
	3	{{/box}}
	4
3.1	5	= Description =
	6
15.1	7	The Criterion Based Interview (also called STARR 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.
2.1	8
12.2	9	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.
14.1	10
3.1	11	= Quality Concepts =
	12
9.1	13	=== Validity ===
3.1	14
13.1	15	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.
6.1	16
17.1	17	Standardized interviews have a validity of .71 (Obermann 2018: 114). According to Schmidt & Hunter (2000), the prognostic validity of structured interviews is .51.
10.2	18
13.1	19	The candidate wants to sell himself in the best way, which limits the validity.
10.2	20
8.1	21	=== Reliability ===
3.1	22
10.3	23	\|(((
13.1	24	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.
6.1	25
10.3	26	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.
	27
	28	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.
	29	)))
	30
3.1	31	== Limitations ==
	32
13.1	33	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.
6.1	34
13.1	35	It can only be used for a limited set of competences.
10.3	36
6.1	37	----
	38
4.1	39	= Considerations =
3.1	40
4.1	41	== Tips ==
3.1	42
10.3	43	\|(((
13.1	44	The interview should follow a biographical approach, which helps the assessor to understand the career path of the participant.
6.1	45
13.1	46	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.
	47
	48	Disruptive factors should be minimized by a high degree of standardization.
10.3	49	)))
6.1	50
4.1	51	== Traps ==
3.1	52
13.1	53	\|(((
	54	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
6.1	55
13.1	56	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.
10.3	57
13.1	58	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.
10.3	59
13.1	60	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.
	61	)))
10.3	62
4.1	63	== Scoring Tools ==
3.1	64
13.1	65	Before the interview, the assessor determines which
6.1	66
13.1	67	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.
	68
	69	If the method is used as backup, scoring lists from other methods can be used.
	70
6.1	71	----
	72
4.1	73	= Implementation =
3.1	74
4.1	75	== Information for Standard ==
	76
13.1	77	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.
6.1	78
5.1	79	== Development ==
4.1	80
13.1	81	\|(((
	82	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.
6.1	83
13.1	84	The method is based on an interviewing technique using principles of the STARR method:
	85
	86	* S(ituation): What was the situation? - description of a past work situation
	87	* T(ask): What was your task? - clarification of the responsibilities of the candidate
	88	* A(ction): What actions did you take, what did you do? - explanation of the performed action
	89	* R(esult): What was the result, what happened? - statement about the results
	90	* R(eflection): What did you learn? - evaluation of the situation from his/her perspective today.
	91	)))
	92	\|(((
	93
	94	)))
	95
5.1	96	== Needs/Set-Up ==
4.1	97
13.1	98	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.
6.1	99
5.1	100	== Requirements for Assessors ==
4.1	101
13.1	102	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.
6.1	103
5.1	104	== Examples ==
4.1	105
13.1	106	The situation for the interview, which is assumed, may be the observance of safety precautions during the planning of previous light settings.
6.1	107
5.1	108	== In Combination with ==
4.1	109
13.1	110	\|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).
6.1	111
5.1	112	= References/Notes =
4.1	113
12.1	114	* 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)
13.1	115	* 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)
	116	* Obermann, C. (2018): Assessment Center. Entwicklung, Durchführung, Trends. Mit neuen originalen AC-Übungen.
	117	6., vollständig überarb. u. erw. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
	118	* 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.
6.1	119
5.1	120	== AT ==
	121
	122	== BE ==
	123
	124	== DE ==
	125
	126	== IT ==
	127
	128	== NL ==

Wiki-Quellcode von Criterion Based Interview

TeBeVAT Menu