Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

A quasi‐experimental investigation of differences between face‐to‐face and videoconference interviews in an actual selection process

Bibliographic Data

ID7260372
AuthorsMarkus Langer (0000-0002-8165-1803, Department of Psychology University of Freiburg Freiburg im Breisgau Germany, corresponding author), Andrew Demetriou (Delft University of Technology Delft The Netherlands), Andrew M Demetriou (0000-0002-0724-2278, Delft University of Technology), Alexandros Arvanitidis (European Personnel Selection Office Brussels Belgium), Stéphane Vanderveken (European Personnel Selection Office Brussels Belgium), Annemarie M F Hiemstra (0000-0001-8584-1308, Erasmus University Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands)
Year2024
Volume74
Issue1
Publication date2024-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueApplied Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0269-994X • E-ISSN: 1464-0597
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/apps.12558
OpenAlexW4400259765
LanguageEN
References cited29

Videoconference interviews are now integral to many selection processes. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings suggest that videoconference interviews may lead to different interview performance ratings in comparison to Face‐to‐Face (FTF) interviews. This has led to the question of the comparability of the psychometric properties of videoconferences and FTF interviews. However, evidence from actual selection processes stems from the beginning of the century, and recent findings predominantly stem from simulated interview contexts. We present insights from an actual selection process within a large European organization where we had the unique opportunity for a quasi‐experimental investigation of differences between videoconference and FTF interviews. Initially, the organization conducted FTF interviews, and after the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the interviews were conducted via videoconference. We examine mean differences in applicant performance ratings and evidence for response format‐related validity differences. There were only small, non‐significant mean differences and no evidence for response format related validity differences. We discuss possible causes for discrepancies in our findings compared to previous research. Furthermore, we conclude that downstream consequences of differences between FTF and videoconference interviews may be lower than previously expected. We end with a call for research on the interaction between technology‐design and selection‐tool‐design features

Comparability · Face-to-face · Management · Multimedia · Personnel selection · Selection (genetic algorithm · Videoconferencing · Applied Psychology · Computer Science · Customer Service Quality and Loyalty · Employer Branding and e-HRM · Psychology · Social Psychology · Team Dynamics and Performance

  • Cocor

    Open Access•Birk Diedenhofen, Jochen Musch et al.•PLoS ONE•2015

  • The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems

    Stephen W Gilliland•Academy of Management Review•1993

  • Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design

    Open Access•Richard L Daft, Robert H Lengel•Management Science•1986

  • Welcome to the Tidyverse

    Open Access•Hadley Wickham, Mara Averick et al.•Journal of Open Source Software•2019

  • The social psychology of telecommunications

    John Short•The social psychology of…•1976

  • Attribution Theory and Research

    Harold H Kelley, John L Michela•Annual Review of Psychology•1980

  • Rater Attributions of Malfunctions in Videoconference Interviews

    Open Access•Jerod C White, Tara S Behrend et al.•Work Aging and Retirement•2021

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae