A meta-analysis of interview length on reliability and validity

Abstract

First impressions are frequently seen as a biasing factor that may prevent an interviewer from forming a comprehensive assessment of the applicant. However, research has found that people can make surprisingly accurate impressions of others based on minimal information. Additional exposure to the applicant would be expected to lead to a more accurate impression, but a previous meta-analysis on the employment interview found evidence for a negative relationship between the length of the interview and validity. Using a much larger sample of studies, the current meta-analysis examined whether length of the interview was related to the validity of the interview. In addition, I examined the relation between interview length and reliability. Results revealed that the subset of studies reporting length of interviews yielded reliability and validity estimates consistent with more comprehensive meta-analyses. Consistent with previous research on consensus judgements of personality, length of the interview was found to be unrelated to reliability. However, contrary to the previous meta-analysis, validity was also unrelated to the length of the interview. Practitioner points: Little attention has been given to how the length of time spent interviewing job candidates relates to the reliability and validity of interviews Length of the interview was not related to reliability or validity of interviews Results suggest that organizations can implement shorter interviews to save time and money compared to longer interviews, without sacrificing reliability and predictive validity.