Title: Teaching employment interviewing techniques to college students
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099570/00001
 Material Information
Title: Teaching employment interviewing techniques to college students
Physical Description: vi, 117 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: McEachern, Adriana Garcia
Copyright Date: 1989
 Subjects
Subject: Employment interviewing -- Study and teaching (Higher) -- Audio- visual aids   ( lcsh )
Video tape recorders and recording   ( lcsh )
Counseling in higher education   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph.D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Adriana Garcia McEachern.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1989.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 109-116)
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099570
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 001494451
oclc - 21247359
notis - AHA7009

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

teachingemployme00mcea ( PDF )


Full Text













TEACHING EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES
TO COLLEGE STUDENTS







By

ADRIANA GARCIA MCEACHERN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1989















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This dissertation is dedicated to my mother and father

who have provided emotional as well as financial support

throughout my college career, and to Abuela, who at the age

of 92 is alive to see my dream become a reality. Special

acknowledgements are extended to my husband, Michael, and my

three children, Greg, Alix, and Renee, who have been very

understanding and patient during this project.

Special recognition is extended to the following

friends who offered their encouragement and contributed

their resources and time to assist me with this

dissertation: Edesa Acosta, Caryn Aslesson, Dix Aslesson,

Lisa Winslow, Orlando Buch, Mark Phillips, George Edmondson,

Liz Wysong, Gail Kennedy, and John Nestor.

Finally, my sincerest gratitude and appreciation are

extended to Dr. Joe Wittmer, who motivated me to complete my

doctoral studies. Without his assistance and support I

would not have been able to write these acknowledgments.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... ii

ABSTRACT.................................... ........ v

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION................................. 1

Statement of the Problem..................... 3
Need for the Study ............................ 6
Purpose of the Study.......................... 7
Definition of Terms ............................ 7
Organization of the Study.................... 10

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................... 11

Factors Affecting the Employment Interview... 11
The Employment Interview and College
Recruitment ............................... 17
Methods of Teaching Employment Interviewing
Techniques ................................. 20
Conclusion.................................... 25

III METHODOLOGY.................................. 27

Relevant Variables........................... 27
Population.................................... 28
Sampling Procedure and the Resultant Sample.. 29
Procedure and Methodology.................... 29
Description of Training........ ............... 33
Description of Instructional Methods.......... 35
Instrumentation.............................. 37
Experimental Hypotheses....................... 41
Data Analyses................................. 43

IV RESULTS ..................................... 45

Sample. ....................................... 46
Findings Related to Null Hypotheses.......... 51










Page

V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION........................ 66

Limitations ................................... 67
Discussion of Results ...................... 69
Conclusions ................................. 71
Implications .................................. 72
Recommendations for Further Study ........... 73

APPENDICES

A EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW RATING SCALE ....... 75

B ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
MEMORANDUM................................ 79

C LETTER TO SUBJECTS ....................... 81

D INFORMED CONSENT FORM .................... 83

E STUDENT EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWING
INSTRUCTIONS.............................. 85

F STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ....... 87

G RETENTION QUESTIONNAIRE .................. 89

H INTERVIEWER'S QUESTIONS .................. 92

I RATER GLOSSARY ............................. 94

J STUDENT HANDOUT: THE FOUR STAGES OF THE
EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW......... ............ 97

K DESCRIPTION FO TREATMENTS ................ 99

L LETTER ASKING PERMISSION FROM JOURNAL OF
COLLEGE PLACEMENT......................... 102

M EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW RATING SCALE
RECRUITERS' SAMPLE ......................... 102

REFERENCES.... ........ ............................. 109

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................... 117













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


TEACHING EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES
TO COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Adriana Garcia McEachern

August 1989

Chairman: P. Joseph Wittmer
Major Department: Counselor Education

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of

three, one-half hour instructional approaches that could be

used by career and placement counselors to teach college

students employment interviewing skills. The three

treatment approaches were (a) counselor-led instruction, (b)

microcomputer-assisted instruction, and (c) videotaped

instruction. The Employment Interview Rating Scale (EIRS),

was developed by the investigator to measure the verbal and

non-verbal behaviors of the subjects during videotaped, mock

employment interviews following their participation in the

treatments. The EIRS was also used to determine whether

subjects' verbal and non-verbal behaviors were related to

the hiring decisions of interviewers. A Retention

Questionnaire was administered to the subjects to assess









information retained during instruction. A control group

provided data for comparisons.

Analyses of variance and correlational analyses were

used to evaluate the null hypotheses. The results revealed

that none of the three instructional methods was more

effective than the others in teaching employment

interviewing skills to college students. However, the group

receiving videotape instruction retained significantly more

information than the other groups. A significant

relationship was also found between the hiring decisions of

interviewers conducting face-to-face interviews and those of

independent raters viewing videotape interviews.

The use of videotape methods can be effective tools for

career placement counselors in helping students to learn and

retain information about the employment interview.

Videotaping recruitment interviews also can assist

interviewers in making hiring decisions when recruiting on

college campuses.















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION



Job placement of graduates is one of the most important

services provided by career placement service centers on

college and university campuses. For most students, post

graduation job placement is the primary purpose for

attending a college or university. Most colleges and

universities operate placement programs which function to

assist students in obtaining employment as well as to teach

them employment interviewing techniques.

Representatives from many of the major corporations and

governmental agencies visit college campuses regularly to

interview and recruit graduating students. Competition for

these positions may be keen, and recruiters seek to select

those candidates whom they believe to be the top applicants

for the positions available. Thus good employment

interviewing techniques are crucial to graduates so that

they can compete effectively and successfully.

The employment interview has always been the most

widely used method of personnel selection (Cohen &

Etheredge, 1975; Drake, Kaplan, & Stone, 1972) and is widely

used by college recruiters. Often, student applicants must











participate in several interviews before final hiring

decisions are completed. Therefore students not only must

have academic credentials needed to compete for top

positions, but also must be able to convince corporate

recruiters they are the "best" persons for the jobs. The

student who is best prepared to answer recruiters' questions

during an employment interview often obtains a desired

position (Roderick, 1985). Knowing how to interview

effectively is, therefore, the crucial first step for a

college graduate seeking employment. It follows that

college students must develop interviewing skills which will

persuade prospective employers to hire them.

College students typically rely on university career

and/or placement counselors for information and instruction

in employment interviewing techniques. Various educational

methods can be used by these counselors to prepare students

for employment interviewing. Walker (1974) advocated

traditional didactic methods of instruction such as lectures

followed by group discussion. However, the use of

videotaped, (role playing) mock interviews has become more

prevalent with the availability of videotape equipment

(Gilmore, 1973; Kiradjieff & Stimac, 1975). The most recent

advancement is the use of microcomputer-assisted programs

which provide career information and assist students in

exploring occupational possibilities (Vacc & Loesch, 1987).

Because the above-mentioned are the three methods most











commonly used, the focus of this study was to investigate

which of them is the most effective in teaching employment

interviewing techniques to college students about to

graduate.



Statement of the Problem

Although it is rare for anyone to be hired without a

prior interview, very few college student interviewees

actually know how to present themselves effectively in

employment interviews (Shemetulskis, 1984). Further, many

students who initially seek assistance from placement

centers are unaware of the requirements of employment

interviews. Thus, many college students who possess good

academic qualifications are rejected following employment

interviews (Austin & Vines, 1980).

Facing the first challenge in the job-seeking process,

graduating students often feel overwhelmed, unprepared,

threatened, and lacking in confidence in professional

abilities and skills (Cohen & Etheredge, 1975). These

negative characteristics inhibit students' abilities to

communicate effectively in employment interviews.

Unfortunately, however, it has been found that an

applicant's ability to communicate in an employment

interview correlates positively with a recruiter's

likelihood to hire the applicant (Tschirgi, 1973).











Most college students simply do not know what type of

responses or behavior will influence interviewers to employ

them (Tschirgi, 1973). Furthermore, placement officials,

faculty members, and/or advisors often may misinform

students about employers' hiring criteria (Hafer & Hoth,

1980). Thus students participating in employment interviews

are often ill-prepared to do so.

Along with the candidate's academic preparation and

performance, other factors such as the behavioral

characteristics and mannerisms displayed in the interview

can influence the hiring or referral decision (Cohen &

Etheredge 1975; Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, &

Dressel, 1979). For example, Cohen and Etheredge (1975)

investigated the types of behavior which caused job

interviewers to refer or reject student applicants for

positions. They concluded that college recruiters, "attend

to verbal and non-verbal mannerisms, general appearance,

and personal motives in the interview, and that negative

performance or its absence, principally affects the

recruitment decision" (Cohen & Etheredge, 1975,

p. 77).

College recruiters often believe college students

pending graduation are generally unprepared for recruitment

interviews (Garis & Hess, 1985). Stanley Haude, personnel

supervisor for advertising at Procter and Gamble stated,

"even the top students we see do not have enough











self-confidence and are reluctant to merchandise their

background during the interview" (Garis & Hess, 1985, p.

31). Other researchers have suggested that along with the

ability to communicate, factors such as personal

attractiveness (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terspstra, 1977), fluency

of speech (Hollandsworth, Dressel, & Stevens, 1977),

smiling, maintaining good eye contact (Wexley, Fugita, &

Malone, 1975), intelligence and competence (Hopper &

Williams, 1973) also influence recruiters' hiring decisions.

It has been found that effective employment

interviewing techniques can be taught (Azrin & Philips,

1979; Hollandsworth, Dressel, & Stevens, 1977; Mathews,

Damron, & Yuen, 1985; Mathews, Whang, & Fawcett, 1984).

Providing students with information about the employment

interview process is one aspect of effective instruction as

is allowing students to practice learned skills and critique

their behavior (Austin & Vines, 1980). Several methods to

teach individuals appropriate employment acquiring behaviors

have been developed including behavioral instruction

(Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Mathews & Fawcett, 1984), the

Azrin Job Club method (Azrin & Philip, 1979), workshops or

seminars (Mathews, Damron, & Yuen, 1985), and videotape

instruction (Austin & Vines, 1980). Austin and Vines (1980)

cited a review of the employment literature by Galassi and

Galassi wherein 13 studies on interview training were

identified. Austin and Vines (1980) concluded that "these











studies investigated the effectiveness of various training

programs but were unable to find a single most effective

method" (p. 60). Therefore, in this study a comparison was

made of the effectiveness of three methods used to teach

employment interviewing techniques to college students: (a)

counselor-led instruction, (b) microcomputer-assisted

instruction, and (c) videotape instruction.



Need for the Study

In view of the problems noted, research is needed to

identify and verify characteristics and behavior which

effect recruiters'/interviewers' hiring decisions. Also,

additional research to compare methods of training students

in employment interviewing is needed so that college career

and placement counselors can prepare college students most

effectively and efficiently for employment interviews.

Although interviewee characteristics such as appearance,

attitude, and communication facility have been identified,

"there is a paucity of research regarding effective methods

of helping college students to develop, and to manifest

these desired interview behaviors" (Austin & Vines, 1980, p.

58).

Hollandsworth, Dressel, and Stevens (1977) researched

the use of behavioral versus traditional methods for

increasing job interview skills. They suggested that

"neither a straight behavioral nor a straight discussion











model is most effective" (p. 508). Identification of

training methods which effectively educate students to

conduct successful interviews would better assist placement

counselors in improving the quality of services offered to

college students. Ultimately such training should make a

difference in the employment rate of students on college

campuses throughout the country.



Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of

three training approaches used to teach college students

employment interviewing techniques. The three approaches

investigated were (a) counselor-led instruction, (b)

microcomputer-assisted instruction, and (c) videotape

instruction. The effects assessed were (a) the verbal and

non-verbal behavioral dimension subscales of the Employment

Interview Rating Scale (EIRS), (b) the amount of information

retained by the college students following the instruction,

and (c) the hiring decisions of the interviewers and the

raters.



Definition of Terms

The following definitions are provided to assist in

understanding the terminology used in this study:

Behavioral characteristics are verbal and non-verbal

human responses displayed during employment interviews.











College students are individuals studying at

institutions of higher learning that offer degrees at the

associate, bachelor, and graduate levels.

Counselor-led instruction is an educational group

instructional method facilitated by a career counselor with

the primary objective of teaching individuals employment

interviewing techniques and appropriate interviewing

behavior (i.e., employability skills). Specifically, the

instruction consisted of the information presented in the

Four Stages of Interviewing, the videotape, and the

microcomputer program developed by Career Development

Software (1979).

Employment interview, job interview, or recruitment

interview is an interrogative process whereby an employer

representative assesses job applicant's behavioral

characteristics and obtains information about an applicant's

qualifications, personality, self-esteem, and how well she

or he matches the specifications of the position. The

process may also involve the applicant's investigation of

the requirements of the position, company, salary, and

benefits.

Employment Interview Rating Scale (EIRS) is a Likert-

type checklist containing descriptive behavioral items of

verbal and non-verbal behavior generally displayed by

applicants in employment interviews.











Hiring decision reflects the choice to offer or not

offer employment to an applicant following a series of one

or more employment interviews.

Interviewer is an individual who conducts employment

interviews and has the authority to make hiring decisions.

Job placement is the part of the process of career

planning that teaches individuals how to translate career

goals into a plan of action designed to satisfy predefined

objectives with a realistic perspective of the world of

work. Job placement involves an integration of an

individual's self-concept and existing career options

(Powell & Kirts, 1980).

Microcomputer-assisted instruction means instructional

methods which utilize a microcomputer to interact with the

student in the learning process.

Rater is an individual who evaluated the behavior of

interviewees during the videotaped, mock job interview.

Retention Questionnaire is a 10-item, multiple choice

questionnaire covering the major points in the "Four Stages

of Interviewing" (Career Development Software Inc., 1979).

Role-playing refers to a method of practicing skills by

pretending to act out an activity (e.g., an employment

interview).

Videotaped instruction is defined as instructional

methods using television to transmit information to

individuals.









10

Organization of the Study

The remaining chapters of this study will focus on the

problem discussed in Chapter I. A review of the related

literature is presented in Chapter II. Chapter III contains

descriptions of the methodology and instrumentation used in

the study, and Chapter IV contains data and results. In

Chapter V, the findings and conclusions are discussed.















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


An employment interview is generally a 15- to 30-minute

session wherein an interviewer makes an assessment of the

applicant's qualifications, background, career goals, and

suitability for the position (Grundfest, 1985). The

interview has been studied for more than 60 years in an

effort to determine its reliability and validity as a tool

for making hiring decisions (Arvey & Campion, 1982;

Shemetulski, 1984). Yet in spite of its questionable

reliability, validity, and susceptibility to bias and

distortion, it continues to be the most widely used method

of employee selection (Arvey & Campion, 1982; Lumsden &

Sharf, 1974; Ulrich & Trumbo, 1965).



Factors Affecting the Employment Interview

Prior to the 1960s, researchers investigated the

employment interview from an organizational perspective;

however, subsequent to that time, closer attention has been

given to those factors believed to influence interviewers'

perceptions and hiring decisions (Feldman & Arnold, 1987).

Arvey and Campion (1982), in the latest review of the











employment literature, divided these factors into three

categories:

(a) applicant characteristics (b) situational
influences, and (c) the interviewer's characteristics;
Applicant characteristics include age, sex, race,
physical appearance, the applicant's educational and
work background, career interests, attitude,
intelligence, motivation, prior interviewing
experience, perceptions of the interviewer, company or
position, verbal and non-verbal behavior. (Arvey &
Campion, 1986, p. 283)

Applicant non-verbal behaviors, such as smiling,

gesturing, and maintaining eye contact with the interviewer

have all been associated with the interviewer's attitude

toward the applicant (Goodall & Goodall, 1982; Hakel &

Washburn, 1973). Tessler and Sushelsky (1978) found that,

in general, an applicant was perceived as less confident by

an interviewer when the applicant did not maintain any eye

contact during an interview. Tshirgi (1973) linked non-

verbal behavior displayed in the interview with the

applicant's level of confidence, assertiveness, motivation,

and enthusiasm, and found that business recruiters ranked

communication skills displayed by the applicant as the most

important factor affecting their hiring decisions.

Conversely, excess applicant non-verbal communication during

the interview has been shown to have a negative effect.

Baron (1986) found that the use of self-presentational

tactics (i.e., the emission of many positive nonverbal cues

by the applicant), particularly in excess, may serve as a

source of bias, and distortion in the interview process.









13

The physical attractiveness of job candidates can have

a positive influence on interviewers' hiring decisions

(Gilmore, Beehr, & Love, 1986). Moreover, applicants'

handicaps have also been found to affect the hiring

decisions of interviewers. Arvey (1979), in his review of

four studies dealing with handicapped applicants, revealed

that handicapped applicants received lower hiring

evaluations by interviewers but higher evaluations on

motivational variables.

Intelligence has been identified as an applicant

characteristic that can be estimated reliably and validly

through the interview process (Hanna, 1950; Sperber &

Adlerstein, 1961; Wagner, 1949). Additionally, intelligence

and competence correlated positively with a favorable hiring

decision in a study conducted by Hopper and Williams (1973).

The manner and length of applicants' questions can sway

the opinion of interviewers. Most applicant questions tend

to be closed, singular in form, containing about nine words

and not typically phrased in the first person actual case

(Babbitt & Jablin, 1985). Furthermore, applicants who

receive second interview offers by interviewers tend to ask

fewer questions phrased in the first person than applicants

who do not receive hiring offers (Babbitt & Jablin, 1985).

Situational influences affecting the employment

interview have been attributed to the following: "(a)

political, legal, and economic forces in the marketplace and









14

organization; (b) the role of the interview in the selection

system; (c) the selection ratio; (d) physical setting; and

(e) interview structure" (Arvey & Campion, 1982, p. 283).

In recent reviews of the literature, research conducted on

the reliability of the structured interview versus an

unstructured interview approach have been reported (Arvey &

Campion, 1982; Goodall & Goodall, 1982; Mayfield, 1964).

Structuring the interview refers to the use of similar key

questions (Cohen & Etheredge, 1975). In an unstructured

interview, the interviewer, rather than the interviewee,

dominates the conversation (Anderson, 1960). Researchers

seem to agree that structured interviews provide higher

inter-rater reliability than do non-structured interviews

(Mayfield, 1964). Mayfield (1964) recommended using a

moderately structured interview format and assuring the

interviewer be trained in interviewing techniques prior to

conducting an actual interview.

Ulrich and Trumbo (1965), in their review of the

employment interview literature, cited several aspects

related to the role of the interview in the selection

process. They recommended researchers study the usefulness

of the interview and suggested that the information obtained

from the interview be examined separately from the

information gained from other sources such as employment

tests. Ulrich and Trumbo (1965) also supported Mayfield's

(1964) and Wagner's (1949) recommendations that using a









15

structured approach when conducting the employment interview

is most effective.

The length of the employment interview has been viewed

as important by researchers. Researchers have conducted

studies of interviews lasting from 10 minutes to 2 hours

(Bugental, 1953; Tullar, Mullins & Caldwell, 1979). Tullar,

et al. (1979), in studying the effects of interview length

(15 minutes vs. 30 minutes) on interviewer decision time,

found that the more lengthy the interview the longer it took

for the interviewer to make a decision. However, regardless

of the length of the interview, the researchers indicated

that the interviewer generally makes an impression of the

interviewee, and reaches a decision within the first 4

minutes of the interview (Arvey & Campion, 1982; Springbett,

1958).

Investigating the effects of the interviewer's

characteristics on an applicant's perceptions and on

interview outcome has been of interest to several

researchers (Liden & Parsons, 1986; Rynes, Heneman, &

Schwab, 1980; Schmitt & Coyle, 1976). Arvey and Campion

(1982) categorized interviewer characteristics as including

(a) the age, race, and sex of the interviewer; (b)
physical appearance; (c) psychological
characteristics (i.e., attitude, intelligence, and
motivation); (d) experience and training as an
interviewer; (e) perceptions of job requirements;
(f) prior knowledge of the applicant; (g) goals
for the interview; and (h) verbal and non-verbal
behavior. (Arvey & Campion, 1982, p. 283)











The interviewee's perceptions of the interviewer's

behavior has been shown to influence the outcome of the

employment interview. For example, the interviewer's

behaviors during the employment interview may be interpreted

by applicants as cues or signals of their chances of being

offered employment (Rynes et al., 1980; Rynes & Miller,

1983). Liden and Parsons (1986) found that the

"personableness" of the interviewer can strongly influence

applicant perceptions. Most recently, the results of the

research conducted by Feldman and Arnold (1987) concluded

that "recruiters' behaviors do have an impact on job

applicant perceptions and reactions, but that these

reactions may be less far-ranging than has been previously

believed" (p. 28). The results of this study also indicated

that the negative or positive aspects of a particular job

have had a greater impact on the applicant's acceptance of

the job offer than the recruiter's behaviors (Feldman &

Arnold, 1987).

Arvey and Campion (1982), in their review of the

employment interview research, cited a study conducted by

Wanous in 1980, wherein he advocated the importance of

interviewers providing job candidates with accurate

information so as to help create realistic expectations of

the job. Moreover, interviewers tended to make different

hiring decisions after listening to the same job interviews

because each time they listened, they paid attention to











different information presented by the interviewees

(Mayfield, 1964).



The Employment Interview and College Recruitment

As a selection device, the recruitment interview,

defined as "an appraisal process in which the recruiter

observes various applicant behaviors that prompt a referral

decision," continues to provide an important link between

colleges and the nation's employers (Cohen & Etheredge,

1975, p. 75). The interview is the first step in the

selection process leading to eventual employment for the

college graduates but is viewed by many of them as a

"threat" since so much depends on it (Cohen & Etheredge,

1975).

College students facing the challenge of obtaining

professional positions upon graduation will face one or more

interviews prior to actually being hired. Therefore,

college students today must know how to conduct effective

interviews and face the interviewee role with some degree of

confidence. However, few college students are prepared to

conduct an effective interview as college recruiters report

that "the most flagrant mistake committed by student

applicants [is] an apparent failure to adequately prepare

themselves for the interview experience" (Tschirgi, 1973, p.

77). Shemetulskis (1984) maintained that prospective

applicants must "sell" themselves to convince interviewers











they can perform in the sought after position. It is

through the "solid applications of both verbal and non-

verbal interviewing techniques" that applicants will be able

to emit this message to interviewers (Shemetulskis, 1984, p.

18). Additionally, Penrose (1984) found that both college

students and recruiters agreed that the most important

activity taking place during the employment interview is the

interviewee's opportunity to establish his/her personality

and to sell oneself. In essence, it is not "what" students

say in the interview, but "how" they say it that will

influence the recruiters' judgements (Lumsden & Sharf,

1974).

An excellent way for college students to gain

confidence and obtain feedback regarding interview

performance is by practicing and rehearsing interviewing

styles (Himstreet & Baty, 1984; Vaughn & Darsey, 1987).

Stumpf, Austin, and Hartman (1984) have defined the concept

of "interview readiness" as "the extent one has relevant

skills, and accurate knowledge of past interview

performance; has been encouraged and verbally persuaded that

future performance will be effective; and has confidence

that one is able to perform effectively in interviews" (p.

223). Powell and Kirts (1980) indicated that

All job applicants are nervous and employers overlook
initial flutterings. The only way to minimize
nervousness is to eliminate the uncertainty that
creates it. Uncertainty disappears as the interview
follows a pre-planned pattern. The pre-planned pattern
comes from a sound, well-conceived, and carefully









19

designed presentation. Getting ready for the interview
is a large part of the presentation. (pp. 188-189)

Student applicants who are taught employment interviewing

skills and given the opportunity to practice these skills

will have a significant advantage, setting them apart from

other applicants (Prazak, 1969).

How do college recruiters feel about student

interviewees? Vaughn and Darsey (1987) surveyed the

opinions of college recruiters regarding student behavior

during campus interviews. These researchers reported that

70% of the respondents identified the following behavioral

traits as having a negative effect on their perceptions: (a)

lack of confidence, (b) failure to elaborate on answers, (c)

lack of enthusiasm, (d) uncertainty of type of work prepared

for, and (e) failure to set goals (Vaughn & Darsey, 1987).

Kinicki and Lockwood (1985) concluded that recruiters seemed

to rely upon subjective, impressionistic factors (i.e.,

interview impression and attraction) rather than on

objective, concrete information such as academic achievement

and related work experience. However, other researchers

have cited undergraduate grade point average, affiliation

with a fraternity or sorority, and membership in

professional associations as being related to interviewers'

perceptions and overall impression of applicants (Campion,

1978). Furthermore, Cohen and Etheredge (1975) found that

the performance of applicants in the interview along with











the grade point average correlated with recruiters'

decisions, although the age of the applicant was not

significantly related. Dipboye (1982) has suggested that

the self-fulfilling prophecy manifests itself in the

recruitment process when recruiters identify individuals who

they consider as "stars" and give them preferential

treatment and greater opportunities when hired.



Methods of Teaching Employment Interview Techniques

Studies have been conducted to explore methods of

effectively training individuals to conduct employment

interviews. Traditionally, instructional interviewing

methods have been the lecture-laboratory type which provide

a discussion of interviewing tactics followed by a practice

interview to further reinforce the learning (King & Behnke,

1985). A workshop approach where students become

participants and practice skills is another method often

used to teach interviewing techniques (Hollandsworth &

Sandifer, 1979; Mathews, Damron, & Yuen, 1985; Walker,

1974). Stevens and Tornatzky (1976), after conducting a

study to investigate the effectiveness of a behavioral

skills workshop administered to 26 clients from a drug abuse

treatment program, concluded that 6 months subsequent to

training those who participated in the training were

employed in higher paying jobs than their counterparts who

did not receive the instruction. The results of Briscoe's











(1983) work using a short term behavioral-based program to

teach employment interviewing skills to vocationally

handicapped persons showed that participants in the program

received higher ratings by their employers during post-

training interviews than non-participants. Briscoe's

behavioral-based instructional method consisted of a two-

hour training session using modeling, role-playing,

behavioral rehearsal with performance feedback, and social

reinforcement (Briscoe, 1983). The results of this study

also indicated that verbal behaviors can be quantified

through direct observation (Briscoe, 1983). Speas (1979)

compared four instructional techniques to teach prison

inmates how to conduct an effective interview. He found

that the model exposure plus role playing techniques, and

the model-exposure, plus role playing, plus videotaped-

feedback methods were the most effective instructional

methods (Speas, 1979).

Hollandsworth, Dressel, and Stevens (1977) compared a

behavioral skills workshop and a traditional lecture-

discussion group approach in an attempt to increase

interviewees' effectiveness in employment interviews. They

suggested that neither of these methods was most effective,

and they have recommended using a model combining the most

effective components of a behavioral workshop and a lecture

discussion group (Hollandsworth et al., 1977). In a follow-

up study, Hollandsworth and Sandifer (1979) developed a











a workshop combining the most effective components of the

behavioral workshop and the lecture discussion group method.

They found that this type of workshop could be easily

employed by counselors as a training procedure and yielded

high student satisfaction (Hollandsworth & Sandifer, 1979).

Austin and Vines (1980) compared five methods of teaching

college students employment interviewing behavior: (a) a

didactic approach, (b) a didactic plus a mock interview, (c)

a didactic plus watching professionally conducted videotaped

interviews, (d) a didactic plus watching a self-videotaped

interview with no feedback, and (e) a didactic plus watching

a self videotaped interview but receiving feedback. The

results of this study showed that the videotape instruction

with or without feedback did not increase interview

performance whereas the didactic approach did improve

interview performance (Austin & Vines, 1980). In 1981,

Austin and Grant (1981) compared the same five interview

training techniques (i.e., a didactic, a didactic plus a

mock interview, a didactic plus a professional videotape, a

didactic workshop plus self-videotape with no feedback, and

a didactic workshop plus self-videotape with feedback) using

as subjects college students identified by college placement

counselors as "less marketable" and "more difficult to

place" due to poor verbal skills and socially

unsophisticated behavior (Austin & Grant, 1981, p. 72).

Austin and Grant (1981) found that although the subjects in









23
the treatment groups performed significantly better than the

control group, there were no significant differences in the

treatment subjects' interview performance (Austin & Grant,

1981).

Goodall and Goodall (1982) recommended that researchers

need to collect employment interviewing behavioral data

through observation of interviews. The use of videotaping

student interviews and/or viewing a professional videotape

of an employment interview for instructional purposes is

becoming widely accepted (Austin & Vines, 1980; Chandler,

1984; Gilmore, 1973; Kiradjieff & Stimac, 1975). Using

videotaping to conduct research on the employment interview

and to collect behavioral data has also become more

prevalent and popular with researchers, possibly due to its

greater flexibility and low cost (Arvey & Campion, 1982).

Hollandsworth, Dressel, and Stevens (1977) in their study

comparing a behavioral instructional approach with a

traditional lecture-discussion group approach, videotaped

the subjects in a simulated job interview prior to, and

following each workshop. Arvey and Campion (1982), in their

review of the employment interview research, cited the study

conducted by Osburn, Timmreck, and Digby (1981), who

concluded "that interviewers made accurate discrimination

among job candidates on the basis of a videotaped interview

when they evaluated the candidates on specific and relevant

job dimensions" (p. 297).











Videotaping students engaged in employment interviews,

and then replaying the videotape to elicit classroom

feedback and discussion has been shown to be an effective

teaching tool (Kiradjieff & Stimac, 1975). Videotaping has

also been especially useful when attempting to reshape

student classroom behavior (Yannone, 1984). As a

recruitment tool, videotaping students' employment

interviews has been gaining popularity in the corporate

sector as recruiters are finding it to be a cost effective

and convenient method of making preliminary hiring decisions

(Flanagan, 1985).

With the advent of high technology, the availability

and low cost of microcomputers, applications of simulation

techniques have increased (King & Behnke, 1985), and the use

of microcomputers in the area of career counseling and

placement has become more popular (Alpert, Pulvino, & Lee,

1985; Johnson, 1985). Teachers have been reported to

respond positively to microcomputers. Harmon (1986), in his

research investigating business teachers' attitudes toward

microcomputers as a teaching tool, indicated that their

overall attitude toward computers is positive.

Wagman and Kerber (1984) point out the advantages to

computer-assisted guidance counseling when they indicated

that "the computer is patient, reliable and efficient, and

cannot become overinvolved with the user. And the

accessibility of the computer allows users to independently











interact with the machine at their own convenience" (p.

150). Recently there has been an increase in the

development of career education microcomputer programs which

can be attributed to reduced costs of purchasing micro-

computers and their potential for student utilization

without substantial investment of the counselor's time (Vacc

& Loesch, 1987). Hosie and Smith (1984) indicated that "the

relatively inexpensive cost of microcomputers has opened the

door for counselor educators to participate in the use of

this advanced technological medium for instructional

purposes" (p. 176). Overall, microcomputers offer

flexibility to counselors in their work, while also

contributing to student skill development (Phillips, 1984).



Conclusion

In spite of the microcomputer's instructional potential

and the recent development of software programs that teach

employment interviewing techniques, the review of the

literature yielded no significant studies conducted within

the past five years on the use of microcomputers to teach

employment interviewing techniques to college students.

(Dissertation Abstracts in Education, 1980-1988; ERIC, 1982-

1988; Mental Health Abstracts, 1969-1988; Psycho-Info, 1982-

1988). The research cited in this chapter substantiates

that employment interviewing techniques can be taught and

learned by college students (Austin & Vines, 1980) and also











improve college students' employment interviewing

performance (Austin & Vines, 1980; Austin & Vines, 1981).

Additionally, specific verbal and non-verbal behaviors

displayed by applicants during an employment interview have

been identified and investigated (Hollandsworth, Kazelskis,

Stevens, & Dressel, 1979; Tessler & Sushelsky, 1978;

Tschirgi, 1973). These researchers have demonstrated how

important the appropriate use of these behaviors can be to

attaining a favorable appraisal from the interviewer

(Hollandsworth et al., 1979; Tessler & Sushelsky, 1978;

Tschirgi, 1973). Identification of these behaviors can help

college recruiters find appropriate candidates to fill

organizational positions (Goodall & Goodall, 1982) and

provide valuable information to career and placement

counselors that can be used as a teaching tool in the

pragmatics of employment interviewing (Goodall & Goodall,

1982).















CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY


The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of

three instructional methods often used by career and

placement counselors to instruct college students in

employment interviewing techniques. The three instructional

methods compared were (a) counselor-led instruction, (b)

microcomputer-assisted instruction, and (c) videotape

instruction.



Relevant Variables

The dependent variables under investigation were (a)

the mock hiring decisions of the interviewers and the

raters, (b) the ratings of the students' behavior displayed

in the videotaped mock interviews, and (c) the students'

retention of the information as presented in the

instructional activities. The independent variables were

the methods of teaching employment interviewing techniques

to college students. There were four levels of the

independent variable: (a) counselor-led instruction, (b)

microcomputer-assisted instruction, and (c) videotaped

instruction. The control group did not receive any

instruction.











Population

The population for this study consisted of 806 students

who had completed 60 semester hours or more and were

enrolled in full time, undergraduate studies during the

spring, 1988 semester at St. Thomas University, located in

Miami, Florida. St. Thomas University is one of three

private Catholic institutions of higher education in the

State of Florida, offering undergraduate, graduate, and

Juris Doctor degrees.

Of the 806 students which comprised the population of

this investigation, 337 were classified as juniors (i.e.,

third year of academic studies) and 469 were seniors (i.e.,

fourth year of academic studies). The third-year class

consisted of 54% males and 46% females. The percentage of

male and females for the fourth-year class was 44% and 56%,

respectively.

St. Thomas has a high enrollment of students of

Hispanic descent as approximately 46% of the student

population are classified as Hispanics. Forty-two percent

of the students enrolled during the spring, 1988 semester in

the third-year class were Hispanic. Ten percent of the

students in the third-year class were non-Hispanic blacks.

The fourth-year class was composed of 52% Hispanics and 5%

non-Hispanic blacks.











Sampling Procedure and the Resultant Sample

Random sampling was used to obtain the college students

used in this study. A computer generated list of third- and

fourth-year students (i.e., students who had completed 60 or

more semester hours and were enrolled full time at St.

Thomas University during the spring, 1988 semester) was used

to select the sample. A letter was sent by the investigator

to all the students on the list advising them of their

selection for the investigation. The letter asked the

students to contact the investigator within seven to ten

days if they were interested in participating in the study.

A follow-up phone call was placed to those students who did

not respond within a week. Those students who indicated an

interest in participating were randomly assigned to a

treatment group until there were a total of 12 students in

each group. The students agreeing to participate in the

study also met the following criteria: (a) they had

completed 60 semester hours or more at St. Thomas University

and were enrolled full time in academic studies, (b) they

did not have a long history of professional employment

(i.e., three or more positions), and (c) they agreed to

participate as subjects in the research.



Procedure and Methodology

A memorandum was written to Dr. Paul Weiser, St. Thomas

University's Dean for Academic Affairs, requesting approval









30

to conduct this investigation (Appendix B). After approval

was granted a request was made to the University's Computer

Center to obtain a listing of all undergraduate students who

had completed 60 semester hours or more and were enrolled

full time at St. Thomas University during the spring, 1988

semester. The computer generated list contained the names,

addresses, and phone numbers of 298 third- and fourth-year

students. The list contained only the names of students who

had given their permission to the University's Registrar to

release their student information for research purposes.

Due to the small size of the population, all the

students listed having local addresses (i.e., students

residing on the St. Thomas campus, or living in Dade and

Broward counties) were sent letters by the investigator

(Appendix C). The letter asked the students to contact the

investigator within 7-10 days. As the students responded

positively to either the letter or the follow-up phone

calls, they were randomly assigned to either of the four

groups (i.e., counselor-led instruction, microcomputer-

assisted instruction, videotaped instruction, or control

group).

Pressures and problems which traditionally beset

counseling settings often allow counselors sufficient time

to address only immediate concerns of clients (Vacc &

Loesch, 1987), and counselors usually can allot students

only one-half hour or so of time to instruct them in











employment interviewing techniques. Therefore, each

treatment lasted one-half hour.

Immediately following the treatment the subjects were

scheduled for their videotaped mock employment interview and

randomly assigned to either a female or male interviewer.

The subjects all spoke with the investigator regarding the

research study and signed the Informed Consent Form

(Appendix D). All the subjects were told they were being

videotaped in a mock employment interview and were given

instructions asking them to conduct the interview as if it

were a "real" job interview. They were also informed that

they were applying to the fictitious XYZ Company and were

asked to choose one of the positions listed on the

instruction sheet. They were instructed to conduct the

interview as if they were applying for that particular

position (Appendix E). The interviewers were "blind" in

regard to the group to which the subjects were assigned.

All subjects completed a demographic questionnaire (Appendix

F), and the Retention Questionnaire (Appendix G).

The two male and female interviewers were knowledgeable

in employment interviewing, having an educational and

professional background in employment interviewing and

placement. The male interviewer held a Bachelor's degree in

Personnel Administration and had worked as a personnel

supervisor. The female interviewer held a Master's degree

in counseling and worked as a career and placement











counselor. The interviewers conducted the mock interviews

based on a set of fifteen questions (Appendix H) extracted

from the "Most often asked questions in the employment

interview" contained in the training instructions for the

Four Stages of Interviewing (Career Development Software and

Cambridge Products, 1979). Following the completion of each

videotaped student interview the interviewer completed the

EIRS and made a "mock hiring decision." The interviewers

were asked to respond to the question "Would you hire this

student?" based on the following five-point, Likert-type

scale: (a) "1" Definitely not, (b) "2" Probably not, (c) "3"

Possibly may, (d) "4" Probably will, and (e) "5" Definitely

will. Prior to conducting their first interview, the

interviewers participated in a one and one-half hour

training session with the investigator.

Three individuals knowledgeable in employment

interviewing and with prior experience in the area of

employment interviewing watched the students' videotaped

interviews and rated the verbal and non-verbal behaviors

displayed by the subjects in the videotaped mock interviews.

All of these individuals had Master's degrees in counseling.

One of them worked as a vocational rehabilitation counselor

in the private sector, counseling and placing industrially

injured workers. The other rater was the Assistant Director

of Student Development at Nova University, in Davie,

Florida, and has counseled undergraduate students in career











development areas. The final rater was the Director of

Placement at St. Thomas School of Law.

The raters used the EIRS to rate the subjects' verbal

and non-verbal employment interviewing behavior during the

videotaped mock interviews. Following the termination of

each mock interview, the raters made a "mock hiring

decision" based on the same five-point Likert-type scale

described previously. The raters were blind as to which of

the four groups the subjects were assigned.

The investigator conducted a one and one-half hour

training session with the raters. The training focused on

the use of the EIRS, and the employment interviewing

behaviors under investigation. A glossary was developed (by

the investigator) containing descriptions of the behaviors

under observation (Appendix I). The glossary was used

during the training to assist the raters with the

terminology found in the EIRS and with the behaviors being

investigated.



Description of Training

The training for the two interviewers consisted of

viewing a one-half hour videotape program entitled, The Four

Stages of Interviewing, developed by Career Development

Software and Cambridge Products (1979b). The interviewers

also reviewed the Student Handout (Appendix I) (which

outlined the four stages of interviewing) and the 15











interview questions to be asked during the videotaped mock

employment interviews. The investigator reviewed each

question with the interviewers and instructed them to follow

the exact order in which the questions were listed while

conducting the mock interviews. Each item on the EIRS was

also reviewed with the interviewers so that they understood

the meaning of the item and the correct use of the

instrument. Finally, the interviewers conducted a mock

employment interview with one another. The interviews were

videotaped, and that videotape was used in the training

administered to the raters. The interviewers also were

provided the opportunity to view their respective videotapes

and obtained feedback from the investigator.

The three videotape raters also participated in a one

and one-half hour training session with the investigator.

They watched the 30-minute video of the Four Stages of

Interviewing and reviewed the handouts describing the

stages. The investigator reviewed the items on the EIRS and

the behavior being measured in each item. The glossary of

terms developed to assist the interviewers and raters with

the terminology used in the EIRS was also reviewed with the

raters during the training. The raters practiced using the

EIRS by rating the interviewers' behaviors on the sample

videotape of the employment interviews conducted by the two

interviewers.











To estimate the inter-rater reliability among the

raters' behavioral ratings and their mock hiring decisions,

the Spearman-rho correlation coefficient was computed for

the two sample interviews. A correlation of .98 was

obtained between the behavioral ratings and the mock hiring

decisions for Interview 1, and .86 was obtained for

Interview 2.



Description of Instructional Methods

The three instructional methods under investigation

were (a) counselor-led instruction, (b) microcomputer-

assisted instruction, and (c) videotape instruction. The

content of each of these methods consisted of material from

Career Development Software (1979a,b). In the videotape

instructional method the subjects viewed the 30-minute

videotape, The Four Stages of Interviewing developed by

Career Development (1979b). The videotape provided

instruction on issues and questions unique to each stage and

advice on how to conduct oneself during interviews. The

videotape also provided explanations on how to respond to

questions likely to be asked during the interview.

There was no instructor interaction with the subjects

during the videotape instruction. The instructor came in

prior to the instruction to distribute the Student Handout

and to turn on the videotape. The instructor returned at

the end of the videotape to turn off the television and











distribute and collect the demographic and retention

questionnaires. Immediately following the treatment, the

subjects went to the St. Thomas Media Center to be

videotaped in the mock employment interview intended to last

15 minutes.

The microcomputer-assisted instructional method

consisted of 30 minutes of one-to-one student interaction

with the software developed by Career Development, The Four

Stages of Interviewing--The Micro Program. This software

contains the same information on the four stages of

interviewing that is contained in the videotape. As in the

videotape instruction, there was no instructor interaction

other than providing technical assistance on the use of the

microcomputer. The instructor turned on the microcomputer

for the subjects, inserted the software disk, and

distributed the Student Handout. At the end of the 30

minutes the program was finished, and the instructor turned

off the computer and gave the subjects the demographic and

retention questionnaires to complete. The subjects then

proceeded to the St. Thomas Media Center to be videotaped in

mock employment interviews.

The 30-minute counselor-led instruction was

facilitated by a career counselor from the Career Resources

Center at St. Thomas University. During this treatment,

the counselor/instructor presented the same material

contained in the videotape and software programs. The











counselor/instructor reviewed the four stages of

interviewing and questions likely to be asked during the

interview. She also assisted the subjects in developing

appropriate responses to these questions. During the last

20 minutes of the instruction, a 10-minute, role-played

interview was conducted by the counselor/instructor with one

of the subjects (Appendix K). Upon completion, the

counselor/instructor distributed the demographic and

retention questionnaires. The subjects then went to the St.

Thomas Media Center to be videotaped in mock employment

interviews.



Instrumentation

The Employment Interview Rating Scale (EIRS) was

developed using behavioral characteristics displayed in the

employment interview previously identified in research by

Cohen & Etheredge (1975). Permission was obtained from the

Journal of College Placement to use modified items from

Cohen and Etheredge's (1975) Employment Interview Checklist

(Appendix L). A 5-point, Likert-type scale was applied to

the 48 behavioral items selected for the EIRS. A Likert-

type scale was used because it is a summated rating scale

which will yield a greater variance than a checklist in

regards to subjects' attitudes (Issac & Michael, 1971;

Kerlinger, 1964).









38

To clarify the meaning of the items and to avoid sexist

language, the investigator changed the wording on those

items selected from Cohen and Etheredge's Employment

Interview Checklist (1975). The word "applicant" was

changed to "interviewee," sexist language was deleted from

all the items, and items were re-written from a negative to

a positive perspective. Additionally, the behavioral items

were categorized into the following "behavioral dimensions"

which were constructed and validated by Lumsden and Sharf

(1974): (a) academic balance, (b) social balance, (c)

judgement, (d) oral presentation, (e) non-verbal behavior,

and (f) preparedness for the interview.

To establish content validity, 34 college recruiters

who were recruiting at St. Thomas University's Career Day

Fair during October, 1987, were asked to complete the

recruiters' version of the EIRS. These recruiters were

individuals who worked in various areas of personnel or

human resources and who have interviewed prospective job

applicants on a regular basis. The recruiters were asked to

respond on the relevancy to the employment interview of each

of the 48 items on the EIRS based on the following five

point Likert scale: (a) "1" Highly relevant, (b) "2"

somewhat relevant, (c) "3" relevant, (d) "4" not relevant

but keep the item, and (e) "5" not relevant at all delete

item. The recruiters were also asked to offer their

comments or suggestions for additional items (Appendix M).











Twenty-five of the 34 recruiters completed and

returned the EIRS to the investigator. A "split-half"

reliability using the Spearman-rho (Rank Difference)

correlation coefficient was computed on the recruiters'

version of the EIRS to estimate the measurement accuracy and

internal consistency of the items (Issac & Michael, 1977).

The split-half technique was chosen by the investigator so

as to avoid the problems associated with re-testing such as

the effects of prior practice and item memorization (Blum &

Foos, 1986). A correlation coefficient of .93 was obtained

using the raw scores of the odd and even items.

Due to the length and ambiguity of some of the items,

the recruiters' version of the EIRS was revised by the

investigator. Those items which were reported to be

"irrelevant or ambiguous" by three or more of the recruiters

were deleted from the final version of the EIRS. The item,

"The interviewee conveyed a positive attitude" was added to

the non-verbal behavioral dimension of the EIRS as suggested

by one of recruiters validating the instrument. The mock

hiring decision, "Would you hire this applicant," based on

the following 5-point Likert-type scale: (a) "1" Definitely

not, (b) "2" Probably not, (c) "3" Possibly may, (d) "4"

Probably will, and (e) "5" Definitely will, was also added

to the EIRS to allow for comparisons between the behavioral

ratings and the mock hiring decisions of the interviewers

and raters.











Further revision of the EIRS consisted of re-

categorizing the items into only two subscale dimensions,

verbal and non-verbal behavior. The final version of the

EIRS contained a total of 30 items and the mock hiring

decision (i.e., the item "Would you hire this applicant")

(Appendix A). The directions on the EIRS asked the

respondents to review each of the items and determine the

extent to which the interviewee, during the mock interview,

displayed the behavior(s) identified in the items. All the

items were to be answered based on the following Likert-type

scale: (a) "1" Definitely not, (b) "2" No, (c) "3"

Somewhat, (d) "4" Yes, and (e) "5" Yes, definitely. To

estimate the reliability of the instrument following these

revisions, the Spearman-Brown correlation coefficient was

computed on the final version of the EIRS. The Spearman-

Brown correlation coefficient is used to establish

reliability after an instrument is lengthened or shortened

(Cronbach, 1970). A coefficient of .83 was obtained. The

EIRS was scored by totaling the weighted item ratings of the

behavioral subscale dimensions and computing a mean score

for the entire EIRS and for the sub-scale dimensional areas.

The Retention Questionnaire contained 10 multiple-choice

items that covered the major points of the material

presented in the videotape and microcomputer program, the

Four Stages of Interviewing (Career Development Software and

Cambridge Products, 1979a,b). The Retention Questionnaire









41

was scored by totaling the items answered correctly. A mean

score for the experimental groups and the control group was

computed.



Experimental Hypotheses

The experimental hypotheses under investigation were

1. There will be no significant differences among

the mean scores of the experimental groups and the control

group on the EIRS.

2. There will be no significant differences among

the mean scores of the experimental groups and the control

group on the verbal dimension subscale of the EIRS.

3. There will be no significant differences among

the mean scores of the emperimental groups and the control

group on the non-verbal dimension subscale of the EIRS.

4. There will be no significant differences among

the experimental groups and the control group on the

retention scores.

5. There will be no significant relationship

between the mock hiring decisions of the raters and the

interviewers.

6. There will be no significant relationship

between the verbal and non-verbal behavior (as measured by

the mean of the total scores of the experimental groups on

the EIRS) and the mock hiring decisions of the interviewers.











7. There will be no significant relationship

between the verbal and non-verbal behavior of the

experimental groups (as measured by the mean of the total

scores on the EIRS) and the mock hiring decisions of the

raters.

8. There will be no significant relationship

between the verbal behavior of the experimental groups (as

measured by the mean of the total scores on the verbal

dimension subscale of the EIRS) and the mock hiring

decisions of the interviewers.

9. There will be no significant relationship

between the verbal behavior of the experimental groups (as

measured by the mean of the total scores on the verbal

dimension subscale of the EIRS) and the mock hiring

decisions of the raters.

10. There will be no significant relationship

between the non-verbal behavior of the experimental groups

(as measured by the mean scores on the non-verbal dimension

subscale of the EIRS) and the mock hiring decisions of the

interviewers.

11. There will be no significant relationship

between the non-verbal behavior of the experimental groups

(as measured by the mean scores on the non-verbal dimension

subscale of the EIRS) and the mock hiring decisions of the

raters.











Data Analyses

The research design used in this investigation was a

randomized control group, post-test only design (Isaac &

Michael, 1971). There were four independent groups having

randomly selected and assigned subjects. Three of the groups

received the treatment--one of the three instructional

methods of employment interviewing. The control group

received delayed treatment. No pre-test was administered

because randomization allowed the investigator to omit the

pre-test (Kerlinger, 1964; Issac & Michael, 1971).

According to Issac and Michael (1971).

The experimenter can omit the pre-test because
randomization techniques permit him to declare
that at the time of assignment the groups were
equal. The probability theory tells him to what
extent the randomly assigned subjects in the four
groups might have been expected to differ by
chance on T, (pre-test) and the test of
significance takes account of such differences.
(p.42)

Randomized control-group post-test designs control for

threats to internal validity in the areas of history,

maturation, and protesting. With this design, no pre-test

is administered which could interact with the interventions

(Issac & Michael, 1971).

Descriptive statistics were computed on the data

obtained from the investigation. Subjects' scores on the

EIRS and the Retention Questionnaire were summed and mean

scores computed.









44

Analyses of variance and Pearson Product-Moment

correlations were the statistical analyses used to test the

null hypotheses under investigation. Scheffe's Tests to

test for comparisons between group means was conducted on

the rejected null hypothesis.















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

Researchers have revealed that college students

generally are not adequately prepared to conduct an

effective employment interview; consequently, they fail to

attain the sought after position after graduation (Garis &

Hess, 1985; Shemetulskis, 1984; Tschirgi, 1973).

Furthermore, the pressures and problems often faced by

counselors allow them to address only the immediate concerns

of clients (Vacc & Loesch, 1987) thus leaving career and

placement counselors with limited amounts of time to

instruct college students in employment interviewing

techniques.

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of

three, one-half hour, instructional approaches which could

be used by career and placement counselors to instruct

college students in employment interviewing techniques. The

three treatment approaches under investigation were (a)

counselor-led instruction, (b) videotape instruction, and

(c) microcomputer-assisted instruction. The Employment

Interview Rating Scale (EIRS) was developed by the

investigator to measure the verbal and non-verbal behaviors

displayed by the subjects during a videotaped mock











employment interview following their participation in the

treatment. The EIRS was also used to determine whether the

verbal and non-verbal behaviors displayed by college

students during the employment interview were related to the

hiring decisions of the interviewers and raters who watched

the videotaped mock interview. A Retention Questionnaire

was administered to the subjects to measure the retention of

information learned during the instruction. A control group

was also used for comparisons.

Analyses of variance and computation of product-moment

correlations were used to test the null hypotheses. The

acceptable level of significance for all the analyses was

set at the .05.



Sample

The sample for this study consisted of 48 college

students in their junior and senior years of undergraduate

study at St. Thomas University, a private Catholic

University located in Miami, Florida. Twenty-six of these

students were males and 22 were females. Seventy-five

percent of the subjects were seniors (i.e., fourth year)

while 25% were juniors (i.e., third year). All the subjects

were enrolled full time in academic studies and had a

diversity of majors.









47

In Table 1 descriptive statistics of the sample by age

are provided. The subjects ranged in age from 21 to 52.

The mean age for all the subjects was 24.58.

In Table 2, a breakdown of the subjects' ethnicity is

provided. Forty-one percent of the subjects were Caucasian

(non-Hispanic), 36% were Hispanic, 19% were black American,

2% were Puerto Rican American, and 2% were of Asian/Pacific

Islander ethnicity.

The subjects held a total of 239 jobs since age 16,

with a range of 1 to 20 jobs per subject. The mean number

of jobs held by all the subjects since age 16 was 5 per

subject. Of these, 54 were of a professional nature and

directly related to the subjects' majors. The range of the

professional jobs held was 0 to 3; with a mean of 1.1 per

subject (see Table 3).

As discussed in Chapter III, the subjects were randomly

assigned to the counselor-led, microcomputer-assisted,

videotape instruction or control group. With the exception

of the control group, the subjects were asked (on the

Demographic Questionnaire) to indicate their level of

satisfaction according to the following scale: (a) "1"

Definitely not satisfied, (b) "2" Not satisfied, (c) "3"

Somewhat satisfied, (d) "4" Satisfied, and (e) "5"

Definitely very satisfied. Descriptive statistics for the

subjects' level of satisfaction with the instruction can














Table 1

Sample Size and Descriptive Statistics Breakdown by Age


Sample Counselor- Microcomputer- Videotape Control
Group: Led Assisted

Sample
Size: 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00


Age:

Mean 28.58 23.08 24.00 22.66

S.D. 10.66 1.93 2.92 2.53

Minimum 21.00 21.00 20.00 21.00

Maximum 52.00 27.00 37.00 30.00













Table 2

Breakdown of Subject Ethnicity By Group



Sample Counselor- Microcomputer- Video- Control Total
Group: Led Assisted tape



Black Am.* 5 1 1 2 9

Asian/Pac. 0 1 0 0 1

Caucasian 5 4 6 5 20

Am.* Indian 0 0 0 0 0

Mexican Am.* 0 0 0 0 0

Puerto Rican 0 1 0 0 1

Hispanic 2 5 5 5 17


Totals 12 12 12 12 48


*American













Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Number of Jobs Held


Sample Counselor-led Microcomputer- Video- Control
Group: Assisted tape


Jobs Held Since Age 16


Mean 4.6 5.7 5.0 4.5

S.D. 1.2 2.9 2.0 5.3

Minimum 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Maximum 6.0 10.0 8.0 20.0


Professional Jobs Held


Mean 1.2 1.5 .9 .8

S.D. .8 1.2 1.1 .9

Minimum 0 0 0 0

Maximum 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0











be seen in Table 4. All the subjects indicated that they

were satisfied with the instruction received. The mean

level of satisfaction expressed by the subjects in the

experimental groups was 4.5.

The subjects were asked to complete a ten-item,

multiple choice-Retention Questionnaire (Appendix G).

Descriptive statistics for the amount of information

retained by the subjects following the instruction received

can be seen in Table 5. The subjects in the experimental

groups performed better on the Retention Questionnaire than

the subjects in the control group who received no

instruction prior to completing the questionnaire.



Findings Related to the Null Hypotheses

Differences among the three instructional approaches

and the control group were examined in terms of the mean

scores obtained by the subjects on the verbal and non-verbal

dimensions of the EIRS, and on the scores obtained on the

Retention Questionnaire. Differences between the hiring

decisions of the raters and the interviewers were based on

their EIRS ratings of the verbal and non-behavior displayed

by the treatment groups during the videotaped mock

interview. Findings regarding the null hypotheses are as

follows:














Table 4

Descriptive Statistics


for T,,vv1 of Tnstriicntinn Siaf~cl-n


Sample Counselor-led Microcomputer- Videotape
Group: Assisted


Mean 4.7 4.5 4.2

S.D. .4 .4 .5

Minimum 4.0 4.0 4.0

Maximum 5.0 5.0 5.0








Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Subject Retention



Sample Counselor-led Micro-computer Videotape Control
Group: Assisted


Mean 9.17 9.00 9.58 8.58

S.D. .72 1.04 .51 .90

Minimum 8.00 7.00 9.00 7.00

Maximum 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00











Hypothesis 1: There will be no significant

differences among the mean scores of the

experimental groups and the control group on

the EIRS.

The interviewers were asked to rate the subjects'

verbal and non-verbal behavior following the videotaped mock

employment interview. The scores were added to obtain a

total EIRS score, and mean scores were obtained. The raters

were asked to do likewise except that their ratings of the

subjects were based on their perceptions of the interviewee

after watching videotapes of the mock employment interviews.

In Tables 6 and 7 the results of a one-way analysis of

variance computed by group of the total mean scores

obtained by the subjects on the EIRS is provided. These

tables provide the results of both the interviewers and the

raters ratings. There were no significant differences in

scores between the groups. Based on this finding,

Hypothesis 1 was not rejected.

Hypothesis 2: There will be no significant

differences among the mean scores of the

experimental groups and the control group

on the verbal dimension of the EIRS.












Table 6

Interviewers' Ratings
Analysis of Varianro-


Tnotl Man


FTRT R.nrn c h\v (Trnn


Source DF Sum of Mean F pr(F)
Squares Squares



Group 3 .3363 .1121 .3525 .7897

Error 44 13.9890 .3179 -- --



Total 47 14.3253








Table 7

Raters' Ratings
Analysis of Variance: Total Mean EIRS Scores by Group



Source DF Sum of Mean F pr(F)
Squares Squares


Group 3 .4002 .1334 .6989 .5609

Error 44 8.3984 .1908 -- --


Total 47 8.7986


ETRS Scores b Groun











The attempt here was to test the effect of the

instructional treatment on the mean verbal scores

obtained by the subjects on the EIRS. To test the

hypothesis a one-way analysis of variance was computed.

No significant differences between the groups (see Tables 8

and 9) were revealed and the null hypothesis was not

rejected.

Hypothesis 3: There will be no significant differences

among the mean scores of the experimental groups and

control group on the non-verbal dimension of the

EIRS.

The results of a one-way analysis of variance used to

test for significant differences between the mean non-verbal

EIRS scores obtained by the groups can be seen in Tables 10

and 11. No significant differences were found among the

means. The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Hypothesis 4: There will be no significant differences

among the experimental groups and the control group on

the mean retention scores.

The Retention Questionnaire was administered to all the

subjects in the experimental groups immediately following

the instruction. The control group completed the Retention

Questionnaire prior to engaging in the videotaped mock

interview and prior to receiving delayed treatment. The














Table 8

Interviewers' Ratings
Analysis of Variance:


Mean Verbal EIRS Scores by Group


Source DF Sum of Mean F pr(F)
Squares Squares


Group 3 .8943 .2981 .5964 .6246

Error 44 21.9917 .4998 -- --


Total 47 22.8860







Table 9

Raters' Ratings
Analysis of Variance: Mean Verbal EIRS Scores by Group



Source DF Sum of Mean F pr(F)
Squares Squares


Group 3 1.4188 .4729 1.4315 .2454

Error 44 14.5373 .3303 -- --


Total 47 15.9561












Table 10

Interviewers' Ratings
Analysis of Variance:



Source DF



Group 3

Error 44


Total 47


Table 11

Raters' Ratings
Analysis of Variance:



Source DF


Group

Error


Total


Mean Nonverbal EIRS



Sum of Mean
Squares Squares


.1272 4.2430

12.3175 .2799


12.4447


Mean Nonverbal EIRS



Sum of Mean
Squares Squares


.4889 .1629

10.1660 .2310


10.6549


Scores by



F



.1516


Scores



F



.7053


Group



pr(F)



.9250


by Group



pr(F)



.5571


I


--~---











results of a one-way analysis of variance to determine

whether there were any significant differences between the

groups in the amount of information retained by the

subjects are found in Table 12. Significant differences

were found among the four groups. Therefore, the null

hypothesis was rejected.

The differences between all the group means were

tested using the Scheffe procedure (Roscoe, 1975). The

region of rejection for testing comparisons among the

means was set at the .05 level. Table 13 provides the

magnitude of the pairwise contrasts and the F statistics.

Significant differences were found between the means

of the videotape group and the control group. The

subjects receiving the videotape instruction performed

better on the Retention Questionnaire than the control

group subjects. There were no other significant differences

among the groups.

The relationships between the mock hiring decisions of

the interviewers and the raters and the experimental

subjects' scores on the EIRS were dealt with in Hypotheses 5

to 8. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients using

a one-tailed test with the alpha was set at .05 and 35

degree of freedoms were used to test each of these

hypotheses.

















of Variance:


Mean Retention Scores by Group



Sum of Mean F
Squares Squares


6.1667 2.0556 3.0659

29.5000 .6705 --


35.6667


Table 12

Analysis



Source



Group

Error


Total


pr(F)



.0377














Table 13


Retention Scores: The
the F Statistics


Magnitude of Pairwise Contrast and


vs. vs. vs. vs.
Groups: Counselor- Microcomputer- Videotape Control
Led Assisted


Counselor- -- .1667 .4166 .5834
Led (F=.208) (F=2.670) (F=3.080)

Microcomputer- -- -- .5833 .4167
Assisted (F=3.011) (F=1.096)

Videotape -- -- -- 1.0
(F=11.155)*

Control


*P < .05











Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant

relationship between the mock hiring decisions of the

raters and the interviewers.

A correlation coefficient of +.41 was obtained which

indicates that a significant relationship existed between

the mock hiring decisions of the interviewers and the mock

hiring decisions of the raters. Therefore, the null

hypothesis was rejected (see Table 14).

Hypothesis 6: There will be no significant

relationship between the verbal and non-verbal behavior

(as measured by the mean of the total scores of the

experimental groups on the EIRS) and the mock hiring

decisions of the interviewers.

A correlation coefficient of +.93 was obtained between the

mean of the total EIRS scores of the treatment groups and

the mock hiring decisions of the interviewers (see Table

15). The null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis 7: There will be no significant

relationship between the verbal and non-verbal behavior

(as measured by the mean of the total scores of the

experimental groups on the EIRS) and the mock hiring

decisions of the raters on the videotaped mock

interview.

Table 15 shows that a correlation coefficient of +.76

was obtained between the mean of the total EIRS scores of













Table 14


Pearson Product-Moment Correlation:


Raters' and


Interviewers' Hiring Decisions



Hiring Decisions Mean SD r


Raters 2.86 1.01 --

Interviewers 3.55 1.34 .41*


*p < .05














Table 15

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations: EIRS Ratings vs.
Hiring Decisions


Variable Mean SD Hiring Decision


EIRS Ratings Interviewer Rater



Interviewers' Ratings

Verbal 3.8 .67 .89*

Non-Verbal 4.3 .52 .75*

Total 4.1 .55 .93*

Raters' Ratings

Verbal 3.6 .56 .62*

Non-Verbal 3.9 .46 .63*

Total 3.7 .44 .76*


*E < .05, df=35









64

the experimental groups and the mock hiring decisions of the

raters. The null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis 8: There will be no significant

relationship between the verbal behavior (as measured

by the mean of the total scores of the experimental

groups on the verbal dimension subscore of the EIRS)

and the mock hiring decisions of the interviewers.

Table 15 reveals that a correlation coefficient of +.89

was obtained between the interviewers' ratings on the verbal

dimension subscale of the EIRS and their mock hiring

decisions. The null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis 9: There will be no significant

relationship between the verbal behavior (as measured

by the mean of the total scores of the experimental

groups on the verbal dimension subscore of the EIRS)

and the mock hiring decisions of the raters.

A correlation coefficient of +.62 was obtained between

the raters' ratings on the verbal dimension subscale of the

EIRS and their mock hiring decisions (Table 15). Hypothesis

8 was rejected.

Hypothesis 10: There will be no significant

relationship between the non-verbal behavior (as

measured by the mean of the total scores of the

experimental groups on the non-verbal dimension

subscale of the EIRS) and the mock hiring decisions of

the interviewers.









65

A correlation coefficient of +.75 was obtained between

the interviewers' ratings on the non-verbal dimension

subscale of the EIRS and their mock hiring decisions (see

Table 15). The null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis 11: There will be no significant

relationship between the non-verbal behavior (as

measured by the mean of the total scores of the

experimental groups on the non-verbal dimension

subscale of the EIRS) and the mock hiring decisions of

the raters.

A correlation coefficient of +.63 was obtained between

the raters' ratings on the non-verbal dimension subscale of

the EIRS and their mock hiring decisions (Table 15). The

null hupothesis was rejected.

The results reported above reveal that both the

interviewers and the raters ratings of the verbal and non-

verbal behaviors displayed by the subjects during the mock

employment interview, (as measured by the EIRS) were related

to their mock hiring decisions.















CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION


The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of

three instructional approaches used to teach college

students employment interviewing techniques. The three

instructional treatments under investigation were all one

half hour in duration and consisted of counselor-led

instruction, videotape instruction, and microcomputer-

assisted instruction. A control group was used to make

further comparisons among the variables.

The identified variables assessed were the hiring

decisions of the interviewers and the raters, the ratings of

the students' behaviors during the videotaped mock

employment interviews, and the students' retention of the

information presented in the instruction. The Employment

Interview Rating Scale (EIRS) was developed to rate the

subjects' verbal and non-behaviors during the mock interview

conducted following the instruction.

The findings revealed that neither of the three

instructional methods were more effective than the other in

teaching employment interviewing techniques to college

students. However, there were significant findings in the

retention of information of the treatment group receiving











the videotape instruction. The group that received the

videotape instruction retained more information than the

control group.

Additionally, significant relationships were found

between the verbal and non-verbal behaviors (as measured by

the EIRS) displayed by the treatment groups during the

videotaped mock employment interview, and the hiring

decisions of the interviewers and the raters who watched the

videotaped interviews. A positive correlation was found

between the hiring decisions of the interviewers and the

raters.



Limitations

While this research presents support for the need to

continue to find effective methods of instructing college

students in employment interviewing; it was limited in its

scope as the sample population was selected from a small,

private, mainly commuter-student university. Although the

sample represented in this study was a diverse one,

selecting students from a larger institution may have

yielded different results.

Some of the students selected had prior exposure to

employment interviewing having previously interviewed to

obtain part time college work study positions during their

college careers. Although, the students selected for the


. 1











sample all indicated they had not held more than three

professional jobs related to their major, they all disclosed

having had one or more jobs throughout their lifetime. This

prior exposure or "practice effect" was difficult to control

and could have affected the independent variables.

The research environment was kept as stable and

consistent as possible, however, it was a laboratory type

setting rather than an actual "personnel office" setting.

This could have affected the performance of the students in

the mock interview as they were not actually interviewing

for a "real job," and may not have taken the mock interview

seriously. However, to control for this variable, the

subjects were given instructions prior to engaging in the

mock interview, and were told to conduct the interview as if

they were applying for a "real job."

A potential and continuous problem when working with

college students is their lack of attention to keeping

scheduled appointments. Often students did not arrive on

time for their instruction or called to cancel and/or

reschedule; thus causing difficulties in time coordination

between the students, the interviewers, the career

counselor, and the investigator. This may have had an

adverse affect on the results.

The EIRS was an instrument developed to be used in this

research. Further validation would be necessary if the

instrument were to be used for predictive purposes.









69

Finally, the Retention Questionnaire may have been too

facile and simplistic as the scores for all four groups

ranged from 7 to 10. Even though significant findings were

found between the experimental groups and the control group;

this was expected since the control group received no

instruction prior to completing the Retention Questionnaire.

It might have been better to have administered the Retention

Questionnaire to the control group following the delayed

treatment.



Discussion

The results of this study indicate that not one of the

three instructional methods was more effective than any

other. Factors which could have affected the results

include the following: (a) length of the instruction, (b)

subjects' prior exposure to interviewing, (c) the

personalities of the subject and the interviewer, and (d)

the laboratory type setting.

The amount of information retained by the students as

result of receiving instruction resulted in significant

findings. Furthermore, students receiving the videotape

instruction retained more information than those students in

the control group. This finding could be attributed to the

visual and animated presentation of the video instruction

wherein simulated "employment interviewing vignettes" were

provided as examples in the presentation. No other











significant finding was discovered among the means of the

experimental groups for the amount of information retained

by the subjects.

The investigator developed the EIRS to measure the

verbal and non-verbal behaviors of individuals during the

employment interview. The EIRS was used in this study to

rate the behaviors displayed by college students during the

mock interview. The mean scores on the two subscale

dimensions and the total EIRS scores of the subjects were

correlated with the hiring decisions of the interviewers and

the raters. The hiring decisions of the interviwers and the

raters were also correlated.

The verbal and non-verbal behaviors of the college

students as measured by the EIRS were found to be positively

correlated to the hiring decisions of the interviewers and

the raters. The hiring decisions of the interviewers and

raters also were positively correlated. Higher correlations

were computed between the interviewers ratings and their

hiring decisions than for the raters' ratings. This may

suggest that the face to face interview may have had a

greater impact on the perceptions of the interviewer

resulting in the higher ratings. The raters were not

affected by the human aspect as they were watching

videotapes; which perhaps provided a more objective

measure.











Additional findings show that higher correlations

were computed between the subjects' verbal EIRS mean

scores and the hiring decisions of the interviewers

suggesting that verbal behaviors have a greater affect

on the hiring decisions of interviewers than the non-verbal

behaviors.



Conclusions

Several conclusions may be drawn from the data

presented in this study. There were no significant

differences between the three instructional methods under

investigation (i.e., counselor-led, microcomputer-assisted,

videotape, and the control group who received no

instruction). However, the college students who received

the videotape instruction retained more information about

the instruction than those who received no instruction.

Using videotape instructional methods may be more effective

in helping students learn specific information regarding the

interview. The information retained can be useful to them

in preparing for the interview process.

The mock hiring decisions of the raters and the

interviewers were based on their evaluation of the verbal

and non-verbal behaviors displayed by the college students

during the videotaped mock employment interview. These

hiring decisions were positively correlated. This suggests

that recruiters watching videotapes of employment interviews











may arrive at similar hiring decisions as those of

interviewers conducting the face to face interviews.

Although significant relationships were found between

the behavioral ratings of the subjects on the EIRS and the

mock hiring decisions of the interviewers and the raters;

further research validating the EIRS is needed to determine

whether the instrument can be used effectively to determine

the effect of applicant verbal and non-verbal behaviors on

interviewers' hiring decisions.



Implications

The conclusions cited above suggest several

implications. The verbal and non-verbal behaviors displayed

by college students in employment interviewers may have an

affect on interviewers' hiring decisions. Therefore,

college and career placement counselors can best assist

college students by teaching them appropriate employment

interviewing behavior and help them correct inappropriate

ones.

This research suggests that videotaped presentations

may be used effectively to help college students retain

information about employment interviewing. College students

using this method of instruction are more likely to retain

the information than those receiving no instruction.











The results of this study also imply that independent

raters knowledgeable in employment interviewing practices

can view videotapes of recruitment interviews and make

hiring decisions which are significantly related to those

made by recruitment interviewers conducting face to face

interviews. Recruiters interviewing on college campuses can

benefit from videotaping student applicants as videotaping

provides a record of the interview which can be brought to

the office and viewed by other decision makers. This

alternative method of arriving at hiring decisions may

provide a more objective approach.



Recommendations for Further Study

As this research failed to identify one of three

employment interviewing instructional methods (of one-half

hour duration) often used by career placement counselors to

teach college students employment interviewing techniques,

research investigating the effects of methods of longer

duration (i.e, one to hours) is recommended. Other

instructional methods to teach college students

employability skills (i.e., peer instruction and videotape

self-evaluation) may also warrant investigation. In order

to effectively and efficiently instruct college students

interviewing techniques, it continues to be important for

researchers to identify specific behavior(s) which may

affect interviewers' hiring decisions. Finally, further









74

validation of the EIRS to determine its predictive validity

for making hiring decision and its generalizability to other

settings and populations is recommended.
















APPENDIX A
EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW RATING SCALE


DIRECTIONS: REVIEW EACH OF THE ITEMS BELOW AND DETERMINE
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INTERVIEWEE DISPLAYED THE
BEHAVIOR(S) IDENTIFIED IN THE ITEM DURING THE EMPLOYMENT
INTERVIEW. PLEASE BE SURE TO ANSWER ALL ITEMS. USE THE
FOLLOWING SCALE:

1 2 3 4 5
DEFINITELY NOT NO SOMEWHAT YES YES DEFINITELY

**** ***************** *************************************

VERBAL BEHAVIOR


1. Interviewee verbalized that he/she wanted a job related
to his/her academic major.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Interviewee had a good vocabulary.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Interviewee gave responses which indicated confidence in
his/her ability to succeed.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Interviewee was able to verbalize his/her career goals.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Interviewee verbalized his/her strengths and weaknesses
and was able to discuss them openly.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Interviewee was courteous and respectful during the
interview.

1 2 3 4 5


75












1 2 3 4 5
DEFINITELY NOT NO SOMEWHAT YES YES
DEFINITELY
***********************************************************

7. Interviewee used proper grammar during the interview.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Interviewee made no contradictory statements during the
interview.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Interviwee stuck to the subject and did not wander off on
tangents.

1 2 3 4 5

10. The length of the interviewee's responses fully answered
the interviewer's questions.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Interviewee had an audible voice.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Interviewee indicated he/she had researched the
organization by asking about company programs and/or
policies specific to the organization.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Interviewee asked specific questions about the position
for which he/she had applied.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Interviewee did not over-stress money and/or fringe
benefits.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Interviewee asked for more information about the company
or organization.

1 2 3 4 5












1 2 3 4 5
DEFINITELY NOT NO SOMEWHAT YES YES
DEFINITELY

***********************************************************

NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR

1. Interviewee chewed gum or smoked during the interview.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Interviewee ended statements with laughs or giggles.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Interviewee clutched some object and fidgeted with it
during the interview.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Interviewee maintained eye contact with the interviewer.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Interviewee kept his/her hand over mouth while talking.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Interviewee kept crossing and uncrossing legs.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Interviewee maintained good posture throughout the
interview.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Interviewee's facial expressions were appropriate to the
conversation during the interview.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Interviewee appeared at ease throughout the interview.

1 2 3 4 5












1 2 3 4 5
DEFINITELY NOT NO SOMEWHAT YES YES
DEFINITELY



10. Interviewee's non-verbal behavior seemed spontaneous and
genuine.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Interviewee's non-verbal behavior displayed self-
confidence and self-assurance.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Interviewee smiled frequently and appropriately during
the interview.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Interviewee greeted the interviewer with a firm
handshake.

1 2 3 4 5


14. Interviewee was appropriately attired for the interview.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Interviewee came on time for the interview.

1 2 3 4 5
****+*******************************************************
HIRING DECISION: Would you hire this interviewee?

1 2 3 4 5

DEFINITELY PROBABLY POSSIBLY PROBABLY DEFINITELY

NOT NOT MAY WILL WILL

COMMENTS:

NAME OF STUDENT:

NAME OF RATER:















APPENDIX B
ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
MEMORANDUM


TO: Dr. Paul Weiser
Dean, Academic Affairs

FROM: Adriana McEachern
Director of Admissions/Career Services/Alumni

RE: Doctoral Research

DATE: October 30, 1987

************************** *********************************
This is to request your approval to conduct research on

campus for completion of my doctoral dissertation. The

study I am conducting will compare the effectiveness of

three methods of teaching employment interviewing skills to

students. I plan to use approximately 80 students who are

juniors and seniors. The students will be randomly selected

and randomly assigned to four independent groups. Three of

the groups will receive the treatment intervention which

will be instruction in interviewing techniques in either a

didactic workshop, a videotape instructional workshop, or

through an individualized micro-computer program. The

control group will receive no treatment. Following the

treatment interventions the students will be videotaped in a

15-minute mock interview. Independent raters will then rate

the students' employment interviewing behavior using the









80

Employment Interview Checklist which is a Likert scale with

characteristics generally displayed in an employment

interview. I will be gathering the data during the Spring,

1988 semester and will be glad to submit copies of the

results to the University upon completion. Thank you very

much for your consideration regarding this matter. Please

advise should you need further information.















APPENDIX C
LETTER TO SUBJECTS



Dear (name of student)

Congratulations! You have been randomly selected from

the population of third and fourth year students enrolled

during the Spring, 1988 semester to participate in a

research study being conducted at St. Thomas University.

The title of the research study is "Teaching Employment

Interviewing Techniques to College Students." It is being

conducted to learn more about the employment interview

process and how to best teach college students to conduct

effective interviews. This research will also fulfill

requirements for completion of my doctoral dissertation.

The employment interview is the most widely used method

of personnel selection (Cohen & Etheredge, 1975). Very few

positions or jobs do not require an employment interview

before the final hiring decision is made. Consequently, I

believe it is very important for college students facing the

job market to know how to conduct an effective employment

interview.

Participation in this research study will take

only one hour of your time and there are several benefits









82

which you will obtain from this experience. These benefits

include the following:

1. You will receive employment interviewing training

so as to prepare you to conduct an effective interview.

2. You will have an opportunity to "practice"

conducting an employment interview.

3. If you are in the College Work Study program you

will receive one CEC of credit for this experience.

4. You will be given a complete package with

information on how to prepare for the employment interview,

which includes tips on improving your interviews,

appropriate attire for the interview and other relevant

information.

5. You will have the opportunity of being a part of an

important research project.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration to this

matter. Please contact me within the next seven days to

advise me of your decision to participate. I look forward

to hearing from you.



Sincerely yours,



Adriana McEachern M.R.C
Assistant Dean for Student Services
St. Thomas University School of Law















APPENDIX D
INFORMED CONSENT FORM


Thank you for your participation in this research

study. The purpose of this investigation is to learn more

about the employment interview process and how to best teach

college students to conduct effective employment interviews.

As part of this research you will be randomly assigned to

participate in one half hour of employment interviewing

instruction. Following this instruction, you will be

videotaped in a mock employment interview lasting for

fifteen minutes. Following completion of the interview, you

will be asked to complete two short questionnaires.

Students who are assigned to the control group will receive

employment interviewing instruction following the videotaped

interview.

There will be no monetary compensation for your

participation in this research project. You are free to

withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation in

the project at any time without prejudice. Confidentiality

of the questionnaires and videotaped interviews will be

strictly maintained. Only the principal investigator and

supervisor will have access to the any of the

questionnaires. The videotapes will be watched by the









84

principal investigator and three independent individuals who

will act as raters in this project. The videotapes will be

erased after completion of this project and the final

dissertation defense. I will be glad to answer any

questions you might have regarding this research project. I

may be contacted at St. Thomas University School of Law,

16400 N.W. 32nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33054, (305) 623-

2310.

I have read and I understand the procedure described

above. I agree to participate in the procedure and I have

received a copy of this description.





Subject Date



Principal Investigator Date


Witness


Date















APPENDIX E
STUDENT EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWING
INSTRUCTIONS


This is a mock employment interview which is part of

the study in which you are participating. However, please

act as if you were conducting an actual employment

interview. You are applying for a position with the XYZ

Company (a fictitious company) whose main branch offices are

located in downtown Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The

interviewer for the XYZ Company recruits throughout college

campuses and comes to St. Thomas University once a year

recruiting for one of the positions listed below. Choose

one of the positions on the following page. Preferably

choose one that is closely compatible with your academic

studies, previous work experience, and career interests.

Requirements for these positions are a minimum of an

Associate degree and a Bachelor's degree upon graduation.












STUDENT EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWING INSTRUCTION

(Continued)

1. Office Manager

2. Computer Programmer

3. Mental Health Specialist

4. Marketing Representative

5. Accountant

6. Purchasing Agent

7. Communications Specialist

8. Security Manager

9. Biologist

10. Chemical Analyst

11. Assistant Magazine Editor

12. Restaurant Manager

13. Personnel Coordinator

14. Travel Agent

15. Finance Analyst

16. Sports Coordinator

18. Museum Curator

19. Public Relations Director

20. Teacher
















APPENDIX F
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE


DIRECTIONS: Please answer all of the following items.

NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: PHONE 4:

AGE: COLLEGE MAJOR:

CLASS STATUS (CHECK ONE): JUNIOR SENIOR

DATE OF GRADUATION

ETHNIC STATUS, (CHECK ONE):

)Black/Non-Hispanic

( ) Asian/Pacific Islander

( ) Caucasian/Non-Hispanic

)American Indian/Alaskan Native

( ) Mexican American

( ) Puerto Rican American

Hispanic American

Approximately how many (*number of) jobs have you held since

age 16? How many of these jobs have been of a

professional nature and directly related to your college

major?











Demographic questionnaire, continued


Please circle the type of employment interviewing

instruction you receive today?

Microcomputer Videotape Counselor-led

Control group (delayed instruction, indicate type)





Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the

instruction received.


1 2 3 4

Definitely Not Somewhat Satisfied

Not satisfied Satisfied Satisfied


5

Definitely

Very

Satisfied


Thank you very much for your participation and cooperation.















APPENDIX G
RETENTION QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: Please choose the best answer for the following

questions.

1. The goal of the "Reception/Acceptance stage is to:

a) create the best possible first impression

b) tell the interviewer your long term goals

c) thank the interviewer for the interview

d) ask the interviewer about company benefits

2. When the interviewee does not know how to answer the

interviewer's questions, it is best for he or she to:

a) fake the answer

b) admit you don't know the answer

c) give an excuse for not knowing the answer

d) answer a previous question

3. The "Your Turn" stage begins when the interviewer asks:

a) Tell me about yourself?

b) What skills do you have for this position?

c) Do you have any questions?

d) What salary do you expect, should we decide to hire

you?









90

4. During the "Leave/Taking" stage, the interviewee should:

a) thank the interviewer for the interview

b) give the interviewer a firm departing handshake

c) follow-up next day with a thank-you letter

d) all of the above

5. The interviewee's enthusiasm, non-verbal behavior, and

appropriate dress attire are very important to the

interviewer during the:

a) Reception/Acceptance stage

b) Leave Taking stage

c) Your Turn stage

d) Interrogation stage

6. The best way for the interviewee to research the company

or firm prior to the interview is by:

a) asking a friend for the information

b) researching the company in the Library

c) asking the interviewer about the company during the

interview

d) calling a competitive company for the information

7. During the "Interrogation" stage, the interviewer wants

to know the applicant's:

a) family background

b) address and phone number

c) salary expectations

d) skills and qualifications for the position











8. During the interview, the interviewer is deciding

whether you are right for the company and the position,

while you (the applicant) should be:

a) unsure about your decision

b) deciding whether you are right for the

company/position

c) deciding whether you will like the boss

d) deciding how much you are worth

9. The best way to impress the interviewer during the "Your

Turn" stage is to:

a) compliment him/her on their taste in clothing

b) ask the interviewer about the industry, company or

position

c) ask the interviewer about any openings for his/her

job

d) ask the interviewer how long he/she has been with

the company

10. The interviewee can conduct the most effective

employment interview by:

a) having a laissez-faire attitude during the

interview

b) having no prior preparation for the interview

c) applying for a position for which he/she has no

qualifications

d) knowing how to deliver good answers to questions

frequently asked by interviewers
















APPENDIX H
INTERVIEWER'S QUESTIONS


Directions: Please ask each of the student interviewees the

following questions in the same order as presented here:

1. For what position are you applying?

2. How would you describe yourself?

3. What are you studying in college?

4. How are your studies related to the position for which

you are applying?

5. What are your skills and qualifications for this

position?

6. What appeals to you about this company?

7. What are your strengths? Your weaknesses?

8. Name your three greatest accomplishments?

9. What are your short term goals? Your long term goals?

10. How do you feel about re-locating?

11. Do you think your grades are a good indication of your

academic achievement?

12. Give me three reasons why you think you are the best

person for this position?

13. What criteria are you using to evaluate the company for

which you hope to work?









93

14. In what ways do you think you can make a contribution

to this company?

15. What motivates you to put forth your greatest efforts?

16. Do you have any questions?
















APPENDIX I
RATER GLOSSARY

1. broad education: completing additional studies besides

those required by the academic major; taking coursework in

the humanities and liberal arts areas; diversified

coursework outside of academic major.

2. good sense of humor: the ability to appreciate that

which is humorous; to laugh appropriately in humorous

situations.

3. confident attitude: self-assured: the attitude of

believing and trusting oneself and one's abilities.

4. ability to verbalize career goals: being able to

communicate vocational aspirations and objectives.

5. spontaneous and genuine: the ability to act or "be"

natural, real, authentic and non-hypocritical.

6. smiling frequently: portraying an enthusiastic attitude

by smiling appropriately and maintaining a positive attitude


throughout the interview.

7. firm handshake: a handshake that appears to be strong

and sure.

8. persistent and aggressive effort: to continue firmly

and steadfastly toward achievement of goals despite

presented obstacles.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs