The research says structured interviews and work-sample tests have similar predictive power and all together they have yet more. The takeaway shouldn’t be IQ über alles.
The research shows that structured interviews do have better predictive performance than unstructured interviews. But that effect is entirely mediated by their higher correlation with IQ.
In other words, structured interviews are better because they're less noisy measures of intelligence. The takeaway very much is IQ uber alles.
I am not familiar with the research, and don't have time to review it right now. However, it seems like common sense to me that there are some factors beyond intelligence that matter such as motivation, interpersonal skills and character traits.
> The most well-known conclusion from this research is that for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance and learning is general mental ability ([G M A ], i.e., intelligence or general cognitive ability; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Ree & Earles, 1992).
> Work sample measures are slightly more valid but are much more costly and can be used only with applicants who already know the job or have been trained for the occupation or job.
> Overall, the two combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for predicting job performance were GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .78) and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .76)
Work sample tests do not work as well as the old research suggests
