The Federal Selection Interview:

Unrealized Potential

A report to the President and the Congress 

of the United States by the 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
this page intentionally left blank

this page intentionally left blank
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susanne T. Marshall, Chairman

Beth S. Slavet, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

Steve Nelson

Deputy Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Project Manager

James J. Tsugawa

Project Analyst

Bruce Mayor
this page intentionally left blank
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board vii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Business Case for Effective Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Elements of a Structured Interview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Benefits of the Structured Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

The Case Against the Unstructured Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Structured Interview Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The State of Federal Employment Interviewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix A — Types of Employment Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix B—A Brief Discussion of Selection Tool Validity . . . . . 39

Appendix C—Sample Structured Interview Question and Rating 

Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix D—A Model Structured Interview Process . . . . . . . . . . 43
this page intentionally left blank
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

Executive Summary

Interviews that are used to make personnel decisions—such as hiring and 

promotion—are assessments, just like written tests and ratings of training 

and experience. 1 Data from the Board’s Merit Principles Survey2 indicate 

that the use of interviews as an assessment tool is widespread and that 

managers rely heavily on interviews when making selection decisions. 

Therefore, it is important that managers conduct good interviews that produce reliable results. The report presents the concept of the structured interview, describes the elements and benefits of structured interviews, discusses 

the disadvantages of unstructured interviews, and outlines a process for 

using structured interviews.

This report examines the selection interview, 3 an interview whose primary purpose is to serve as an assessment tool; that is, a tool for evaluating a job candidate’s qualifications and abilities. Selection interviews 

may be used to rank candidates (that is, place them in order or group 

them based on interview performance), or simply to inform the selecting official’s decision when choosing from a group of available, qualified candidates. Selection interviews are distinct from informational 

interviews, which are generally used to educate potential candidates 

about the organization and its employment opportunities.

The report has two primary objectives: (1) to discuss how agencies use 

selection interviews, and (2) to identify and promote interviewing 

practices that support merit-based selection. The U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board (the Board) prepared this report pursuant to statutory responsibility to evaluate the Federal civil service and other executive branch merit systems.

1 Rating of training and experience is most frequently done through review of a written application, but 

other methods are possible. For example, Service Centers of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) frequently use an automated questionnaire to evaluate applicants’ qualifications and experience.

2 The Merit Principles Survey is a Governmentwide survey that MSPB administered in the spring of 2000 

to over 17,000 Federal employees. Questions 77A and 77B of the survey asked supervisors about sources 

of information that they use, including interviews, when selecting entry-level professional and administrative employees.

3 The term “selection interview” is sometimes used to refer to unscored interviews that are used to choose 

from among a group of candidates. In this report, the term “final selection interview” covers this type of 

interview, and the term “selection interview” refers to any interview that influences the selection decision.
2 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Background Selection interviews cover a continuum of technique and content. At 

one end is the unstructured interview—a casual conversation where 

the questions asked may be unplanned and vary across interviews, and 

the results are analyzed and applied subjectively. At the other end is 

the highly structured interview, where trained interviewers ask questions based on job analysis, ask the same questions of each applicant, 

and score answers using predeveloped rating scales.

Selection interviewing is a nearly universal practice in both the public 

and private sectors. Over two-thirds of the Federal managers responding to the Board’s 2000 Merit Principles Survey stated that they consider interviews to a great extent when selecting a new employee. 

Despite its prevalence, interviewing in the Federal Government is not 

highly regimented4—at least on the surface. Federal employment 

laws, regulations, and guidelines emphasize assessments such as written tests, level of education, and evaluation of training and experience, 

but appear to regard the interview as an afterthought. Nevertheless, 

interviews must meet the same broad standards as these other assessments: they are covered by the Uniform Guidelines on Employee 

Selection and Placement,5 and should, as part of a merit-based system 

of employment, support “selection and advancement...determined 

solely on the basis of relative ability.”6

Findings Federal managers do not merely conduct employment interviews: they 

rely heavily on them to identify the best candidate. This reliance is 

appropriate, if managers use a properly developed structured interview. Structured interviews are interviews that use multiple mechanisms, such as questions based on job analysis, detailed rating scales, 

and trained interviewers to make the interview more job-related and 

systematic. Research shows that such interviews can increase the odds 

of selecting good employees.

However, information from the Board’s previous studies and surveys 

suggests Federal managers are not realizing the full potential of the 

selection interview. Agency investment in assessment tools such as 

interviews varies substantially, including varying levels of job analysis, 

interviewer preparation, and rigor in the development, conduct, and 

4 There are exceptions to this generalization. For example, many agencies have policies that specify the 

use and content of interviews for selected occupations, and collective bargaining agreements may include 

provisions describing how interviews will be conducted and scored.

5 The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection and Placement (Uniform Guidelines) are a set of principles and standards for employment practices. The Uniform Guidelines were developed by the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the 

Civil Service Commission (now the Office of Personnel Management). They provide a framework to help 

employers make proper use of tests and other selection procedures, meet legal and regulatory requirements, and comply with antidiscrimination laws.

6 Merit Principle No. 1 [5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1)].
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

use of interviews. Consequently, structured interviewing appears to be 

the exception rather than the norm, and Federal managers often resort 

to (relatively) unstructured interviewing because their only other 

option—which they are understandably unwilling to accept—is not 

interviewing at all. Unfortunately, unstructured interviewing is problematic. Unstructured interviews are less valid than structured interviews, are subject to bias, and may expose employers to complaints 

and challenges.

Recommendations In light of Federal agencies’ widespread use of the interview—and its 

potential to contribute to high-quality selections when properly developed and conducted—we recommend that agencies take steps to 

optimize their use of the interview.

1. Agencies should decide which purpose(s) the interview will serve, 

and design and conduct the interview accordingly. Interviews can 

be purely informational, supporting recruitment efforts by educating 

candidates about employment opportunities and conditions of 

employment. Or, interviews can focus purely on assessing candidates’ 

qualifications. Or they can do both. Agencies must make a conscious 

and informed choice, because that choice has significant implications 

for the design and conduct of the interview. Interviews that function 

only as a recruitment tool do not require a high level of structure.7

 On 

the other hand, interviews that function as assessment tools—that are 

used to screen candidates, rank or group candidates, or make a final 

selection decision—call for careful design and considerable structure, 

if the organization is to realize their full potential.

2. Agencies that use interviews to assess job candidates should use 

structured interviews. In making this recommendation, we distinguish between interviews that function as a continuation of the evaluation of training and experience—for example, an interview that 

simply confirms or elaborates on information in the candidate’s 

application—and interviews that are intended to develop new information. For the former, a high level of structure is neither practical 

nor necessary, provided that the interviewer asks job-related questions 

and treats candidates consistently. But for the latter, the case for the 

structured interview is compelling. Research shows that structured 

interviews, as part of a systematic candidate assessment process, can 

increase the likelihood of a good selection by helping managers 

develop new information on candidates such as past behaviors, in the 

context of the workplace. Structured interviews can also reduce the 

costs associated with unsound employment practices, including turn7 Even here, some structure—such as recruiter training and “talking points”—will help the organization 

project a clear, consistent image and maximize the effectiveness of the informational interview.
4 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

over, poor performance, and grievances and complaints. The 

alternative—the unstructured interview—is much less desirable. 

Research indicates that unstructured interviews are, on average, little 

more than half as effective as structured interviews and unstructured 

interviews may be subject to bias and challenges.

3. Agencies should invest the resources (time, training, funds, and 

expertise) needed to add structure to selection interviews. Structured interviewing can be cost-effective, but it is not free. Structured 

interviews require a coordinated application of thought and expertise. 

An agency cannot realize the benefits of structured interviewing simply by reading about it. Many Federal agencies understand and have 

acted on the “business case” for structured interviews. However, our 

previous studies also indicate that many agencies and managers do 

not, for varying reasons, use the best available tools when assessing 

candidates. This failure is not merely inconsistent with the merit principle of selecting from the best-qualified candidates; it is also inconsistent with effective and efficient government. Therefore, we strongly 

encourage agencies that use selection interviews to move toward structured interviews. This includes investing in both the assessment tool 

(the interview itself) and the users of that tool (most likely supervisors 

and managers).

Agencies that may lack the resources to make large, immediate investments in structured interviewing should pursue incremental improvements in their interviewing practices. The body of the report discusses 

this strategy in more detail, and provides some examples.

Agencies that wish to adopt structured interviewing may contact the 

Office of Personnel Management, which offers guidance and training 

on structured interviewing. Agencies may also be able to draw on the 

expertise and experience of agencies that currently use structured 

interviews. These include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Customs 

Service, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

4. Agencies should evaluate their interview practices for effectiveness and possible improvement. This recommendation, like the first 

two, reiterates an established position of the Board that is particularly 

relevant to the structured interview. The structured interview is an 

adaptable and flexible assessment tool that can be readily modified to 

accommodate changing job requirements and incorporate “lessons 

learned.” Evaluation of the interview instrument, process, and outcomes will help ensure that the interview meets the organization’s 

needs, and that the organization treats candidates fairly and defensibly.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

Background

There are two major types of employment-related interviews: informational and selection. Informational interviews provide information to 

prospective and actual job candidates. The information provided may 

cover matters such as application procedures, employment opportunities, and working conditions and benefits, and typically supports the 

recruitment effort. In contrast, selection interviews collect information from job candidates. The information collected may cover education and credentials, work experience, and accomplishments, and is 

used to help the organization make a selection decision. Appendix A 

illustrates this distinction, and outlines the various roles the interview 

can play in the selection process. The two types can be combined; in 

fact, most selection interviews include an informational component. 

In this report, the term “interview” refers to an interview, either structured or unstructured, used at any stage of the selection process, 

whether screening, ranking, or final selection.

Selection interviews are 

not all alike.

Selection interviews may be placed on a continuum from unstructured 

to structured. At one end of the continuum, the unstructured interview is completely unplanned—questions are asked spontaneously 

and responses are not evaluated in any systematic manner. At the other 

end of the continuum, a highly structured interview uses several elements of structure—mechanisms such as questions based on job analysis, and predeveloped rating scales—to create a clear and strong 

relationship between performance in the interview and performance 

on the job. Table 1 provides key characteristics of unstructured and 

structured interviews:
6 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Interviews are widely used. The Federal Government has over 1.6 million civilian employees, in 

over 800 different occupations.8 To the informed observer, it may 

seem that there are as many paths to employment as there are employees. These include—to name only a few—competitive examination, 

intern programs, student employment programs, and veterans 

employment programs. Yet almost all paths to Federal employment 

share one element in common. That element is the selection interview, 

a meeting between employer and applicant during which each assesses 

the other to determine the possibility and desirability of an employment relationship.

Data confirm that interviews are a standard part of the Government 

selection process. The Board’s 2000 Merit Principles Survey asked 

managers about the information they consider when assessing candidates for professional and administrative positions. Responses showed 

that the interview is a near-universal source of candidate information 

(see Fig. 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of Unstructured and Structured 

Interviews

Unstructured Structured

• The factors evaluated by the interview 

are implicit, and vary across candidates.

• The factors evaluated are explicit, 

based on job analysis, and are the 

same for each candidate.

• Questions are not necessarily jobrelated.• Questions are job-related.

• Questions vary from interview to 

interview for the same job.

• The same questions are asked of all 

candidates for the same job.

• There is no system or guide for evaluating interview results.• There is a predeveloped system for 

evaluating interview results.

• Interviewers may be untrained. • Interviewers have been trained.

8 Data are from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Central Personnel Data File, as reported in 

Fedscope (www.fedscope.opm.gov), March 2001. Some 1,641,115 full-time employees are in 814 occupations, including all appointments and pay plans.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

Interviews are influential. Table 2 on the following page provides a simplified model

of the typical Federal selection process. Most competitive hiring—

whether delegated examining to fill a vacancy with an outside candidate, or merit promotion to advance a current employee—follows this 

model. As shown, the selection process has several steps. Because Federal agencies generally use interviews as the final major hurdle in the 

selection process, interviews carry considerable influence in the selection decision.

Because selection interviews are widely used and highly influential, it’s 

important that they be used effectively. In the following section, we 

discuss the organizational and fiscal implications of interviews.

Figure 1. Percent of supervisors using information to a “great” or 

“moderate” extent

Source: U.S. Merit Sytems Protection Board, 2000 Merit Principles Survey.

7%

10%

15%

20%

34%

36%

38%

39%

69%

71%

19%

19%

28%

37%

28%

41%

44%

46%

26%

25%

W ritten test

Reputation of

educational institution

College GPA

Personal

recommendations

Major field of study

Reference checks

Level of education

Q uality of the

application

Interviews

Prior work experience

Great Extent Moderate Extent

Source of Information Percent
8 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Table 2. Typical Steps in the Federal Selection Process

Step 1 RecruitmentóThe agency develops a candidate pool and advertises the 

vacancy. Candidatesí qualifications are not formally assessed at this stage.

Step 2 ScreeningóThis is the first hurdle in the selection process. The agency 

sorts applicants into two groups: ineligible and eligible. Applicants who do 

not meet basic requirements, such as citizenship and minimum 

qualifications, are ineligible and thus ìscreened out.î Applicants meeting 

basic requirements are eligible for further consideration. Common 

assessments used to screen candidates include written tests and ratings of 

training and experience (usually through review of a written application). 

Step 3 RankingóThis is the second hurdle in the selection process, in which 

the agency makes quality distinctions among the eligible candidates. The 

distinction may be simple sorting (such as assigning candidates into a 

ìqualifiedî or ìbest qualifiedî group) or a rank ordering of candidates. 

The candidates in the highest group (or the top-ranked candidates) are 

then referred to the selecting official. The assessment tool used to make 

these distinction may be the same one used for screening, or it may be 

different. Common assessments used to rank applicants include ratings of 

training and experience (such as assigning scores to written descriptions 

of desired knowledges, skills, and abilities), and interviews.

Step 4 SelectionóThis is the final major hurdle in the selection process.a

 The 

selecting official typically assesses some or all of the referred candidates 

through interviews (frequently supplemented by reference checks) and 

chooses an applicant from among the referred candidates.

a. There may be subsequent hurdles such as a background investigation, and verification of experience 

and credentials. However, these hurdles are generally applied after the candidate has been selected.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

The Business Case for Effective 

Interviews

As discussed in the preceding section, the interview is typically the last 

major step in the selection process. Following the interview, the manager will decide which applicant(s) will receive an offer of employment. The stakes are high: a good decision will confer substantial 

benefits on the organization; a poor decision may impose significant 

costs.

The benefits of a good selection are straightforward. A good employee 

will be capable and productive, and work well with customers and colleagues. This outcome, in turn, improves morale and work group 

cohesion, increasing the employing organization’s productivity. These 

benefits are not merely theoretical: they make a measurable contribution to the organization’s bottom line. A recent study by the consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide suggests that identifying and 

selecting highly qualified candidates is not only consistent with merit 

principles—it is also good business. The company surveyed the 

human capital practices of over 400 private-sector companies, and 

found—not surprisingly—that companies that hired workers wellequipped to perform their duties created more value for their shareholders than less-demanding companies.9

On the other hand, organizations that make poor selection decisions 

will forgo these benefits and bear substantial additional costs. As 

shown in Table 3, one private sector organization estimates that a poor 

selection can cost as much as three times the employee’s annual salary.

Previous Board studies document additional costs that are borne by 

Federal agencies that make a poor selection decision. Federal agencies 

do not have the option of simply terminating a poor performer and 

“starting over,” unless the employee is serving a trial or probationary 

period, and the available alternatives are costly. If the agency chooses 

to pursue an adverse action (i.e., demotion or termination), it must 

9 Survey report from “The Human Capital Index: Linking Human Capital and Shareholder Value,” Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 1999, p. 5.
10 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

devote substantial management attention and staff time to that effort. 

The remaining options—remediation or inaction—are also costly. 

Remediation entails a potentially extended period of reduced productivity: the organization must devote resources to training and counseling the employee, and have coworkers (or managers) perform the 

employee’s work or make it acceptable. Inaction means that the agency 

will bear the costs of a poor selection indefinitely, and may further 

reduce the productivity of the work unit:

* * * inaction can create problems far beyond that of a single incompetent worker. It can turn the unit’s better performers into overworked, 

resentful employees who, noticing the absence of penalties for inferior 

performance, may reduce their own efforts as a result.10

Good selections require 

good assessments, and 

interviews can be excellent 

assessments.

Agencies can significantly improve the likelihood of selecting good 

employees by using assessment tools with high validity. Validity is the 

ability of an assessment tool to predict on-the-job performance. 

(Appendix B provides a fuller discussion of the concept of validity.) 

The structured interview is among the most valid assessment tools 

available, comparing favorably with mental ability tests and work sample tests, and surpassing such assessment tools as years of experience, 

ratings of training and experience, and reference checks.11

Interviews are not all 

created equal.

Structured interviews use a variety of mechanisms (which we refer to 

as elements of structure) to help the interviewer constructively differentiate among job candidates. Research shows that structured interviews have a significant edge over unstructured interviews in 

predicting on-the-job performance:

Table 3. Estimated costs of hiring the wrong person

For an entry-level full-time employee $5,000 to $7,000

For a $20,000/year FTEa $40,000

For a $100,000/year FTE $300,000

Note: Costs include wasted salary, benefits, severance pay, headhunter fees, training costs, 

and hiring time.

Source: Corporate Leadership Council, Literature Review, “Employee Selection Tests,” Catalog No. 070-198-213, Washington, DC, March 1998, p. 2.

a. FTE stands for full-time equivalent, which means 2087 hours of duty per year.

10 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Supervisors and Poor Performers, Washington, DC, July 

1999, p. 15.

11 Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel 

Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin, The American Psychological Association, Inc., vol. 24, No. 2, September 1998, p. 265.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

The average validity of the structured interview is 0.51, vs. 0.38 for the 

unstructured interview (and undoubtedly lower for carelessly conducted unstructured interviews).12

In practical terms, this means that the structured interview is twice as 

effective as an unstructured interview—and, as suggested above, this 

is a conservative estimate.13 Moreover, research suggests that interviewing without the assistance of structure—interviewers relying on 

unaided judgment—is ill-advised. Studies have consistently found 

that interviewers are inappropriately influenced by factors such as the 

performance of previous candidates14 and personal feelings.15 Interviewers are also vulnerable to universal biases in human cognition, 

such as overreliance on first impressions and the tendency to view a 

person’s behavior in one situation (such as a social gathering) as indicative of how that person will behave in other, dissimilar situations 

(such as at work).16

Structure provides a necessary counterweight to problematic influences and to failings in human judgment. Without this counterweight, interviewers will likely have great difficulty accurately 

assessing candidates’ actual abilities and performance.17 In the following section, we discuss common elements of a structured interview, 

and how those elements contribute to effective interviewing.

12 Ibid. p. 267.

13 “Unstructured interviews” conducted for research purposes almost certainly contain some elements of 

structure.

14 An interviewer who has just interviewed an excellent candidate may rate the next candidate inappropriately low. Conversely, an interviewer who has interviewed a poor candidate may rate the next one inappropriately high. This rating error is known as “contrast effect.”

15 Richard D. Arvey and James E. Campion, “The Employment Interview: A Summary and Review of 

Recent Research,” Personnel Psychology, vol. 35, 1982, p. 297.

16 In psychology, this tendency is called the fundamental attribution error. Research shows that people 

consistently overestimate the role of personality and underestimate the role of context in determining 

behavior. For a non-technical discussion of this phenomenon and its effects on judgments of aptitude and 

performance, see Malcolm Gladwell, “The New-Boy Network,” The New Yorker, May 29, 2000.

17 Michael A McDaniel., Deborah L. Whetzel, Frank L. Schmidt, and Steven D. Maurer, “The Validity 

of Employment Interviews: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 79, No. 4, 1994, p. 599.
this page intentionally left blank
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Elements of a Structured Interview

Below, we discuss eight elements of structure.18 These elements 

address all stages of the interview process, from pre-interview, such as 

job analysis and developing interview questions, to post-interview, 

such as rating candidates’ responses. Taken together, the elements 

form a “chain” that links the interview to the position being filled.

1. Base questions on job analysis. Job analysis is the process of looking at a position (or, more broadly, the work of an organization) to 

identify essential functions and duties, and the competencies, knowledges, skills, and abilities needed to perform work.19

A well-known executive recruiter puts the case for job analysis very 

succinctly:

Once you know what the real performance needs of the job are, hiring 

is relatively easy. When you don’t know what’s required, you substitute 

your biases, perceptions, and stereotypes.20

Questions based on a sound job analysis will, by definition, be jobrelated. Job analysis can also identify characteristics that distinguish 

excellent from average employees,21 so that the interview questions 

will be useful in identifying the best candidates.

Basing questions on job analysis is also an excellent way to avoid asking inappropriate questions, such as those involving marital and family status. For example, for a job that requires face-to-face contact with 

customers in several states, job analysis will steer the interviewer 

toward asking whether the prospective employee can travel, and away 

from asking whether the prospective employee has dependent care 

responsibilities.

2. Ask effective questions. As we’ve indicated, effective interview 

questions are based on job analysis to ensure that they are job-related. 

18 The eight elements are adapted from Michael A. Campion, David K. Palmer, and James E. Campion, 

“A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview,” Personnel Psychology, vol. 50, 1997.

19 Adapted from 5 CFR 300.103 (January 2001).

20 Lou Adler, “Hire With Your Head,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1999, p. 5.

21 This is often accomplished by identifying and analyzing situations (referred to as “critical incidents”) in 

which an employee demonstrated high performance. 
14 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Effective interview questions are also usually open-ended and behavioral, so that they will elicit useful responses.

Open-ended questions are questions that require the candidate to provide details, and cannot be answered in one word (such as “yes” or 

“excellent”). Such questions are much more effective than closedended questions at developing insight into a candidate’s experience 

and abilities. For example, the closed-ended question, “Can you write 

effectively?” can be answered with an uninformative “Yes”—a 

response that sheds little light on the candidate’s level of performance 

in this area. An open-ended question such as, “Describe the types of 

documents you have written, reviewed, or edited,” requires the candidate to provide specifics, and provides much more insight into the 

candidate’s writing accomplishments.

There is a place for the closed-ended question. For example, to learn 

whether a candidate is willing to travel frequently or can start work on 

a given date, it is perfectly appropriate to ask a closed-ended question.

Behavioral questions are just that: questions that ask the candidate to 

describe behaviors—responses, actions, and accomplishments in 

actual situations. The case for the behavioral question is more subtle 

than the case for open-ended questions. Although research indicates 

that both behavioral questions (“What did you do?”) and hypothetical 

questions (“What would you do?”) can be effective, many researchers 

and practitioners generally recommend the behavioral question for 

two reasons. First, behavioral questions can provide greater insight 

into how the candidate will perform on the job, because the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Second, behavioral questions may be more reliable than hypothetical questions. Because the 

response can be verified through reference checks or other means, it is 

more difficult to fabricate an inaccurate or untruthful answer to a 

behavioral question than to a hypothetical one.

However, hypothetical questions, like closed-ended questions, have 

their uses. For example, hypothetical questions can ask a candidate to 

respond to a work situation, to yield insight into the candidate’s ability 

to reason, as well as his or her “soft” competencies such as flexibility 

and cooperativeness. Such questions can also give the candidate a realistic “job preview.” Unfortunately, it is not easy to develop reliable 

hypothetical questions22 because the response to a hypothetical question may not reflect what a candidate has actually done or will do on 

the job. The problem is that knowledge and behavior are often very 

22 Developing valid hypothetical questions typically involves extensive fact-finding and professional assistance to develop questions and “benchmark” responses. A discussion of the process can be found in 

“Developing and Conducting the Structured Situational Interview: A Practical Guide,” U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, Washington, DC, January 1994.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

different. For example, we all know that we should drive defensively 

and exercise regularly—whether we do so is another matter entirely.

3. Ask each candidate the same questions. Using a uniform set of 

questions helps ensure that candidates are treated fairly, and that each 

candidate provides comparable information. As we note in the boxed 

discussion, “How Uniform is Uniform?” this does not mean that 

interviewers may never ask tailored (candidate-specific) questions to 

develop more information about an individual candidate’s qualifications. But it does mean that the structured portion of the interview 

should use a standardized set of questions. The goal is to eliminate 

variation in the questions as a source of variation in interviewees’ 

answers. Although this approach may appear unduly mechanical, it 

ensures that the interviewer does not skip questions, or rephrase them 

based on potentially inaccurate and harmful assumptions about the 

candidate’s level of knowledge, listening comprehension, or competence.

Using a uniform set of questions does not preclude repeating or restating questions, if necessary. However, if the interview questions are 

effective—relevant, clear, and free of jargon and acronyms—this 

should not be necessary.

4. Use detailed rating scales. A rating scale provides a guide for evaluating candidates’ responses. At their simplest, scales provide levels—

numbers, or adjectives such as unacceptable, acceptable, and excellent. 

More detailed scales supplement the levels with anchors. Anchors typHow Uniform is Uniform? Can an interview include questions tailored to individual candidates? The quick 

answer is “yes.” Our report emphasizes the interview as an opportunity to 

develop information across candidates, to even-handedly assess their ability in 

specific competencies.

That approach presumes that the candidates come into the interview more or less 

“equal”—that they have comparable experience and that the interviewer possesses a relatively uniform level of information about each candidate prior to the 

interview. But this is often not the case. For example, some candidates may have 

provided extensive descriptions of relevant training and experience, while others 

submitted a one-page resume. Or, one candidate’s experience might be primarily 

private-sector, while another candidate has no non-Federal experience.

In such circumstances, the interviewer may want to use the interview to “fill in 

gaps” in a candidate’s training and experience—in effect, as an extension of the 

rating of training and experience. This will often require candidate-specific questions. In our view, this is reasonable and acceptable.

Accordingly, we suggest that interviewers who want to collect information across 

candidates and obtain further information on individual candidates’ training and 

experience divide the interview into two phases: a structured phase, using a uniform set of questions, and a candidate-specific phase. This preserves the integrity 

of the structured interview while giving the interviewer some flexibility.
16 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

ically include a narrative description of each level, and examples of 

behavior and accomplishments that are representative of the level. 

Rating scales are valuable for three reasons. First, they promote objectivity. A predetermined standard guards against the tendency to evaluate candidates based on impressions or against each other—both of 

which amount to letting the candidate set the standard. Second, they 

promote consistency across interviews and interviewers, a particularly 

useful outcome if the same person(s) will not be conducting all interviews. Finally, detailed rating scales can incorporate behaviors of highperforming employees, which helps the interviewer distinguish 

between acceptable and excellent prospects. Appendix C provides a 

sample question and detailed rating scale developed by the Office of 

Personnel Management for use in interviewing candidates for information technology positions.

5. Train interviewers. Training is needed to ensure that people 

involved in developing and conducting structured interviews understand and know how to apply the associated elements and techniques. 

Thus, training commonly covers subjects such as:

• Identifying job requirements (job analysis),

• Balancing assessments and judgment,

• Developing interview questions,

• Establishing rapport with candidates,

• Effective questioning,

• Evaluating answers and applying rating scales,

• Avoiding common rating errors,

• Documentation (e.g., note-taking), and

• Making hiring decisions.23

Although the list of subjects appears long, the essentials can be covered 

in as little as one or two days. The illustration at right, “Interviewer 

Training in the U.S. Customs Service,” shows how one Federal agency 

prepares its managers to conduct good interviews.

6. Use interview panels so that more than one person conducts the 

interview. Many organizations that use structured interviews have a 

two- or three-person panel conduct the interview. Using additional 

interviewers offers several benefits. First, the additional interviewer(s) 

may ask questions and capture information that a single interviewer 

might miss or overlook. Second, the additional interviewer can bring a 

different and valuable perspective to the rating process, resulting in a 

more balanced picture (rating) of the candidate. Finally, additional 

23 Michael A. Campion, David K. Palmer, and James E. Campion, “A Review of Structure in the Selection Interview,” Personnel Psychology, Volume 50, 1997, p. 685.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

interviewers can bring demographic diversity to the interview panel, 

which can make candidates more comfortable during the interview 

and more accepting of the outcome of the interview.

7. Take notes. Notes serve two purposes. First, they help the interviewer capture and recall the content of the interview, and rate the 

candidate’s responses accurately. Human memory is imperfect and 

selective. Without notes, the interviewer may tend to selectively recall 

the candidate’s strengths or weaknesses, or be unable to recall the candidate’s responses at all. Second, notes help create an important “paper 

trail” that is useful if it becomes necessary to reconstruct the interview 

process or defend an employment decision based on the interview.24

We suggest taking notes with these purposes in mind. With two 

exceptions, notes should reflect what the interviewee says, rather than 

how the interviewee says it. The first exception is when the interview 

is used to assess a competency such as oral communication, where 

both content and delivery are relevant. The second exception, which 

should be rare, is when a candidate’s behavior raises questions about 

his or her qualifications or suitability. For example, if the candidate 

takes an inordinately long time to respond to questions or does not 

interact appropriately with the interviewers, this should be noted.

8. Assess candidate responses objectively—use the rating scales, 

and use the ratings to score candidates. “Assessing responses objectively” does not mean that interviewers should mechanically review 

candidate responses to determine whether the candidate spoke the 

Interviewer Training in the 

U.S. Customs Service

The United States Customs Service (USCS) uses a structured interview as part of 

the selection process for the mission-critical occupations of Customs Inspector 

and Special Agent. Interviews are conducted by three-person panels composed of 

managers and senior staff. USCS views trained interviewers as essential: a manager must receive training before serving on an interview panel.

The training, delivered over 2 or 3 days, blends theory and practice. Managers are 

briefed on potential pitfalls, such as relying on first impressions and the “halo 

effect” (allowing the candidate's performance in one competency to influence ratings in another competency). Managers also receive practical advice, covering 

topics such as putting the candidate at ease, asking follow-up questions, dealing 

with candidates with apparent disabilities, and managing their own “body language.”

The training provides many opportunities for “hands on” learning. For example, 

managers view videotaped interviews, apply rating scales, and compare and discuss results. The training concludes with a role-playing exercise where managers 

interview and rate “candidates” (played by other USCS employees). Attendees 

have given the training excellent reviews, indicating that the it has greatly 

enhanced their interviewing skills.

24 Ibid., p. 679.
18 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

“magic words,” or give undue weight to interview scores. It is appropriate for interviewers to discuss responses, resolve differences, and 

apply judgment when applying rating scales.

Judgment also comes into play when using the interview results, as we 

note in the boxed discussion, “Balancing Assessments and Judgment,” 

above. The point is that interviewers should not substitute an intuitive 

global judgment for their ratings.

Balancing Assessments and 

Judgment

We suggest that agencies use interview results to inform—but not dictate - selection decisions. For example, suppose that a selecting official can choose between 

five qualified candidates with scores of 65, 84, 86, 90, and 91 (on a 100-point 

scale) on the interview. The selecting official would be well-advised to eliminate 

the low-scoring candidate from consideration, even if that candidate made an 

otherwise good impression. But the selecting official could probably make a 

merit-based case for selecting any of the four highest scoring candidates.

Assessment tools such as interviews are not a substitute for managerial judgment. 

First, minor differences in performance on the interview (or any other assessment) are not necessarily significant—even the best assessments are imperfect. 

Second, selecting officials can and should consider a full range of information 

when making a selection decision. This information may include things such as 

past performance, training and experience, test scores, academic and personal 

achievement, and reference checks. Finally, assessment tools cannot measure and 

weigh every relevant factor, such as the skills needs and demographic mix of the 

employing organization.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

The Benefits of the Structured Interview

Why go to the time and trouble of adding structure to the interview? 

Quite simply, because structured interviews work:

In the 80-year history of published research on employment interviewing * * *, few conclusions have been more widely supported than the 

idea that structuring the interview enhances reliability and validity.25

Structured interviews have several other advantages that contribute to 

their effectiveness, advantages that are not merely theoretical. As discussed below, structured interviews are not only valid but provide 

important practical benefits. These include:

Fairness and objectivity. Structured interviews use job-related questions, treat interviewees consistently, and assess interviewees’ responses 

in a thorough, systematic manner. Structured interviews also focus on 

the interviewees’ answers rather than on their behavior during the 

interview. The result is that a good structured interview treats 

candidates—and their responses—fairly and objectively, with little or 

no adverse impact.

Professionalism. Structured interviews are businesslike; they focus 

strictly on the candidate’s qualifications in relation to the job requirements. Such interviews can help “sell” the organization by conveying 

the message that it is serious about evaluating candidates carefully and 

selecting the best person for the job.

We recognize that “selling” the job also involves providing information 

about the job and work environment, and showing a genuine interest 

in the candidate. Structured interviewing does not preclude doing 

these things. For example, an interview could begin with the interviewer providing information about the job and the work setting, followed by structured questions, and conclude with an opportunity for 

the interviewee to ask questions. The interviewer simply needs to 

ensure that providing information to the candidate does not overshadow collecting information from the candidate.

25 Ibid., p. 655.
20 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Compliance. Laws and regulations set a high standard for Federal 

employment practices. The statutory merit system principles state that 

“selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis 

of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.”26 To achieve this 

objective, good intentions are not sufficient. Federal agencies need to 

ensure that their employment practices, including interviews, are (1) 

based on job analysis; (2) relevant to the position being filled; and (3) 

nondiscriminatory.27 A structured interview can meet all these requirements.

Acceptance and defensibility. Candidates expect prospective employers to assess their qualifications thoroughly and fairly—and candidates have recourse against employers who fail to do so. Candidates 

will tend to accept, and be less likely to challenge, employment practices that are clearly job-related and even-handed. From this perspective, interviews that are objective—even if somewhat impersonal—

are to be preferred to interviews that are more sociable and subjective. 

The structured interview contains several highly visible elements to 

promote fairness and objectivity, and thus ensure candidate acceptance.

Structured interviews are not only fair and compliant; they are 

demonstrably so. Documentation (a “paper trail”) is an integral part of 

the structured interview. A written record of how an interview was 

developed, conducted, and applied is extremely valuable if it becomes 

necessary to formally justify an employment decision based on an 

interview.

26 Title 5, United States Code, Section 2301(b)(1)

27 5 CFR 300.103.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

The Case Against the 

Unstructured Interview

For most of us, hiring someone is essentially a romantic process * * * 

We are looking for someone with whom we have a certain chemistry 

* * * We want the unlimited promise of a love affair. The structured 

interview, by contrast, seems to offer only the dry logic and practicality 

of an arranged marriage.28

As noted above, the traditional, unstructured—or looselystructured—interview is very appealing. It seems to provide a counterweight to impersonal, mechanical assessments such as training and 

experience evaluations and written tests, and (therefore) to provide a 

less abstract and more realistic picture of the candidate.

Unfortunately, researchers have found that the validity of unstructured 

interviews is lower than that of structured interviews. At best, performance in an unstructured interview explains only 14 percent of variation in on-the-job performance.29 Unstructured interviews are also 

risky, even when well-intentioned. The absence of structure leaves the 

interviewer vulnerable to cognitive biases (that is, patterns in how we 

receive and process information that can lead to errors in judgment), 

which include:

• Reliance on first impressions. Research shows that people make 

judgments about each other when they first meet—whether in person or on paper—and that those judgments have great staying 

power. In effect, the handshake (or job application) colors the interviewer’s recollection and evaluation of the subsequent interview. 

This introduces the possibility that the interview will not add to the 

selection process, but will simply serve to confirm existing, possibly 

mistaken impressions of the individual. It also introduces the possibility that the resulting selection may reflect—unintentionally—

personal liking, in addition to or instead of ability to do the job.

28 Gladwell, op. cit., p. 86.

29 Schmidt and Hunter, op. cit., p. 37.
22 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

• Reading too much into the interviewee’s behavior. Often, people 

assume that other people behave in ways that reflect their underlying character, and fail to give due weight to the context in which 

that behavior occurs. Richard Nisbett, one researcher, describes the 

resulting problem as follows:

When you have an interview with someone * * * you don’t conceptualize that as taking a sample of a person’s behavior, let alone a possibly 

biased sample, which is what it is. What you think is that you are seeing a hologram, a small and fuzzy image but still the whole person.30

At best, a lack of structure reduces the value of the interview as an 

assessment tool. At worst, a lack of structure can lead to perceptions—

and quite possibly the reality—of disparate or unfair treatment.

30 Gladwell, op. cit., p. 72.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

The Structured Interview Process

Appendix D provides a simplified model of the structured interview 

process. The model places the elements of the structured interview in 

the context of the selection process and shows how these elements “fit” 

together. The ordering of steps in the model is more illustrative than 

prescriptive. Steps such as job analysis, determining the role of the 

interview, and interviewer training may be completed before a vacancy 

occurs. The appendix is not a detailed, “how-to” guide to structured 

interviewing. As we note in the box below, “Developing Interviews—

A Job for Professionals?,” Federal employment practices are held to a 

high standard and agencies must take considerable care when developing any assessment tool.

We believe that the requirement that an assessment tool be professionally developed should be viewed as an ideal rather than as an absolute 

requirement. It is neither realistic nor desirable for agencies to discontinue using an interview simply because it was not developed by a personnel psychologist or an equivalent professional. However, agencies 

should take steps to meet the spirit of the requirement, ensure that 

assessment tools are developed by informed and knowledgeable staff, 

and make their interviews as good as reasonably possible. With this 

goal in mind, we offer the following suggestions on how agencies can 

make better use of interviews, in addition to adding structure. 

Developing Interviews—

A Job for Professionals?

Agencies are expected to use employment practices—including assessment tools, 

such as interviews—that are based on job analysis, relevant, and nondiscriminatory. To demonstrate relevance, the agency must show that the employment practice was “professionally developed.”

This does not mean that developing a structured interview is a job for “HR 

experts” only. The insights and perspectives of knowledgeable managers and subject matter experts are indispensable. But it does mean that agencies should treat 

interviews with respect, and devote appropriate attention and resources to their 

development and use.
24 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Determine the purpose of the interview. The hiring organization 

must determine the role of the interview in the selection process, 

including:

• Which job-related competencies31 the interview will assess. This 

will depend on several factors, such as the role of other assessments 

in the selection process, the nature of the candidate pool, and relationship between the competency and high performance. For example, if candidates already have been evaluated on knowledge of 

accounting principles through review of the written application, 

asking questions about accounting principles may add little value, 

unless the interviewer wants to confirm or expand on existing information. On the other hand, if candidates have not been systematically assessed on oral communication—and the organization’s job 

analysis indicates that excellent oral communication is a characteristic of high performers—then it makes sense to use the interview to 

assess candidates on this competency.

• How interview results will be used. Interviews may be used to rank 

or group candidates, and thus narrow the candidate pool, or they 

may be used to make a selection from a pool of ranked or grouped 

candidates. The same principles apply to both.32 However, the level 

of precision needed, resource requirements, and the effect on the 

candidate pool may be substantially different. For example, an 

interview used to select from a small group of final candidates may 

focus on high-level competencies and be relatively lengthy. In contrast, an interview used to sort a large pool of candidates into 

groups (such as “qualified” and “highly qualified”) may focus on 

basic competencies and be relatively brief (in the interest of efficiency).

• How the interview will support the organization’s recruiting strategy. Interviews can be used to assess job candidates, or to support 

recruitment efforts by providing information and generating candidate interest. These two functions are not mutually exclusive, but 

they must be balanced. That balance will depend on several factors, 

including the context of the interview, the nature of the candidate 

pool, and the stage of the selection process. For example, interviews 

at a visit to a university campus may be primarily informational, 

intended to educate students about Government employment 

opportunities. It would make little sense to use interviews to assess 

31 Here, “competency” refers to all aspects of qualifications (e.g., related knowledges, skills, abilities, 

behaviors, and other characteristics), other than suitability, that an organization may assess as part of the 

employment process. 

32 Because OPM retains jurisdiction over qualification standards, assessments used to screen candidates 

(i.e., to determine whether a candidate meets minimum qualification requirements) may be subject to 

OPM review and approval. 
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

students who have not applied for—and may not even be interested in—a position with the organization. On the other hand, a 

final interview for a position will most likely center on 

assessment—identifying the best qualified candidate. However, 

even interviews of this type should have an informational component in order to keep candidates informed and interested throughout the selection process. There is little point in identifying the 

best-qualified candidates if the organization cannot sustain those 

candidates’ interest in employment.

Provide background information. Providing background information can serve as an “ice-breaker” and help the candidate understand 

the interview process and its purpose as well as basics about the job. 

Appropriate background information includes: 

• The current status of the selection process,

• The role of the interview in the selection process,

• The interview format,

• Job duties and responsibilities, and

• Work environment.

We note that many organizations elect to provide background information in advance of the interview. That option makes efficient use of 

the interviewer and interviewee’s time, promotes consistency, and can 

help put candidates at ease by eliminating the element of “surprise.”

Probe. Candidates’ responses are likely to vary in length and level of 

detail. This is acceptable, as long as the interviewer obtains enough 

information to rate each candidate fairly and accurately. The interviewer may need to request additional examples or more specifics to 

fully understand the candidate’s answer. Probing, done tactfully, also 

gives a candidate who is less talkative the opportunity to describe his 

or her relevant experience.

Answer candidate questions. This report focuses on the interview as 

an assessment tool for the employer. The interview is also a recruitment tool—or, viewed from the candidate’s perspective, a way for the 

candidate to assess the prospective employer. Providing an opportunity for the candidate to ask questions helps the candidate make a 

well-informed employment decision, thus increasing the odds of a 

good fit between employee and employer. It also shows interest in the 

candidate, which is part of effective recruiting.

Follow up. Interviewers should ensure that they have obtained sufficient and reliable information from the interview. First, the interviewers should verify that the candidate’s responses and the record of the 

interview are sufficiently detailed. (This should rarely be a problem, if 
26 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

interviewers ask well-designed questions and use appropriate probing.) 

However, because interviewers’ note-taking and memories are not 

always perfect, it may be appropriate in some cases to contact the candidate for the necessary information. Second, interviewers should 

determine whether the candidate’s responses are consistent with information from other sources, such as the application and reference 

checks. Inconsistencies may be readily resolved or explained—but 

they may also raise questions about candidate qualifications and truthfulness which warrant further fact-finding.

Evaluate and refine the interview. We suggest that organizations 

view the structured interview as a “living assessment.” Periodically 

evaluating the structured interview process and its outcomes can help 

identify strengths and opportunities for improvement. (This evaluation need not be as elaborate as a formal validation study, which is a 

rigorous statistical analysis of the interview and its outcomes to demonstrate that it measures job-related criteria and distinguishes between 

candidates based on ability to perform. Formal validation may not be 

feasible or cost-effective for low-volume jobs or occupations. However, 

organizations should seriously consider validating interviews used for 

high-volume jobs or occupations, where the cost of validation will be 

compensated by the interview’s increased validity and defensibility.) 

Some questions to ask could include:

• Do the interview questions make useful job-related distinctions 

among candidates?

• Are interviewers comfortable with the interview questions and process?

• Are interviewers applying the rating scales consistently?

• How are candidates performing on the interview? Are different 

groups performing differently?

• How are selecting officials using the results of the interview?

• Do selecting officials believe that the interview is successful at identifying good employees?

• How do candidates perceive the interview?

• Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Asking such questions—and acting on the answers—will ensure that 

the structured interview remains relevant, useful, and defensible.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

The State of Federal Employment 

Interviewing

Federal managers make extensive use of interviews, and they believe 

that interviews are valuable. As shown in Fig. 2, managers responding 

to our 2000 Merit Principles Survey believed that the interview is an 

excellent predictor of on-the-job performance, surpassing most other 

commonly used assessments.

As discussed previously, research provides conditional support for the 

high regard Federal managers have for the interview: a well-designed, 

properly conducted structured interview is a very good assessment 

tool. However, information from the Board’s Merit Principles Survey 

and past studies suggests that many agencies are not taking full advantage of the interview’s potential. Indicators include:

Figure 2. Percent of supervisors indicating that information 

predicts performance “to a great extent” 

Source: U.S. Merit Sytems Protection Board, 2000 Merit Principles Survey.

4%

6%

13%

22%

28%

28%

34%

36%

57%

61%

Reputation of

educational institution

W ritten test

College GPA

Personal

recommendations

Level of education

Major field of study

Q uality of the

application

Reference checks

Prior work experience

Interviews

Source of Information Percent
28 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Excessive reliance on personal observation and judgment. The 

responses to our Merit Principles Survey shown in Figure 2 suggest 

that managers prefer assessments that allow for “hands on” managerial 

involvement, such as interviews and reference checks, over “hands off” 

assessments such as written test scores and college grade-point average. 

This preference is understandable: we tend to prefer direct observation 

over indirect observation, and our own perceptions and judgments 

over those of others. But this preference may also lead managers to be 

overly confident about their own impressions and judgments, and 

view the “assistance” of structure as unnecessary to good 

interviewing—and to be comfortable with a relatively unstructured 

approach to interviewing. This would be unfortunate, because structure helps interviewers make better judgments about job candidates, 

and structured interviews are considerably more effective than 

unstructured interviews.

(We note that this preference may also lead to poor selection of assessment tools. Given the choice, managers are unlikely to use or give 

appropriate consideration to assessments that they do not value. 

Unfortunately, managers’ valuations of assessment tools are not consistent with current research on the ability of assessment tools to predict 

on-the-job performance. For example, managers view the written test 

with considerable disdain, although it is one of the best assessment 

tools available—and far better than indicators such as level of education and reference checks.)

A tendency to sacrifice quality for speed in the hiring process. A 

Board report examining how Federal supervisors are fulfilling their 

human resource management responsibilities observed that “supervisors too often succumb to the pressures of filling a vacancy quickly by 

* * * using assessment or selection processes that get fast results, but 

may not produce the best candidates available.”33 This suggests that 

agencies may resort to relatively unstructured interviews when trying 

to fill jobs quickly. Structured interviews require advance planning 

and an upfront investment of time and resources—inputs that may be 

overlooked or dispensed with under pressure. This is not to say that 

structured interviewing is incompatible with a streamlined hiring process. Structured interviews can be done almost as quickly as unstructured interviews, if the agency has laid the groundwork, such as 

performing job analysis, developing questions and rating scales, and 

training interviewers, beforehand. But, as we have noted above, managers may be reluctant to invest much time in the hiring process. And, 

33 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Federal Supervisors and Strategic Human Resources Management,” Washington, DC, June 1998, p. 2.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

as we discuss below, agencies are often reluctant to invest resources in 

the hiring process.

Insufficient resources devoted to developing and using assessments.

The Board’s recent studies34 of delegated examining units35 highlight 

two resource-related issues that could lead to suboptimal interviewing 

practices. First, primary responsibility for developing and administering assessment tools has been shifted from the Office of Personnel 

Management to Federal agencies.36 However, this responsibility was 

not necessarily accompanied by supporting resources needed to meet 

it. The outcome is that managers may not have access to high-quality 

assessment tools, such as a good structured interview:

Agencies vary widely in their ability to develop and apply good training 

and experience (or any other) assessment instruments. Agencies with 

little in-house expertise in this field, and little or no discretionary 

money to pay OPM or anyone else for the needed expertise, are at a 

distinct disadvantage.37

Secondóand more troublingóis the fact that some delegated examining units appear to be under great pressure to minimize operating 

costs. Such delegated examining units may be unable or unwilling to 

invest in assessment tools, even when the investment could be recovered almost immediately:

* * * almost all of the DEU officials who filled [positions in occupations where written tests are required at lower grade levels] told us that 

the cost of the certificates is a significant factor in the decision not to 

fill these positions at the lower grades.38

This suggests that some organizations find it easier to fill positions at 

higher grades—and incur thousands of dollars in additional salary 

costs—than to pay for and use an assessment tool that could have 

increased the likelihood of hiring a good employee at a lower grade 

level. If this logic is applied to interviews, agencies will tend to use 

unstructured instead of structured interviews, because structured 

interviews require a greater initial investment.

34 See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Assessing Federal Job Seekers in a Delegated Examining 

Environment,” Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, December 2001 and U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, “The Role of Delegated Examining Units: Hiring New Employees in a Decentralized 

Civil Service,” Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, August 1999.

35 A delegated examining unit (DEU) is an organization that evaluates (examines) applicants for employment in the Federal competitive service under authority delegated by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. There are currently nearly 700 DEU’s, most located in agency human resources offices.

36 Most written tests currently in use were developed centrally by OPM. However, agencies must now 

bear the costs of test administration and scoring.

37 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Assessing Federal Job Seekers in a Delegated Examining Environment,” Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, December 2001, p. 31.

38 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “The Role of Delegated Examining Units: Hiring New Employees in a Decentralized Civil Service,” Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, August 1999, p. 13.
30 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Inexpert interviewers. Interviews are typically conducted by supervisors and managers. A 1992 Board study of first-line supervisors found 

that a vast majority—nearly 90 percent—are involved in selecting 

new employees.39 Unfortunately, a recent OPM study finds broad 

deficiencies in how Federal supervisors are prepared for their responsibilities, stating that “[Supervisors] come to the job without leadership 

development and they get very little after assuming their new responsibilities.”40 This suggests that relatively few supervisors are trained in 

developing or conducting interviews—a specialized and, for many 

supervisors, infrequently performed task. The situation does not 

improve greatly at higher levels of management. As part of its study of 

assessment tools41, the Board recently surveyed a small sample of 

senior Federal managers (members of the Senior Executive Service, or 

their representatives). Barely half of these managers indicated that they 

had ever received training in conducting interviews.

The lack of training is troubling, because interviewing is neither intuitive nor easy. In fact, it has been characterized as “uniquely difficult 

among managerial tasks.”42 The interviewer must ask questions, be 

attentive to verbal and nonverbal cues, interpret and record a great 

deal of information, “sell” the job and the organization, and accurately 

rate the candidate’s responses—often in the space of one hour or less. 

An untrained interviewer will be hard-pressed to do all these things 

well, and realize the full potential of even a well-conceived interview.

There are many good 

interviewing practices, and 

improvements are being 

made.

As we have indicated, selection interviewing in the Federal Government is highly variable. The positive aspect of this variation is that 

some agencies are making good use of interviews. Some agencies, 

including the U.S. Border Patrol, the U.S. Customs Service, and the 

Social Security Administration, have recognized the importance and 

potential of the interview for many years. The illustration at right, 

“Investing in Workforce Quality,” discusses how interviews contribute 

to high-quality selections at the U.S. Border Patrol.

Other agencies have taken steps to make better use of the selection 

interview. For example, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has 

conducted an extensive education and marketing campaign to encour39 Data from MSPB survey of Federal first-line supervisors (See U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

“Federal First-Line Supervisors: How Good Are They?,” Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 

March 1992).

40 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Supervisors in the Federal Government: A Wake-Up Call,” 

Washington, DC, January 2001, p. 16.

41 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Assessing Federal Job Seekers in a Delegated Examining Environment,” Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, December 2001, p. 34.

42 Wayne F. Cascio, “Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management,” fifth ed., Prentice-Hall, 

Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998, p. 195.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

age managers to use structured interviews. The discussion on page 32, 

“Improving Selections One Interview at a Time,” highlights key elements of this campaign.

Also, many agencies are using structured interviews as part of their 

assessment strategy under OPM’s Competency-based43 Information 

Technology (IT) Job Profile Pilot program.44 The pilot program uses a 

job profile (a competency-based qualifications standard) in lieu of the 

current qualifications standard, which expresses minimum qualifications in terms of years of experience and/or years of education. Under 

the pilot, agencies have several assessment options, including ratings of 

training and experience, structured interviews,45 and an on-line objective test. OPM reports positive feedback from agencies that are using 

structured interviews to assess candidates.

43 OPM defines a competency as “an observable, measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or other occupational functions successfully.”

44 To provide agencies an incentive to join the pilot program, OPM worked with agencies to develop 

benchmarks for more than 50 general and technical competencies. OPM also developed a structured 

interview for use with these competencies.

45 OPM provided required training in structured interviewing to prospective interviewers in agencies that 

elected to use structured interviews. OPM offers similar training, on a reimbursable basis, outside the 

pilot project.

Investing in Workforce 

Quality

The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the U.S. Department 

of Justice uses structured interviews to assess candidates for entry-level Border 

Patrol Agent and Immigration Inspector positions. The INS hires an average of 

2,000 Border Patrol Agents and 2,000 Immigration Inspectors each year.

After initial screening based on a written test, candidates are interviewed by a 

three-person panel of Border Patrol Agents who have been trained in interviewing. The interview is designed to complement the written test, and focuses on 

important competencies such as:

• Judgment and decision-making,

• Interpersonal skills,

• Emotional maturity,

• Cooperativeness and sensitivity to others, and

• Oral Communication.

Responses are evaluated against benchmarks developed by experienced Border 

Patrol agents and supervisors in cooperation with personnel psychologists. Candidates who perform acceptably on the interview, which is scored on a pass/fail 

basis, remain eligible for further consideration.

The Border Patrol has used this approach successfully for many years. The Immigration Inspections program implemented its structured interview in the spring 

of 2002. Managers consider the interview an indispensable part of the assessment 

and selection process, and view it as an investment in a high-quality workforce.
32 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

Improving Selections One 

Interview at a Time

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a large, diverse, geographically 

dispersed workforce, employed in occupations ranging from housekeeping aid to 

loan specialist to physician, in locations ranging from urban offices to rural medical centers. Implementing structured behavioral interviewing (which VA refers 

to as performance-based interviewing, or PBI) in such an environment is a daunting task—but VA has taken steps to do just that.

VA's size and scope make it impossible to implement PBI through an “act of 

HR.” Instead, VA's strategy is to “market” PBI directly to the managers and 

supervisors who will benefit from it, and disseminate the knowledge and tools 

needed to make interviews more structured. Elements of this strategy include:

• Identifying line and senior managers at each installation who understand the 

importance of effective interviews and who can champion structured interviewing;

• A satellite broadcast, introduced by a high-level executive, to educate managers on the concept of the structured interview and its benefits. The broadcast 

was videotaped and distributed to all field installations;

• Purchasing two commercially-available videos on structured interviewing and 

providing one copy to each Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN, a 

field organization with management and operating responsibility for several 

medical centers and clinics);

• Developing guidance and training materials, which are available on VA's web 

site and on CD-ROM;

• Training designated staff (typically one manager and one human resources 

specialist) at each field installation. These staff can train other employees who 

are involved in developing and conducting interviews;

• Employee training, to make employees familiar with PBI’s intent and format 

so that they can “put their best foot forward” in job interviews; and

• Managerial accountability. Although VISN directors are evaluated primarily 

on outcome measures, they are also evaluated on steps they have taken to 

improve organizational performance. This may include promotion and use of 

PBI.

Although PBI is a work in progress, initial feedback is positive. One long-time 

user reports that staff quality and the organization's reputation have risen substantially, making the organization a more attractive employer. Another user 

reports that the PBI techniques can be applied effectively in other areas, such as 

in discussions with contractors.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Recommendations

This paper focuses on a single aspect of the assessment and selection 

process—the interview. Over the years, the Board has repeatedly 

encouraged agencies to use good assessment tools, as in the following 

statement from 1999:

Agencies need to seriously examine the way they assign people to jobs. 

They need to devote resources to finding ways to assess job candidates 

that permit a good fit between worker and work; they need to evaluate 

how well they accomplish these tasks; and they need to adjust their 

methods accordingly.46

This counsel has particular relevance to interviewing, because interviews are widely used and highly influential in selection decisions. The 

following recommendations simply place the interview in this broader 

context.

1. Agencies should decide which purpose(s) the interview will serve, 

and design and conduct the interview accordingly. Interviews can 

be purely informational, supporting recruitment efforts by educating 

candidates about employment opportunities and conditions of 

employment. Or, interviews can focus purely on assessing candidates’ 

qualifications. Or they can do both. Agencies must make a conscious 

and informed choice, because that choice has significant implications 

for the design and conduct of the interview. Interviews that function 

only as a recruitment tool do not require a high level of structure.47

On the other hand, interviews that function as assessment tools—that 

are used to screen candidates, rank or group candidates, or make a 

final selection decision—call for careful design and considerable 

structure, if the organization is to realize their full potential.

2. Agencies that use interviews to assess job candidates should use 

structured interviews. In making this recommendation, we distinguish between interviews that function as a continuation of the evaluation of training and experience—for example, an interview that 

46 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Federal Supervisors and Poor Performers,” Washington, DC, 

July 1999, p. 33.

47 Even here, some structure—such as recruiter training and “talking points”—will help the organization 

project a clear, consistent image and maximize the effectiveness of the informational interview.
34 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

simply confirms or elaborates on information in the candidate’s 

application—and interviews that are intended to develop new information. For the former, a high level of structure is neither practical 

nor necessary, provided that the interviewer asks job-related questions 

and treats candidates consistently. But for the latter, the case for the 

structured interview is compelling. Research shows that structured 

interviews, as part of a systematic candidate assessment process, can 

increase the likelihood of a good selection by helping managers 

develop new information on candidates such as a past behaviors, in 

the context of the workplace. Structured interviews can also reduce the 

costs associated with unsound employment practices, including turnover, poor performance, and grievances and complaints. The 

alternative—the unstructured interview—is much less desirable. 

Research indicates that unstructured interviews are, on average, little 

more than half as effective as structured interviews and unstructured 

interviews may be subject to bias and challenges.

3. Agencies should invest the resources (time, training, funds, and 

expertise) needed to add structure to selection interviews. Structured interviewing can be cost-effective, but it is not free. Structured 

interviews require a coordinated application of thought and expertise. 

An agency cannot realize the benefits of structured interviewing simply by reading about it. Many Federal agencies understand and have 

acted on the “business case” for structured interviews. However, our 

previous studies also indicate that many agencies and managers do 

not, for varying reasons, use the best available tools when assessing 

candidates. This failure is not merely inconsistent with the merit principle of selecting from the best-qualified candidates; it is also inconsistent with effective and efficient government. Therefore, we strongly 

encourage agencies that use selection interviews to move toward structured interviews. This includes investing in both the assessment tool 

(the interview itself) and the users of that tool (most likely supervisors 

and managers).

We realize that managers and supervisors may not be able to immediately make large investments in structured interviewing. In such cases, 

we suggest a strategy of incremental improvement. Agencies can 

improve the effectiveness of their interviews by adding structure, or 

building on elements of structure already in place. For example, providing managers with training can help them develop better questions 

and become more effective interviewers. In a similar vein, reviewing 

and revising interview questions—based on an existing or updated 

job analysis—can sharpen the interview’s focus on job requirements, 

and make the interview better able to identify excellent candidates. 

Another option is to borrow from existing structured interview questions and formats. For example, a structured interview for a high-level 
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

information technology position cannot be used as is for a human 

resources position. But a question that deals with a competency shared 

by the two positions, such as written communication, might be readily 

adapted.

Agencies that wish to adopt structured interviewing may contact the 

Office of Personnel Management, which offers guidance and training 

on structured interviewing. Agencies may also be able to draw on the 

expertise and experience of agencies that currently use structured 

interviews. These include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Customs 

Service, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

4. Agencies should evaluate their interview practices for effectiveness and possible improvement. This recommendation, like the first 

two, reiterates an established position of the Board that is particularly 

relevant to the structured interview. The structured interview is an 

adaptable and flexible assessment tool that can be readily modified to 

accommodate changing job requirements and incorporate “lessons 

learned.” Evaluation of the interview instrument, process, and outcomes will help ensure that the interview meets the organization’s 

needs, and that the organization treats candidates fairly and defensibly.
this page intentionally left blank
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

Appendix A — Types of Employment 

Interview

1. Informational / Recruitment

The interview serves as a recruitment tool. The interview is used primarily to

provide information to candidates.

2. Selection / Assessment

The interview functions as an assessment tool and serves as the basis for

employment-related decisions. The interview is used primarily to obtain

information from job candidates to assess their qualifications. As illustrated below,

the interview may be used in any phase of the selection process. The level of

structure can range from unstructured to highly structured.

B. Ranking

The interview is used to group or rank

order candidates.

A. Screening

The interview is used to determine whether

candidates meet minimum requirements.

C. Final Selection

The interview informs the selecting officialís

decision. Candidates may be scored, but are

usually not formally grouped or ranked.
this page intentionally left blank
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Appendix B—A Brief Discussion of 

Selection Tool Validity

In the context of assessments, “validity” typically refers to the relationship between performance on a selection tool (e.g., the score on a written test) and a measure of job performance (e.g., the employee’s 

performance appraisal).48

Validity is expressed as a number between 1.0 and -1.0. A value of 1.0 

means that there is a perfect positive relationship between the score 

received on the selection tool and performance on the job. A value of 0 

means that there is no relationship—in practical terms, that the selection tool has no ability to predict job performance. A negative value 

indicates an inverse relationship: the better the performance on the 

selection tool, the worse the expected on-the-job performance.49

Validity measures are used to estimate how much of the variability in 

an employee’s performance can be predicted by the selection tool. The 

estimate is calculated by squaring the validity measure, as illustrated 

below.

48 Wayne F. Cascio, “Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management,” fifth ed., Prentice-Hall, 

Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998, p. 103.

49 Although assessments with a high negative validity coefficient could conceivably be quite useful, few—

if any—are used.

Table 4. Examples—Estimating the Predictive Value of a 

Selection Toola

a. Source of validity coefficients: Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of 

Selection methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of 

Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin, The American Psychological Association, Inc., vol. 24, No. 2, 

September 1998, p. 265.

Example 1—Structured Interviews

(1) Structured interviews have a validity of 0.51. 

(2) 0.51 x 0.51 = 0.2601, or approximately 26 percent.

(3) Performance on the structured interview predicts 26 percent of the variability 

in how well people will do on the job.

Example 2—Reference Checks

(1) Reference checks have a validity of 0.26.

(2) 0.26 x 0.26 = 0.0676, or approximately 6.8 percent.

(3) Reference checks predict 6.8 percent of the variability in how well people will 

do on the job.
40 The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential

No single selection instrument has achieved a validity measure of 1.0. 

The best commonly used selection tools in the Federal sector include 

the work sample test (0.54), the structured interview (0.51), and general mental ability tests (0.51). Ratings of training and experience—

the most common assessment—range from 0.11 to 0.45, depending 

on the rating method used.

Although even the best selection tools are far from perfect, it makes 

good sense for Federal managers to use the best tools available, in the 

most appropriate way, to select the highest quality job candidates. 

Otherwise, managers face an increased risk of making bad selection 

decisions—and later spending time and resources trying to remedy or 

remove a poor performer.
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

Appendix C—Sample Structured 

Interview Question and Rating Scale

Competency: Interpersonal Skills 

Definition: Shows understanding, courtesy, tact, empathy, concern; develops and maintains relationships; may deal with people 

who are difficult, hostile, distressed; relates well to people from varied backgrounds and situations; is sensitive to individual differences.

Lead Question:

Describe a situation in which you had to deal with people who were upset about a problem.

Probes: • What events led up to this situation? 

• Who was involved? 

• What specific actions did you take? 

• What was the outcome or result?

Benchmark

Level Level Definition Level Examples

5 Establishes and maintains ongoing working relationships with management, other employees, internal or 

external stakeholders, or customers. Remains courteous 

when discussing information or eliciting highly sensitive or controversial information from people who are 

reluctant to give it. Effectively handles situations 

involving a high degree of tension or discomfort involving people who are demonstrating a high degree of hostility or distress.

• Presents controversial findings tactfully to irate 

organization senior management officials regarding 

shortcomings of a newly installed computer system, 

software programs, and associated equipment.

4 • Mediates disputes concerning system design/architecture, the nature and capacity of data management 

systems, system resources allocations, or other 

equally controversial/ sensitive matters.

3 Cooperates and works well with management, other 

employees, or customers, on short-term assignments. 

Remains courteous when discussing information or 

eliciting moderately sensitive or controversial information from people who are hesitant to give it. Effectively 

handles situations involving a moderate degree of tension or discomfort involving people who are demonstrating a moderate degree of hostility or distress.

• Courteously and tactfully delivers effective instruction to frustrated customers.

• Provides technical advice to customers and the public on various types of IT such as communication or 

security systems, data management procedures or 

analysis, software engineering, or web development.

2 • Familiarizes new employees with administrative procedures and office systems.

1 Cooperates and works well with management, other 

employees, or customers during brief interactions. 

Remains courteous when discussing information or 

eliciting non-sensitive or non-controversial information 

from people who are willing to give it. Effectively handles situations involving little or no tension, discomfort, hostility, or distress.

• Responds courteously to customers’ general inquiries.

• Greets and assists visitors attending a meeting 

within own organization.

Source: United States Office of Personnel Management
this page intentionally left blank
A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

Appendix D—A Model Structured 

Interview Process

Ask Question

Probe

Provide Background

During the Interview

Take Notes

Answer Candidate Questions

Follow Up

Conduct Further Assessment

OR

Make Selection

Score Responses

After the Interview

Evaluate and Refine Interview

Train

Interviewers Develop Questions

Develop Rating Scales

Conduct Job Analysis

Determine

Purpose of

Interview

Before the Interview

Source: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC.
this page intentionally left blank