title: Māori & Psychology Research Unit Annual Report 2014

authors: Waitoki, Waikaremoana

abstract: Annual report of the Māori and Psychology Research Unit (MPRU) 2014. The unit was established in August of 1997. The unit is designed to provide a catalyst and support network for enhancing research concerning the psychological needs, aspirations, and priorities of Maori people. The MPRU is well situated to draw together skilled and experienced interdisciplinary research groups by networking and establishing working relationships with staff and students within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University, and the wider community.

text: Māori & Psychology Research Unit Annual Report 2014 Annual report of the Māori and Psychology Research Unit (MPRU) 2014. The unit was established in August of 1997. The unit is designed to provide a catalyst and support network for enhancing research concerning the psychological needs, aspirations, and priorities of Maori people. The MPRU is well situated to draw together skilled and experienced interdisciplinary research groups by networking and establishing working relationships with staff and students within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University, and the wider community.

year: 2014

title: Understanding ‘higher’ Māori fertility in a ‘low’ fertility context: Does cultural identity make a difference?

authors: Rarere, Moana

subjects: Maori fertility

abstract: The Māori fertility transition brought an end to decades of very high fertility rates, and a convergence towards long-term fertility levels similar to Pākehā/New Zealand European women. However, important differences endure. The Māori total fertility rate (TFR) remains above replacement level, and Māori women have children earlier and over a longer period. All of this has and still is occurring in a society that facilitates and favours low fertility and small family sizes. Using births data and cultural identity markers in the New Zealand Census, this paper explores the influence of culture as a contributing factor to higher fertility outcomes amongst Māori women in a low-fertility society.

text: Understanding ‘higher’ Māori fertility in a ‘low’ fertility context: Does cultural identity make a difference? The Māori fertility transition brought an end to decades of very high fertility rates, and a convergence towards long-term fertility levels similar to Pākehā/New Zealand European women. However, important differences endure. The Māori total fertility rate (TFR) remains above replacement level, and Māori women have children earlier and over a longer period. All of this has and still is occurring in a society that facilitates and favours low fertility and small family sizes. Using births data and cultural identity markers in the New Zealand Census, this paper explores the influence of culture as a contributing factor to higher fertility outcomes amongst Māori women in a low-fertility society.

year: 2018

title: Panel versus individual interviews: A meta-analytic investigation of employment interview validity

authors: Guilford, Justine Rebecca

abstract: Further analysis using a similar data set to the McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt and Maurer (1994) meta-analysis of employment interviews was performed in the present study, in order to investigate four possible causes for the apparent superiority of individual employment interviews. These causes included (a) criterion contamination of individual interview studies, (b) greater prevalence of psychologists performing individual interviews, (c) greater number of trained/experienced individual interviewers, and (d) greater prevalence of high proximity to target positions in individual interviews. A research question was also proposed to investigate whether all interview panel sizes were inferior to individual interviews in terms of validity. Meta-analyses using 204 job and training performance validity coefficients indicated that individual interviews were superior in validity to panel interviews, but only when the criterion was training performance. Training/experience was the only explanation for the superiority of individual interview validity, such that individual interviewers were more likely to be trained/experienced, suggesting that individual interview validity was superior as a result. The explanation that the use of psychologists in interviews may account for superior individual interview validity was only partially supported. While psychologists were more prevalent in individual interviews, individual interview validity was lower than that of panel interviews, when the criterion was job performance. Only when training was the criterion was individual interview validity higher when psychologists were interviewers. Two hypotheses were not supported. Firstly, there was no evidence of criterion contamination inflating individual interview validity. Secondly, no relationship between interviewer proximity and interview validity was found. Investigations of whether all panel sizes were inferior in terms of validity found that panel sizes of more than three members were superior in validity to individual interviews, when the criterion was job performance.

text: Panel versus individual interviews: A meta-analytic investigation of employment interview validity Further analysis using a similar data set to the McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt and Maurer (1994) meta-analysis of employment interviews was performed in the present study, in order to investigate four possible causes for the apparent superiority of individual employment interviews. These causes included (a) criterion contamination of individual interview studies, (b) greater prevalence of psychologists performing individual interviews, (c) greater number of trained/experienced individual interviewers, and (d) greater prevalence of high proximity to target positions in individual interviews. A research question was also proposed to investigate whether all interview panel sizes were inferior to individual interviews in terms of validity. Meta-analyses using 204 job and training performance validity coefficients indicated that individual interviews were superior in validity to panel interviews, but only when the criterion was training performance. Training/experience was the only explanation for the superiority of individual interview validity, such that individual interviewers were more likely to be trained/experienced, suggesting that individual interview validity was superior as a result. The explanation that the use of psychologists in interviews may account for superior individual interview validity was only partially supported. While psychologists were more prevalent in individual interviews, individual interview validity was lower than that of panel interviews, when the criterion was job performance. Only when training was the criterion was individual interview validity higher when psychologists were interviewers. Two hypotheses were not supported. Firstly, there was no evidence of criterion contamination inflating individual interview validity. Secondly, no relationship between interviewer proximity and interview validity was found. Investigations of whether all panel sizes were inferior in terms of validity found that panel sizes of more than three members were superior in validity to individual interviews, when the criterion was job performance.

year: 1997