Journal Review of the Structured Interview

A Journal Review of Bragger, J., Brecher, E., and Kutcher, E. (2006) The Structured Interview: Reducing Biases Toward Job Applicants with Physical Disabilities, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 155-170.

Introduction

In the hiring process, much effort is directed towards eliminating bias in the selection of the most qualified candidate. It is believed that this can be achieved by carefully identifying skills, knowledge and competencies that are job related while eliminating job-irrelevant factors such as demographic characteristics and, in this case, physical disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was created to protect the rights of the disabled, imposing equal opportunities for employment. However, the high unemployment rate of the disabled suggests that discrimination still exists. On the other hand, some studies have pointed out the opposite. Leniency bias, whether out of pity or awareness of the ADA, evaluated disabled candidates more positively than equally qualified non-disabled candidates. These conflicting concepts of bias that involve disabled job applicants have not been settled. However, the researchers believed that any form of bias in the selection process would prevent the proper selection of the most qualified candidate. Just as much as it is crucial to exercise fairness in hiring to avoid lawsuits associated with equal employment issues, it is also important to avoid the dangers of employing candidates who are unfit or unable to perform the job.

Job interview, as a selection tool, can be conducted in many ways. However, a structured interview is believed to reduce bias as it gives limited control to the interviewers. This research was done to examine the validity of this claim.

Synopsis

In this research, 194 undergraduate students were asked to participate. The job profile in study was a high school teacher as the researchers believed that a physical disability would not prevent an otherwise qualified job applicant from performing the essential functions of a teacher. It is noteworthy that undergraduate students were assumed to sufficiently understand a teacher’s job, therefore making them qualified to assess an applicant’s qualification.

4 mock interviews were recorded, using the same actors, showing the following scenarios: structured with a disability, structured without a disability, unstructured with a disability, and unstructured without a disability. The term “limitation” instead of “disability” was used in the questions to the participants . Those who failed to address this limitation as a disability were eliminated in order to ascertain that those who were included clearly saw the actor applicant as disabled.

The results showed that leniency bias existed in the hiring decisions of the