結(jié)構(gòu)化面試不同形式對高復(fù)雜任務(wù)的績效預(yù)測能力差異研究
發(fā)布時間：2019-04-27 02:30
【摘要】：情境面試和行為面試是結(jié)構(gòu)化面試的兩種形式,大量實證研究和實踐應(yīng)用都已表明二者有良好的信、效度,是有效的人才選拔工具。然而結(jié)構(gòu)化面試研究面臨兩大問題,其一是它的構(gòu)念效度并不清晰,其二是兩種結(jié)構(gòu)化面試研究在高級崗位上的績效預(yù)測效度差異存在不一致結(jié)論。本研究的主要目的是解決情境面試和行為面試在高復(fù)雜任務(wù)上績效預(yù)測效度差異的原因,其次對結(jié)構(gòu)化面試可能測量的構(gòu)念成分進行探索。 本研究以本科生的《人力資源管理》課程中的“團隊合作與領(lǐng)導(dǎo)行為”為研究對象,根據(jù)多位學(xué)者的任務(wù)復(fù)雜性劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)將此行為界定為高復(fù)雜任務(wù),以該課程中的35名同學(xué)為被試。研究一,我們根據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的結(jié)構(gòu)化面試開發(fā)程序,開發(fā)了等同的情境面試題目和行為面試題目,并通過先驗研究對兩種結(jié)構(gòu)化面試題目和評價標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進行了改進,獲得了規(guī)范的結(jié)構(gòu)化面試工具。研究二,比較情境面試和行為面試對高復(fù)雜任務(wù)總體績效預(yù)測能力的差異,并檢驗差異的原因所在。結(jié)果表明情境面試和行為面試都能預(yù)測總體績效,預(yù)測效度分別是.378(p.05)和.627(p.01),二者分別能解釋總體績效19.4%和39.3%的變異,而行為面試在預(yù)測高復(fù)雜任務(wù)總體績效上比情境面試有效,表現(xiàn)為行為面試存在對情境面試的增值效度。進一步分析二者總體績效預(yù)測能力差異的原因,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)行為面試比情境面試更有效地預(yù)測了績效的子類別：關(guān)系績效和任務(wù)績效,具體表現(xiàn)為：在任務(wù)績效的預(yù)測上,行為面試對情境面試都存在增值效度;在關(guān)系績效的預(yù)測上,只有行為面試能預(yù)測關(guān)系績效。研究三,我們探索了結(jié)構(gòu)化面試與社會技能、大五人格和核心自我評價的關(guān)系,結(jié)果表明：無論是情境面試還是行為面試都測量到了社會技能,兩種結(jié)構(gòu)化面試與社會技能的回歸分析都達到了顯著水平,在控制評價者變量的基礎(chǔ)上,情境面試對社會技能的解釋率為12.4%,行為面試對社會技能的解釋率17.1%；兩種結(jié)構(gòu)化面試與大五人格和核心自我評價的相關(guān)及回歸分析都不顯著,沒有測量到責(zé)任心、外傾性和核心自我評價等人格特征。 本研究的理論意義在于拓展了結(jié)構(gòu)化面試在績效子類別上的預(yù)測效度證據(jù),解釋了兩種結(jié)構(gòu)化面試在高復(fù)雜任務(wù)總體績效預(yù)測差異的原因,并對結(jié)構(gòu)化面試可能測量到的構(gòu)念成分進行探索。實踐意義在于,為高層次人才選拔選擇恰當(dāng)?shù)拿嬖囆问教峁┝死碚撘罁?jù)。未來的研究方向,應(yīng)在增加樣本量的同時,盡量使用企業(yè)人群開展相關(guān)研究,進一步比較二者的差異。
[Abstract]:Situational interview and behavioral interview are two forms of structured interview. A large number of empirical studies and practical applications have shown that both of them have good reliability and validity, and they are effective tools for talent selection. However, structured interview research faces two major problems, one is that its construct validity is not clear, and the other is that there are inconsistent conclusions between the two structured interview studies in the performance prediction validity of senior positions. The main purpose of this study is to solve the reasons for the difference of performance prediction validity between situational interview and behavioral interview on highly complex tasks. Secondly, we explore the construct components that may be measured by structured interview. In this study, "team cooperation and leadership behavior" in the course of "Human Resource Management" of undergraduate students is taken as the object of study, and this behavior is defined as highly complex task according to the task complexity standard of many scholars. Thirty-five students in the course were selected as subjects. First, according to the standardized structured interview development program, we developed the equivalent situational interview questions and behavioral interview questions, and improved the two structured interview questions and evaluation criteria through a priori study. A standardized structured interview tool was obtained. In the second study, the differences between situational interview and behavioral interview on the overall performance prediction ability of highly complex tasks were compared, and the reasons for the differences were tested. The results showed that both situational interview and behavioral interview could predict overall performance with predictive validity of .378 (p. 05) and .627 (p. 01) respectively, which could explain 19.4% and 39.3% variation of overall performance, respectively. Behavioral interview is more effective than situational interview in predicting the overall performance of highly complex tasks, which shows that behavioral interview has the value-added validity of situational interview. Further analyzing the reasons of the difference in the overall performance prediction ability, we find that the behavioral interview is more effective than the situational interview in predicting the sub-categories of performance: relational performance and task performance, as follows: on the prediction of task performance, we find that behavioral interview is more effective than situational interview in predicting performance. Behavioral interview has value-added validity to situational interview; In relation performance prediction, only behavior interview can predict relationship performance. In the third study, we explored the relationship between structured interview and social skills, big five personality and core self-evaluation. The results showed that both situational interview and behavioral interview measured social skills. The regression analysis of both structured interview and social skills reached a significant level. On the basis of controlling the evaluator variables, the explanation rate of situational interview on social skills was 12.4%, and that of behavioral interview on social skills was 17.1%. The correlation and regression analysis between the two kinds of structured interview and Big five personality and core self-evaluation were not significant, and the personality traits such as responsibility, extroversion and core self-evaluation were not measured. The theoretical significance of this study is to expand the predictive validity evidence of structured interviews on performance subcategories and explain the reasons for the differences between the two structured interviews in the overall performance prediction of highly complex tasks. And explore the structural components that may be measured in structured interviews. The practical significance is to provide a theoretical basis for the selection and selection of appropriate interview forms for high-level talents. In the future, we should increase the sample size and use the enterprise population as far as possible to carry out the related research, and compare the differences between the two groups as far as possible.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：B848.2
本文編號：2466612
[Abstract]:Situational interview and behavioral interview are two forms of structured interview. A large number of empirical studies and practical applications have shown that both of them have good reliability and validity, and they are effective tools for talent selection. However, structured interview research faces two major problems, one is that its construct validity is not clear, and the other is that there are inconsistent conclusions between the two structured interview studies in the performance prediction validity of senior positions. The main purpose of this study is to solve the reasons for the difference of performance prediction validity between situational interview and behavioral interview on highly complex tasks. Secondly, we explore the construct components that may be measured by structured interview. In this study, "team cooperation and leadership behavior" in the course of "Human Resource Management" of undergraduate students is taken as the object of study, and this behavior is defined as highly complex task according to the task complexity standard of many scholars. Thirty-five students in the course were selected as subjects. First, according to the standardized structured interview development program, we developed the equivalent situational interview questions and behavioral interview questions, and improved the two structured interview questions and evaluation criteria through a priori study. A standardized structured interview tool was obtained. In the second study, the differences between situational interview and behavioral interview on the overall performance prediction ability of highly complex tasks were compared, and the reasons for the differences were tested. The results showed that both situational interview and behavioral interview could predict overall performance with predictive validity of .378 (p. 05) and .627 (p. 01) respectively, which could explain 19.4% and 39.3% variation of overall performance, respectively. Behavioral interview is more effective than situational interview in predicting the overall performance of highly complex tasks, which shows that behavioral interview has the value-added validity of situational interview. Further analyzing the reasons of the difference in the overall performance prediction ability, we find that the behavioral interview is more effective than the situational interview in predicting the sub-categories of performance: relational performance and task performance, as follows: on the prediction of task performance, we find that behavioral interview is more effective than situational interview in predicting performance. Behavioral interview has value-added validity to situational interview; In relation performance prediction, only behavior interview can predict relationship performance. In the third study, we explored the relationship between structured interview and social skills, big five personality and core self-evaluation. The results showed that both situational interview and behavioral interview measured social skills. The regression analysis of both structured interview and social skills reached a significant level. On the basis of controlling the evaluator variables, the explanation rate of situational interview on social skills was 12.4%, and that of behavioral interview on social skills was 17.1%. The correlation and regression analysis between the two kinds of structured interview and Big five personality and core self-evaluation were not significant, and the personality traits such as responsibility, extroversion and core self-evaluation were not measured. The theoretical significance of this study is to expand the predictive validity evidence of structured interviews on performance subcategories and explain the reasons for the differences between the two structured interviews in the overall performance prediction of highly complex tasks. And explore the structural components that may be measured in structured interviews. The practical significance is to provide a theoretical basis for the selection and selection of appropriate interview forms for high-level talents. In the future, we should increase the sample size and use the enterprise population as far as possible to carry out the related research, and compare the differences between the two groups as far as possible.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：B848.2
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條
1 王震;孫健敏;;核心自我評價、組織支持對主客觀職業(yè)成功的影響:人-情境互動的視角[J];管理學(xué)報;2012年09期
2 羅正學(xué);朱霞;陳靜;蘇景寬;苗丹民;;任務(wù)績效、關(guān)系績效與工作績效的關(guān)系研究[J];中國行為醫(yī)學(xué)科學(xué);2006年05期
3 姚若松;梁樂瑤;;大五人格量表簡化版(NEO-FFI)在大學(xué)生人群的應(yīng)用分析[J];中國臨床心理學(xué)雜志;2010年04期
4 姚若松;陳懷錦;苗群鷹;;企業(yè)員工大五人格特質(zhì)與關(guān)系績效的相關(guān)研究[J];心理學(xué)探新;2013年04期
5 徐長江;梁崇理;劉爭光;;結(jié)構(gòu)化面試預(yù)測效度的貢獻成分分析[J];心理科學(xué)進展;2013年05期
，本文編號：2466612
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/xinlixingwei/2466612.html
最近更新
教材專著
