-‘\§:

 

 

 

\\i\\\\\i\\\;\\\9i\3i\\\\i\ii2\iii\iiiizii E

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING

ENTRY—LEVEL COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL
PROFESSIONALS
presented by

Donn David Ostroth

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Higher Education

degree in

 

 

(Department of Administration and Higher Education)

 

 

/,
OW

Major professor

March 14, 1979
Date

 

0-7639

 

 
  
 
  

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkoth from your record.

H I M H -

a (‘42
WV“,

205
S78 8

 

 

 

 

© 1979

DONN DAVID OSTROTH

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING ENTRY-

LEVEL COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROFESSIONALS

 

By

 

Donn David Ostroth

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1979

 

 

 

 

4;)

Cr / O‘f

 

ABSTRACT

PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING ENTRY-
LEVEL COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROFESSIONALS

BY

Donn David Ostroth

This study had two major purposes: (1) to investi—
gate and evaluate the procedures currently used in the
selection of entry—level College Student Personnel profes-
sionals and (2) to explore the criteria used by adminis—
trators in evaluating the competence of candidates for
entry-level professional Student Personnel positions.

An extensive review of selection literature from
Personnel Psychology provided a basis for evaluating the
entry—level selection procedures identified in the study.
This review also provided a useful reference for educa-
tional administrators wishing to critique and enhance
their staff selection practices.

A 61—item questionnaire was developed, pilot-
tested, and mailed to a nationwide sample of Student Per—
sonnel administrators. Each administrator had been named

as the "contact person" (to whom candidates should apply)

in a 1978 entry—level College Student Personnel position

 

 

 

 

Donn David Ostroth

listing. The listings studied were drawn from the annual
conference placement services of the American College
Personnel Association; the National Association for Women
Deans, Administrators, and Counselors; and the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Each
respondent answered questions regarding the selection
procedures and criteria for a particular position title
named on his/her questionnaire. The referent positions
were stratified into six types. For one type (Head
Resident/Residence Staff positions), a 50% random sample
of the listings was included in the study; for the other
four types, all of the listed positions from the three
conferences were included. Of the 124 administrators
included in the study, 116 (93.5%) returned usable
responses.

The majority of respondents reported that in
selecting staff for the named entry—level positions, they
(1) had a written job description which was reviewed
before hiring; (2) made personal contact with the writers
of candidate references; and (3) conducted conference
interviews and took notes in conjunction with those inter—
views. Under 25% reported using application blanks, and
only one respondent reported using a written test in
selection. Responses indicated that conference inter-
views were largely unstructured and were often conducted

by multiple interviewers who had not been trained in

selection interviewing.

 

 

 

 

Donn David Ostroth

Respondents applied a five-point scale to rate the
importance of each of 36 competencies as selection cri-
teria. The question put to the respondents was, "In
selecting the best candidate for the position named on the
questionnaire, how important was each of the competencies
listed, in your opinion?" Response choices ranged from
"absolutely essential" ("A candidate had to have this
competency to be considered for the position") to "of no
importance" ("This competency is unimportant in the job;
it was 29: a factor in judging candidates").

Four competencies were rated "absolutely essential"
by majorities of respondents: "Work cooperatively with

others,‘ "Manifest well—developed interpersonal relations

and communications skills," "Work effectively with a wide

I

range of individuals,‘ and "Display leadership skills."
Other highly rated competencies included assessment of
student needs and interests, effective decision—making
ability, conflict mediation, group advisement, appreciation
of professional standards and ethics, programming abili-
ties, and group skills. Only one competency ("Administer
and interpret personality tests and measurements") was
rated "of no importance" by a majority of the respondents.
With only three exceptions, no significant differences

were found in the importance ratings of the competencies

in selection for different position types.

 

—

 

 

 

Donn David Ostroth

As a result of the findings of this study, the

following major recommendations were offered:

1. Student Personnel administrators should apply
available research findings to construct more effective

staff selection programs.

2. Conference selection interviews should be
more structured; interviewers should be trained; notes

should be taken on established rating forms.

3. Assistantships and other experiential elements
should be emphasized in professional preparation in order

to develop the most important competencies.

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

With deep love and respect, I dedicate this dis-
sertation to my parents, Don and Marian Ostroth. Their
love, encouragement, and example have provided the oppor-
tunities, the values, and the motivation which made this
achievement possible.

Special appreciation goes out to Dr. Louis Stama-
takos, major advisor, whose guidance and support con—
tributed greatly to this study and to the writer's entire
doctoral program. Dr. Gary North was also a major con-
tributor and critic, offering ideas and asking questions
which added significantly to the quality of this study.

The writer expresses thanks to Dr. Donald
Nickerson and Dr. Larry Foster for their valuable com-
ments and suggestions in the preparation of both the
research proposal and the final dissertation.

Appreciation is expressed to the professional
colleagues whose strong participation made this study
possible.

A special debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. Bob

Minetti, whose ideas and moral support have been a

ii

 

 

 

 

 

significant factor in the completion of this dissertation

and this entire doctoral program.

Finally, I wish to express my affection and
appreciation to my wife, Doris, and to my daughter, Amy,
without whose love, patience, and understanding this

project could never have been completed.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction and Statement of the
Problem. . . . . . l
Purposes of the Study. . . . 7
Rationale and Need for the Study . . . 9
Summary of Related Literature . . . . . l6
Selection Objectives and Procedures . . 16
Student Personnel Professional Com—
petencies . . . . . . . . . . 20
Research Questions. . . . . . . . . 22
Null Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . 23
Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . 24
Limitations of the Study. . . . . . 26
Basic Assumptions of the Study. . . . . 28
Design of the Study . . . . . . . 29
Population and Sample Selection. . . . 29
Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . 30
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . 31
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . 32
Organization of the Study . . . . . . 32
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . 34
Introduction. . . . . 34
Overview of the Selection Process. . . . 35
Summary: Overview of the Selection
Process. . . 44
Procedures Used to Gather Information for
Selection Decisions. . . . . . . . 45
iv

 

 

 

The Resumé and Application Blank . . . . 45
The Interview . . . . . . . . . . 49

Studies on information and perception

in the selection interview. . . . . 57
Dynamics of the interview. . . . . 58
Effects of comparisons and unfavorable

information. . . . . . 60
Interviewer memory and experience and

the effects of pressure. . . . . . 62
Structure of the interview . . . . 64
Recommendations concerning interviewing

practices . . . . . . . . . . 68

References or Recommendations . . . . . 69

Summary: Procedures Used to Gather Infor-

mation for Selection Decisions. . . . . 74
Literature on Staff Selection in Student
Personnel and Education . . . . . . . 76

Selection of Residence Hall Paraprofes-

sional Staff . . . . . 76
Professional Staff Selection and the Job

Market in College Student Personnel . . 87
Selection in Other Areas of Education . . 93

Summary: Literature on Staff Selection in

Student Personnel and Education . . . . 97

Competencies Expected in Entry-Level Stu-
dent Personnel Professionals . . . . . 100

Summary: Competencies Expected in Entry-
Level Student Personnel Professionals . . 114
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . 116

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE DESIGN OF THE
STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Research Questions .I . . . . . . . . 118
Development of the Instrument. . . . . . 119
Testable Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 122
The Population and Sample . . . . . . . 127
Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . 133
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . 137
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 137
Purposes of the Study . . . . . . . . 137

v

Analysis of the Respondents . . . .

Rates of Response to the Survey . I.
Representativeness of Respondents:
Analysis of Four Relevant Variables .
Respondent Experience and Role in
Selection. . . . . . . .
Respondent Attitudes. . . . . .
Results of Hypothesis Testing. Respon-
dent Attitudes . . . . . . . .

Selection Ratios. . . . . .
Selection Procedures Reported in Use .

Descriptive Findings. . . .

Results of Hypothesis Testing. Selection

Procedures Reported in Use . . .

Importance of Specific Competencies as
Entry—Level Selection Criteria . . .

Descriptive Findings. . . . .

Results of Hypothesis Testing: Impor—
tance of Specific Competencies as
Entry-Level Selection Criteria. . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

Introduction . . .
Summary of the Development of the Study .

Purposes of the Study . . . . .
Rationale and Need for the Study. . .
Summary of the Related Literature . .

Methodology. . . . . . . . . .
Descriptive Findings of the Study . . .
Conclusions of the Study . . . . . .

Results of Hypothesis Testing. . . .

Evaluation of Selection Procedures in
Use. . . . . . . .

Importance of Various Competencies as
Selection Criteria for Entry- -Level

 

 

Positions. . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Practice. . . .
Recommendations for Further Research . .
Inferences and Speculations . . . . .

vi

140
140
141

148
150

154

159
160

160

167

172

172

181
185
193

193
195

195
197
198
203

205
210

210

218

222

225
229
231

 

 

 

APPENDICES

Appendix
A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . .
B. COMPETENCY LIST BY MINETTI (1977). . . .
C. THE TRANSMITTAL LETTER . . . .
D. THE FOLLOWUP LETTER . . . . . .
E. POSITION TITLES FOR LISTINGS INCLUDED IN THE
POPULATION . . . . . . . . .
F. RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION, "DO YOU USE ANY
SELECTION TECHNIQUES YOU FEEL ARE PARTICU-
LARLY USEFUL TO YOU? IF SO, WOULD YOU
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THEM?" . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . .

vii

234
238
240

241

242

245

248

LIST OF TABLES

Ratings of Competency Importance from the
Study by Newton and Hellenga (N=19) . . .

Breakdown of Usable Survey Responses . . .

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position
Listings: Distribution by Institutional
Enrollment (Percentage) . . . . . . .

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position
Listings. Distribution by Control/
Affiliation (Percentage). . .

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position
Listings: Distribution by Title of
Contact Person (Percentage). . .

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position List-
ings: Distribution by Region (Percentage).

Listings for Positions Other than Head
Resident/Residence Staff: Distribution
by Institutional Enrollment (Percentage)

Listings for Positions Other Than Head
Resident/Residence Staff: Distribution
by Control/Affiliation (Percentage) . .

Listings for Positions Other than Head
Resident/Residence Staff: Distribution
by Title of Contact Person (Percentage). .

Listings for Positions Other than Head
Resident/Residence Staff: Distribution
by Region (Percentage) . . . . . . .

Number of Years of Selection Experience
Reported by the Respondents. . . . . .

viii

107

140

142

144

144

145

146

147

147

149

Table

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.26

Number of Institutions at Which Respondents

Acquired Their Selection Experience

Responses to Four Attitude Statements .

Respondent Attitudes toward the Resumé as a

Selection Tool . . . . . . . .

Respondent Attitudes toward the Written
Reference as a Selection Tool . . .

Relationship between the Number of Schools
at Which Respondents Acquired Selection
Experience and Responses on One Attitude

Item (H01 2). . . . . . . . .
Selection Ratios for Different Position
Types . . . . . . . . . . .

Characteristics Included in Written Job
Specifications (Percentage). . . .

Practices Related to Employer Contacts with

the Writers of References (Percentages).

Number of Different Staff Conducting at

Least One Conference Selection Interview

Relationship between Institution Size and
Use of an Established Rating Form during

Conference Selection Interviews . .

Relationship between Institution Size and

Pre-Conference Interviewer Training .
Importance Ratings of the Competencies.
Distributions of Importance Ratings for

Competency, "Select, Train, Supervise

and Evaluate Staff" . . . . . .

Distributions
Competency,

of Importance Ratings for
"Evaluate Programs" . .

Distributions
Competency,
Discipline of Student Misconduct". .

of Importance Ratings for

the

O

the

the

"Perform Fair and Effective

Percentage of Respondents Reporting the Use

of Certain Selection Procedures . .

ix

149

151

153

153

157

159

161

163

165

170

171

174

183

184

185

189

Figure
1.1

2.1

LIST OF FIGURES

Illustration of selection objectives

Components of the selection process

17

36

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction and Statement of the Problem

 

Management has been defined as "the process of
getting things done by and through others" (Hicks &
Gullett, 1974, p. 70). Such a definition implies that
the competence of subordinate staff members is vital to
every manager, for it is only through the efforts of
others that the manager can accomplish organizational
objectives.

Basic management texts often list "staffing" as
a fundamental management function, along with such things
as planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling
(Koontz & O'Donnell, 1968; Dessler, 1977). Since staff
turnover ("substitution of personnel") is a characteristic
of modern organizations (Etzioni, 1964), selection of new
staff members is an important part of the staffing
function. Schneider's (1976) text on staffing makes
selection the central topic in this area. Clearly, most
managers must choose individuals to fill positions in

their organizations. For some this may be an occasional

task, while for others it is almost an everyday concern.
In either case, a manager's effectiveness in selection
may well determine the difference between success and
failure, for staff members are a primary resource through
which the manager functions.

As it is in any organization, the problem of
staff selection is an important and recurring one to
administrators in College Student Personnel. In dis-
cussing the role of the Student Personnel administrator,
Williamson (1961) noted the importance of the staffing
function (and of effective selection) in accomplishing
educative goals. Despite this emphasis, his discussion
of staffing lacks further detailed explanation. Indeed,
little detailed study of professional staff selection
is to be found in the College Student Personnel litera—
ture. Yet Svoren (1977) found that Chief Student Per-
sonnel Officers had significant difficulties in dealing
with staffing functions. Because staff selection is a
pervasive and fundamental administrative task in College
Student Personnel, further attention to this problem is
needed. Additional knowledge about staff selection pro-
cedures and criteria can be useful to administrators as
they seek to do a more effective job in selecting staff.

Denerley and Plumbley (1969) have observed that
"Recruitment is more an art than an exact science; but

it calls for a scientific approach" (p. 10). The field

 

of Personnel Psychology has produced voluminous theory
and research on scientific approaches to selection.
Particular attention has been given to the validity and
reliability of various selection tools used for gathering
information about job candidates (i.e., tests, application
blanks, references, and especially interviews). This
literature clearly supports the contention of Denerley
and Plumbley that a structured, scientific approach to
selection is needed. Although these findings can be
applied in College Student Personnel, the investigator
could locate no published applications of this form of
management science to the selection of Student Personnel
professionals.

Current Student Personnel literature shows an
increasing concern with management science. For example,
recent literature has focused on program budgeting sys—
tems (Harpel, 1976) and on Management by Objectives
(Harvey, 1974; Sims & Kozoll, 1974). It is consistent
with this trend toward management science that research
findings should be used to systematize staff selection.
Consideration of scientifically validated approaches to
selection can make a valuable contribution to managerial
literature in College Student Personnel.

Selection essentially involves gathering infor-
mation about candidates and using that information to

predict their future behavior (i.e., their success) on

 

the job (Miner & Miner, 1977). This prediction involves
elements of chance, but the selector will make fewer
incorrect predictions if a systematic approach is taken
(Denerley & Plumbley, 1969).

Selection may also be viewed as a problem of
matching the best person with a particular job, given
certain situational constraints (Beatty & Schneier, 1977).
In this view, the most important factors are the nature
of the candidate and the nature of the position (Glueck,
1978). Here again there is uncertainty, since the best
match must be predicted from past and present information.
By gathering the most relevant information possible, the
selector attempts to reduce uncertainty (Beatty & Schneier,
1977).

Fleishman and Bass (1974) list job descriptions,
application blanks, psychological tests, interviews and
references as tools for gathering relevant candidate
information. However, they assert that "often these are
used unsystematically and without knowledge of their
actual usefulness in particular job situations" (Fleish—
man & Bass, 1974, p. 73). Hall (1976) agrees:

However . . . effective selection methods are rarely
used. All too often, poor predictors, such as the
interview, continue to be used with great frequency.
Organizations must learn to apply realistic and
proven selection procedures. (p. 153)

By using ineffective procedures, selectors may

expose themselves to two types of errors (Dunnette, 1966).

A "false positive error" occurs when the person hired is

ultimately ineffective in the position. A "false negative
error" involves failing to place an individual in a
position where he/she would have been highly successful.
Dunnette notes that the false negative error may be the
more costly of the two types: if the selector overlooks
an especially competent applicant, a valuable resource

is lost.

A great deal of effort is regularly expended on
selection in College Student Personnel. Each year the
three major national professional organizations in the
field (the American College Personnel Association, ACPA;
the National Association of Student Personnel Adminis—
trators, NASPA; and the National Association for Women
Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, NAWDAC) conduct
placement services in conjunction with their annual con—
ferences. These placement services meet the demand for
a national job market in the field. A recent survey by
Armstrong, Campbell, and Ostroth (1978) described the
1977 NASPA placement service; a review of their findings
illustrates the effort and expense involved: (1) many
employers listed positions in more than one written
medium, an observation borne out by the present study;
(2) employers received a mean of 96 applications per
position; (3) employers conducted an average of 22 con-
ference selection interviews each; and (4) a majority of

employers conducted two to five on-campus interviews,

 

with over half paying the candidates' travel expenses
(Armstrong et al., 1978, p. 54).

Everhart's (1973) description of the highly
active placement service at the annual meeting of the
American Association of Higher Education further illus—
trates the effort expended on selection in higher edu—
cation. Clearly this effort is most visible at profes—
sional conferences.

The present study focused on procedures and cri-

teria for selecting entry-level staff. Bennett (1959)

 

has pointed out that "the selection of first-level man-

agers provides the raw material from which all later

 

selections are made" (p. 53). Since many promotions are

 

internal, mistakes at the entry level may later be
extended to higher levels; in addition, competent appli-
cants overlooked at this level may be lost forever. As
Hall (1976) puts it, "Good development of human talent
is dependent upon the prior selection of people who have
the potential to be developed" (p. 153).

Selection at the entry level in Student Personnel
is a concern, moreover, because of the sheer numbers
involved. Escott (1974) reported that, at a joint
placement service co—sponsored by ACPA, NASPA, and
NAWDAC, 40.5% of the candidates and 23.6% of the positions

listed were entry-level (p. 87). Armstrong et a1. (1978)

found that about half the candidates and positions listed
at the 1977 NASPA conference could be categorized as
entry-level.

Despite a surplus of entry-level Student Personnel
M.A. graduates in recent years (Escott, 1974, 1976;
Greer, Blaesser, Herron, & Horle, 1978a, 1978b; Packwood,
1976), employers surveyed by Armstrong et a1. (1978)
indicated they felt substantial competition for good
candidates. Competition may be especially strong for
particular candidate groups (i.e., minorities). Thus,
the need for effective entry-level selection is undimin—

ished by the current availability of candidates in general.

Purposes of the Study

 

This study had two major foci. The first was an
investigation and evaluation of the procedures currently
in use in the selection of entry—level professional staff
in College Student Personnel. The second major focus was
the exploration of criteria used by administrators in
evaluating the competency of candidates for entry-level
professional Student Personnel positions. More specifi-

cally, the purposes of the study were:

1. To provide a detailed review of the theory
and research on staff selection, as found in the literature

of Personnel Psychology. This review supplied relevant

 

information for Student Personnel administrators wishing
to improve their selection practices and to conduct staff

training on selection methodology.

2. To describe the current use of a limited
number of specific selection procedures, as practiced in
1978 by Student Personnel administrators selecting staff
for entry-level professional positions. (This nationwide
investigation included all types of entry-level profes-
sional positions which were listed as available in the

1978 job market.)

3. To evaluate these procedures, as well as
certain attitudes of 1978 Student Personnel selectors,
in light of the literature reviewed from Personnel Psy-
chology. To suggest possible improvements in the cur—
rently prevailing practices for selecting entry—level

professional staff in College Student Personnel.

4. To explore possible differences in the use
of particular selection procedures at institutions of

different size and among selectors of varying experience.

5. To explore possible differences in the use of
particular selection procedures to fill different types

of entry-level Student Personnel positions.

6. To identify the relative importance of various

competencies as criteria for the selection of entry-level

 

professional staff, as seen by administrators involved in

the 1978 Student Personnel selection process.

7. To explore possible differences in the
importance ascribed to particular competencies for dif—

ferent types of entry—level Student Personnel positions.

8. To explore possible differences in the impor—
tance ascribed to particular competencies by administra-

tors with differing levels of selection experience.

Rationale and Need for the Study

 

The Personnel Psychology literature on selection
highlights many shortcomings of conventional selection
techniques used in both business and education. The best
example is the use of the selection interview. Though
the interview, as usually practiced, has severe short-
comings in reliability and validity for making predictions
of success, it is still the most widely used selection
procedure (LOpez, 1965). Casual observation suggests
that interview results may sometimes be the major basis
for hiring decisions in Student Personnel;'such a reliance
on the interview would be unwise in View of its limitations
(Schneider, 1976).

A number of authors have recommended reexamination
of the selection techniques typically practiced in edu—

cational settings. Hall and McIntyre (1957), in dis-

cussing selection of elementary and secondary school

10

teachers, assert that "One thing is certain: more is
already known about selection than is being used in most
places" (p. 406). Rassi (1975) states that "little is
known about the criteria used in identifying executive
potential of people in the field of education" (p. l).
Corson (1975) indicts higher education for its poor
selection of faculty, a criticism which may well apply
equally to the Student Personnel field:
When compared with the processes obtaining in many
business firms, government agencies, and profes-
sional enterprises, the prevailing process of hiring
faculty is amateurish and marked by the use of
overly subjective criteria by inexperienced depart-
ment heads. The penalty . . . is chance: when the
process works, it may work well; when it does not
work, it subjects the department at least to
mediocrity. (p. 190)

In writing about the importance of effective
selection of part-time residence hall staff, Wotruba
(1969) expresses a similar concern:

Many (administrators) have realized that their
selections can have deteriorative as well as con-
structive consequences. . . . Any hit-or-miss
method of selection that relies purely on intuition
or politicking could be dangerous. (p. 108)
Morton (1975) suggests that most Student Personnel admin—
istrators concerned with selection of undergraduate resi-
dence hall staff "are constantly searching for techniques
or methods which might improve the over-all effectiveness
of the general selection process" (p. 16). Yet the

investigator could find no similar literature on selec-

tion of Student Personnel professionals. If ineffective

11

selection of part-time paraprofessionals brings the risk
of deteriorative consequences, as Wotruba suggests, then
the selection of full-time professionals is even more
critical. The lack of Student Personnel research on
professional staff selection is thus a significant
omission in the literature.

A number of authors writing on professional
preparation for College Student Personnel Work discuss
the importance of careful selection of students for
master's programs (Trueblood, 1966; Dewey, 1977; Green-
leaf, 1977; Riker, 1977). Yet, as noted above, no similar
literature concerned with professional (M.A. level) staff
was located by the investigator. Does this discrepancy
imply an assumption that all graduates of such training
programs are competent? Even if such an assumption were
valid (which could be questioned), no candidate is suited
to all entry—level jobs. Schneider (1976) characterizes
selection as a task of identifying those most likely to

meet particular criteria while in a specific job under a

 

discrete set of organizational conditions. Thus, detailed
study of selection practices at the professional entry
level is important even if a high level of general com—
petency is assumed.

Kuh, Greenlee, and Lardy (1978) raise a point of
concern in entry-level Student Personnel selection: less

than half of the recent graduates employed in residence

 

 

12

life may have preferred a position in this area. Since
a clear majority of the available entry-level positions
identified in the present study were in residence hall
work, this point is significant. The authors suggest
that residence life directors "need to consider this
possibility and perhaps should review selection and in-
service training methods to insure a prOperly motivated
and prepared staff" (p. 19). Thus, selectors in residence
life programs need to use the techniques which will help
them best evaluate the needs and motivation of job candi-
dates.
Affirmative Action pressures may soon force more
attention to selection research. Anthony and Nicholson
(1977) assert that because little evaluation of selection
processes has been done in American business, prejudicial
attitudes have been overemphasized in hiring:
The published evidence suggests that current prac—
tices are not necessarily effective for firms or
individual job seekers. This argues, in our view,
for a major commitment from firms to sponsor or
undertake extensive research into recruitment and
selection practices. In a sense, our urging is
probably superfluous because legal requirements
are likely to require systematic evaluation of
these practices or their abandonment among major
employers in the next decade. (p. 123)

Since fair employment legislation and court decisions

have begun to profoundly affect higher education, the

latter prediction may apply equally well to colleges and

universities. Beatty and Schneier (1977) suggest that

the federal government's proposed Uniform Selection

 

 

13

Guidelines may soon require validation of the interview

 

as a selection tool (validation has already been required
for standardized tests). This means that interview
results would have to be proven valid as predictors of
subsequent job performance. Current literature suggests
that much additional research will be required in College
Student Personnel before this is achieved. Although the
present study was not concerned with predictive validity,
it was a first step in exploring the methodology of pro-
fessional staff selection in the field.

Humphries (1977), in his brief history of the
Student Personnel profession, closes by discussing the
effects of the current financial austerity on the field.
He expresses the hOpe that "fiscal exigencies" will stimu-
late the kind of creative managerial thinking needed to
make the profession's work more efficient. If expensive
and time—consuming selection procedures are to be con—
tinued in the field, these procedures warrant careful
evaluation--if only to make selection more cost-effective.

Most authors writing on selection assert that the
specification of desired candidate characteristics is a
necessary first step in any selection process (Denerley &
Plumbley, 1969). At the same time, some research has
suggested that people conducting selection may hold fairly
consistent stereotypes describing the competencies and

other characteristics of the ideal candidate (Webster,

IIIIIIIL " .

14

1964). Are there such stereotypes among College Student
Personnel administrators conducting staff selection?

If so, are they consistent across different administrators
and for different kinds of jobs? This study sought at
least partial answers to these questions. Such information
is needed in operationalizing selection criteria and tech—
niques in the field. Information on criteria can be of
value to administrators who must specify what they are
looking for in an applicant; to candidates who need
guidance in developing and marketing the most relevant
competencies; and to Student Personnel educators who must
assist their students in preparing for competent employ-
ment in the field.

Rassi (1975), in studying the selection of school
district administrators, found that professional compe-
tency was the most important of eleven types of candidate
selection criteria. Moreover, two recent studies on
competencies as outcomes of Student Personnel training
programs have recommended further study to identify the
competencies most needed by entry-level staff. Newton
and Hellenga (1974) suggest that "practicing profes—
sionals . . . can contribute much valuable knowledge
and perspective" on the most important outcomes of pro-
fessional training (p. 496). Newton and Richardson (1976)
express a similar thought: "It seems important that

further delineation of student affairs competencies

15

should come from the practitioner, the person who works
daily with the actuality of student affairs work" (p. 427).
Although the present study did not further delineate new
competency statements, one of its major purposes was to
validate the relative importance of various competencies
already suggested in the literature. Importance was
judged by a group of practitioners whose opinions are
particularly valuable--those who conduct staff selection
and hiring.

In summary, there is a serious need for Student

Personnel research on selection for the following reasons:

1. Personnel psychologists have found that many
prevalent selection practices (particularly the interview)
have serious shortcomings. This criticism extends into
various educational settings, including College Student

Personnel.

2. The lack of literature on professional staff
selection in College Student Personnel is a significant

omission.

3. Even if all graduates of M.A. programs in
Student Personnel and related fields are assumed competent,

selection is always for a particular job and setting.

 

Procedures and criteria are thus needed which optimize

the effectiveness of staff choice.

 

l6

4. Since job market conditions may be forcing
many entry-level candidates into residence hall positions,
selection for these positions must emphasize sensitivity

to the needs and motives of candidates.

5. Affirmative Action pressures may soon force
College Student Personnel and other fields to do more

research on selection.

6. In a time of financial austerity, profes-
sionals must identify and adopt the most cost—effective

selection procedures available.

7. A need has been identified in Student Per—
sonnel literature for information on the entry—level com-
petencies needed by practitioners. Thus, an evaluation
of competency statements can be useful to educators,
students, and practitioners in the Student Personnel

field.

Summary of Related Literature

 

Selection Objectives and
Procedures

 

O'Leary (1976, p. 4) has provided a scheme for
conceptualizing selection objectives (see Figure 1.1).

In selection, O’Leary observes, the manager tries
to correctly identify the more obvious failures (Quadrant
II) and successes (Quadrant III) while minimizing errors
made by hiring "flash in the pans (Quadrant I) or by turn-

ing away sleepers (Quadrant IV)" (O'Leary, 1976, p. 6).

 

17

 

I High III
The Successful-Looking The Successful—Looking
Failure Success
H
L .
1
o __. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __. ___ .__ __. ___ ___ ___ ___
9
w
II IV h
The Unsuccessful— The Unsuccessful-
Looking Failure Low Looking Success

 

Figure 1.1. Illustration of selection objectives

Denerley and Plumbley (1969) see recruitment in
terms of four complementary stages: (1) assessing the
job; (2) attracting a field of candidates; (3) assessing
the candidates; and (4) placement and subsequent follow-
up. Lopez (1965) is more explicit on steps three and
four. His selection strategy includes (1) describing
and assessing a candidate; (2) evaluating qualifications
by comparing them with a predetermined specification;

(3) predicting the candidate's probable success on the
job; and (4) deciding whether or not to hire.

Haire (1956) asserts that the effectiveness of
tests in improving personnel selection depends on three
factors: (1) the validity of the test(s) used; (2) the
number of people that can be rejected for each available
position (the selection ratio); and (3) the range of per—
formance in the unselected group of applicants. This
same logic is applicable to staff selection in which
information for predictions is gathered by procedures

other than tests. In College Student Personnel, resumés,

 

 

18

references, and interviews (rather than tests) appear to
be the main sources of predictive information about job
applicants. According to Haire, unless valid selection
procedures are used, and unless there is a favorable
selection ratio and a fairly wide range of performance
in the unselected applicant group, predictions about
candidates will be little better than could be achieved
by chance alone. Thus, unless these conditions are met
to some degree, a policy devoting considerable resources
and time to selection of staff is inefficient.

Glueck (1978) defines the selection ratio as the
number of applicants selected, divided by the total number
of applicants available for selection. There are indi—
cations that the selection ratio is quite favorable to
the employer in College Student Personnel. In 1974 four
entry—level candidates registered with the joint ACPA/
NASPA/NAWDAC Placement Service for each entry-level
position listed (Escott, 1974). Armstrong et al. (1978)
found that about 96 applications were reported by 1977
NASPA employers for each available position (p. 54).

The time and effort expended on staff selection
by Student Personnel administrators certainly indicates
an assumption that some candidates would perform much
better than others. This assumption appears tenable,

although no data were located to support it.

 

 

 

19

Perhaps the most troublesome of Haire's three
requirements is the need for valid and reliable selection
procedures. There are indications that some of the most

widely used procedures lack reliability and/or validity:

l. The resumé appears to have little validity as
a tool for gathering information on candidates (Gaudet &
Casey, 1959). Application blanks are potentially more

useful (Lopez, 1965; Blum & Naylor, 1968).

2. Written recommendations have been found
unreliable as selection tools (Rim, 1976; Browning, 1968;
Peres & Garcia, 1962). Recommendations should be cor—
roborated through personal contact with the writers
(Miner, 1977; Mandel, 1958). By interviewing people who
know the candidate, one can obtain information (particu-
larly very negative information) which is not otherwise

available (Goheen & Mosel, 1959).

3. The selection interview is often unreliable
and invalid (Kahn & Cannell, 1957; Dunnette, 1966; Taylor,
1972; Carlson, Thayer, Mayfield, & Peterson, 1974).
Standardized interviews by trained interviewers can,

however, be effective (Lopez, 1965; Miner, 1977).

The potential invalidity of the selection inter-
view is a particular concern because the interview may
be the central selection tool in College Student Personnel.

Miner (1977) observed that "something about the process of

20

personal judgment (i.e., in the interview) produces a
strong feeling of validity, even when validity is not
present" (p. 45). Moreover, if more than one interviewer
must evaluate a candidate, "agreement does not guarantee
accuracy of prediction; there can be great consistency

in picking the wrong people" (Miner, 1977, p. 46).

Student Personnel Profes—
sional Competencies

 

 

Humphries (1977) traces the growth of Student
Personnel from an ancillary concern to a full—time pro-
fessional specialty. Workers in the field were originally
faculty possessing no special qualifications other than
interest in students. As these individuals assumed
increasingly specialized tasks, the need for unique Stu-
dent Personnel training grew. The unrest of the 19605
brought the advent of what Humphries calls the "new-style
student personnel administrator," who had often been pro-
fessionally trained in the graduate programs which arose
during the expansion of the 19505 and 19605. During the
19605, "student personnel professionals became increasingly
enamored with the student development concept that placed
emphasis on a proactive rather than reactive posture and
on the total educational development of the student"
(Humphries, 1977, p. 64).

The concepts of student development and profes-

sionalism in the field have been further developed in

 

21

recent literature, particularly the statement entitled
"Student Development Services in Higher Education"
(COSPA, 1974) and through ACPA's Tomorrow's Higher Edu-
cation Project (Brown, 1972; ACPA, 1975; Miller & Prince,
1976). Each of these documents stressed the importance
of specific professional competencies for Student Person—
nel specialists. As Minetti (1977) observed,

Successful student development programs require

educators knowledgeable in developmental phil—

osophy, behavioral science, and learning theory;

and administrators skilled in the arts of train—

ing, interrelating, programming, managing, budget—

ing, supervising, and evaluating. . . . (p. 3)

Though academic preparation for Student Personnel
Work has received much attention (most recently in an
ACPA monograph, edited by Knock, 1977), much literature
emphasizes the importance of practical experience in
building professional skills. Studies by Hoyt and
Rhatigan (1968), Wallenfeldt and Bigelow (1971), Ostroth
(1975), and Minetti (1977) all underscored the importance
of practical learning experiences to build competencies
in a variety of professional areas.
Despite the emphasis on competencies in College

Student Personnel, much of the research has focused on
training through course work and practica rather than on
specific outcomes of training. Domeier (1977) studied
the literature on competency training in College Student
Personnel and found a lack of research examining those com—

petencies necessary for practitioners in the field.

 

22

Research Questions

 

The specific descriptive concerns of this study
are summarized in the following questions. Answers to
these questions were sought through a mailed survey
directed to a stratified sample of the College Student
Personnel administrators who were involved in the selec-

tion of entry-level full-time professional staff in 1978.

1. What were some of the specific procedures in
use during 1978 for gathering information about candidates
for entry—level professional positions in College Student

Personnel?

2. Are these procedures effective as judged
against available research findings from the field of

Personnel Psychology?

3. What was the selection ratio (or the number
of applicants per available position) for entry—level
positions listed in conjunction with conferences of the
three major national College Student Personnel profes—

sional organizations in 1978?

4. What was the experience level of those admin-
istrators listed as "contact persons" in 1978 entry-level

job listings?

5. What were the respondents' attitudes con-

cerning:

 

23

a. The use of objective and systematic
selection procedures?

b. The value of selection activities at
professional conferences?

c. The importance of the reputation of a
candidate's graduate training program in
judging his/her qualifications?

d. The usefulness of the resumé and the

written recommendation as selection tools?

6. How did the respondents rate the importance
of various competencies in evaluating candidates for
entry—level positions? What competencies are viewed as

most and least important?

Null Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1:

There are no significant differences in entry—level
staff selection procedures in use at different—sized
institutions, as reported by the respondents.

Hypothesis 2:

There are no significant differences in selection
procedures used in hiring professionals for dif-
ferent kinds of entry-level positions (i.e., Residence
Halls, Activities, Administrative/Generalist, Coun-
seling/Advising), as reported by the respondents.

Hypothesis 3:

Respondents with different levels of experience in
staff selection do not differ significantly in their
responses to the attitude questions listed in 5a-5d
above.

_¥—

 

24

Hypothesis 4:

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do not
differ significantly in their responses to the atti-
tude questions listed in 5a-5d above.

Hypothesis 5:

 

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed
to the various entry-level competencies is indepen-
dent of the degree of experience in staff selection
held by the respondents.

Hypothesis 6:

 

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed
to the various entry-level competencies is indepen-
dent of the kind of position for which selection is
being conducted.

Definitions of Terms

 

Selection.--The process by which data on the com-
petencies and other attributes of various applicants for
a position are collected and by which an ultimate decision
to hire one applicant is made. The essential element in
the final selection decision (the decision to offer the
position to a particular applicant) is the making of a
prediction about the behavior of that person as a future

holder of the position.

Selection tool.-—Any procedure or means of gather—

 

ing information about a candidate for use in decisions
about selection. Such tools include (but are not limited
to) the resumé, application blanks, recommendations, tests,

and interviews.

25

College Student Personnel.--The field of work

 

within postsecondary education institutions concerned
with the provision of student programs and services
which complement and supplement the classroom-teaching

mission of these institutions.

Professional position.--Any position for which

 

a completed master's degree in College Student Personnel
or a related field (such as Counseling or Higher Edu—

cation) is required or desired.

Entry-level position.-—Generally a position

 

requiring not more than one year of post-master's related
experience and involving supervision of not more than

one other professional. (Since titles and duties of
positions vary among institutions, an all-inclusive defi—
nition for this term cannot be given here. A complete

discussion is given in Chapter III.)

Full-time position.—-A position involving work

 

of 40 hours (or more) per week on a nine- to lZ—month

basis.

Applicant.--Anyone who has complied with an
employer's instructions in making known his/her wish

to be considered for a particular position.

Candidate.——An applicant whose qualifications
make him/her, after initial review of his/her application,

worthy of some further consideration by the employer.

26

Finalist.--One of a few candidates judged, after
preliminary screening, to be the best qualified con-

tenders for a position.

Competencies.--Abilities, skills, knowledge, and
attitudes which permit a person to carry out job expec—

tations in a minimally acceptable manner.

Stereotype.—-A fixed or conventional concept
relating to a person which implies the person's possession

of certain characteristics.

Ideal candidate.--An hypothetical candidate pos-
sessing and communicating the most desirable competencies
and other characteristics in reference to a particular

position.

Limitations of the Study

 

1. This study was a descriptive and exploratory
one which attempted to cover only a limited number of
selection concepts. It must be recognized that the scope
of selection as a topic extends well beyond the confines
of this study. Detailed examination of many important
selection concepts was left to further research. For
example, no attention was given here to the operation of
"old—boy networks" (Everhart, 1973; Caplow & McGee, 1958)
or to the current effect of Affirmative Action on selec-

tion practices.

27

2. This study was limited to an examination of
procedures and criteria for the selection of entry-level
professional staff in College Student Personnel. This
limitation was imposed in order to carefully define the
reference group under study and to permit detailed analy-
sis within constraints of time and cost. The entry level
was chosen for analysis because it accounts for a large
proportion of the hiring in the field and because hiring
for entry—level staff may be under greater control of
individual administrators than is hiring for higher-level
positions. Thus, findings and recommendations of this
study may be more readily applied through the decisions

of individual managers when limited to entry-level hiring.

3. The findings of this study were generalized
only to those full-time professional, entry-level positions
advertised in conjunction with the 1978 ACPA, NASPA, and
NAWDAC conferences. Though the findings may be indicative
of trends throughout the College Student Personnel profes-

sion in 1978, they cannot properly be generalized as such.

4. The findings were represented only as per-
ceptions and opinions of contact persons listed in con—
junction with the referenced position advertisements. The
experience levels of these respondents varied, and these

variations were described in the study.

 

 

28

5. The most complete study possible in this area
would cover an extended time period and would sample
responses not only of contact persons but also of other
administrators and of candidates. The scope of such a
study would have exceeded the fiscal and time limitations

of the researcher.

Basic Assumptions of the Study

 

l. The survey technique is a widely used and
accepted method for gathering data in the social sciences
(Moser & Kalton, 1972; Babbie, 1973; Warwick & Lininger,
1975). The survey technique was practical and appropriate

for this study, given the limitations described above.

2. It was assumed that respondents understood

the survey questions and gave honest replies.

3. Although selection for most 1978 positions
may have been completed by early summer and the survey
was not carried out until October, it was assumed that
administrators involved in the selection process had
clear recollections of the procedures and criteria they

had used in selecting entry-level staff.

4. Administrators with relatively recent exper-
ience in selecting entry-level College Student Personnel
professionals were able to provide valid ratings of the
importance of various competencies in judging the qualifi-

cations of candidates.

 

29

Design of the Study

 

Population and Sample
Selection

 

The population for this survey included all con—
tact persons whose names were printed in conjunction with
listings for entry-level professional Student Personnel
positions available during the 1978 ACPA, NASPA, and

NAWDAC conferences. The sampling plan was as follows:

 

1. All placement listings (pre-conference and
supplementary) were assembled from the three conferences.
All listings for entry-level positions were identified

and separated from the remaining listings.

2. Duplicate listings were combined, resulting
in a complete list of different entry—level positions
available and the contact person for each. Position
announcements lacking specific contact persons were

excluded from this list.

3. Position listings were categorized into five
separate groups:

a. 111 Head Resident positions

b. 14 residence hall programming positions
c. 23 campus activities positions
d. 25 administrative/generalist positions
e. 6 advising/counseling positions
4. In order to retain sufficient group sizes for

hypothesis testing and to increase precision, 100% of the

30

latter four groups (b-e) of position listings were
included in the study. The Head Resident position list-
ings were assigned consecutive numbers; a table of random
numbers was then used to draw a 50% random sample from
this group. The resulting 56 listings, combined with

the remaining 68 listings from the other four groups,
comprised the final stratified sample of 124 listings,

each containing the name and address of a contact person.

Instrument

A 6l-item questionnaire (Appendix A) was designed
to collect the data for the study. Items were of various
types: open—ended, multiple choice, rating and Likert
scales. Instructions asked respondents to answer, where
appropriate, in reference to the 1978 selection process
for a particular position title. This title, obtained
from the job listing for each sample member, appeared at
the top of each questionnaire.

Questionnaire items asked for data on the number
of positions and applicants, the selection experience of
the respondent, and some of the specific selection prac-
tices used in hiring for the named position. Contact
persons were asked their opinions on several attitude
items.

Thirty-six items asked respondents to use a five—
point scale to rate the importance of various competencies

in judging the qualifications of candidates for the named

 

31

position. The list of competencies used in this part
originated in a doctoral study by Minetti (1977). How—
ever, 11 of the original 47 competencies listed by Minetti
(see Appendix B) were eliminated or combined for brevity.
The questionnaire was pilot tested by five Stu—
dent Personnel administrators at Michigan State University,
and two at Alma College, who had recently been involved
in staff selection. Each administrator completed and cri-
tiqued the questionnaire. In addition, two administrators
at Michigan State University not currently involved in
selection and one research consultant from the College of
Education at that University critiqued the instrument for
clarity, completeness, and possible biases. During these
pilot tests, the questionnaire was rewritten twice and
again reviewed by the pilot test participants. On the
basis of the above procedures, face validity was claimed

for the questionnaire.

Data Collection

The questionnaire was mailed to the survey sample
on October 10, 1978, along with a transmittal letter
explaining the study (Appendix C) and a self-addressed
business reply envelope. Fifteen days later, a follow—
up letter (Appendix D) was mailed to those who had not
yet responded. The second mailing again included a
questionnaire and a return envelope. After an additional

period of three weeks, all but 14 members of the sample

 

32

had returned usable responses. A member of the researcher's

Advisory Committee telephoned some of the remaining non—

 

respondents to request their participation. Additional
copies of the questionnaire were then mailed to contact

persons who indicated they would participate in the study.

Data Analysis

Data from the returned questionnaires were coded
and keypunched for computer analysis. Data analysis tech-
niques were performed on the Michigan State University CDC
6500 computer using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. Descriptive data (frequencies and percentage
frequencies of response and, where applicable, means, stan—
dard deviations, and ranges) were compiled on all question-
naire items using subprogram Frequencies. Chi—square tests
of independence were computed for hypothesis testing by the

use of subprogram Crosstabs.

Organization of the Study

 

The report of the study was organized into five
chapters. Chapter I contains an introduction and statement
of the problem. It describes the purposes of the study, the
rationale and need for the study, the related literature,
research questions, and hypotheses. Chapter I also defines
the terms used in the study, lists the limitations and
assumptions, and explains the design and organization of the

study.

33

Chapter II consists of a review of the research
and other literature related to staff selection procedures
and their use in College Student Personnel and education.
This chapter also develops background on the competencies
used as selection criteria in College Student Personnel.

Chapter III contains the design of the study,
including sample selection, questionnaire development,
and other methodology.

Chapter IV is devoted to the presentation, analy-
sis, and interpretation of the results of the study.

Chapter V consists of a summary of the study's

findings, major conclusions, and recommendations.

 

.1-.. _-— I

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter provides a summary of published
theory and research on staff selection. The material is
arranged in four main parts. The first part includes an
overview of the selection process, from the specification
of desired candidate qualities to the hiring decision.
The second part contains the procedures often used in
College Student Personnel to gather information for
selection decisions: the resumé and application blank,
the interview, and the written reference. The third part
of this chapter is devoted to a review of the literature
on staff selection in Student Personnel and education.
In the final section, the literature on competencies
expected in entry-level Student Personnel staff is pre—
sented. A summary is provided following each section.

The material summarized in the second part of
this chapter (concerning procedures for gathering infor—
mation on candidates) is more detailed than needed to

provide a setting for the present study. The intent in

34

35

providing such detail was to furnish selectors of Student
Personnel staff an extensive resource for evaluating
their own selection techniques and for training other
administrators in selection concepts. Though detailed,
the information presented was chosen from a much larger
body of material. Literature on the use of tests as
selection tools has been largely omitted here because
tests are seldom used in selecting professional Student

Personnel staff.

Overview of the Selection Process

 

Selection is typically viewed as a process of
matching candidate and job characteristics to predict
job success (Lopez, 1965; Denerley & Plumbley, 1969;
Schneider, 1976; Beatty & Schneier, 1977; Miner & Miner,
1977; Glueck, 1978). Schneider (1976) sees hiring as a
two-way process in which both candidate and organizational
needs must be satisfied.

The following selection strategy has been sug-
gested by Lopez (1965): (1) assess the applicant;
(2) evaluate the applicant's qualifications by comparison
to a predetermined specification of qualities needed;
(3) predict the applicant's probable job success; and
(4) decide whether or not to hire the applicant.
Figure 2.1 presents a more extensive illustration of

selection steps.

 

 

36

 

 

Identify Recruit A Gather Candidate Combine
Qualities Pool of Information Data
Wanted —-9 Candidates 6 Correspondence éto
Assess job Advertisement Resume Mgke Decision
Specify Correspondence Application blank
essentials, Conferences Interview(s)
desirables, References
and contra— Phone calls
indicators

 

 

Figure 2.1 Components of the selection process

Authors unanimously recommend a careful job analy—
sis as a first step in selection (Schneider, 1976; Stanton,
1977). The purpose of this analysis is to clearly specify,
in writing, the characteristics to be sought in applicants
(O'Leary, 1976). The job specification (that part of a
job description listing the characteristics needed for
success) should identify the "really critical" needs of
the job (Stanton, 1977). Miner and Miner (1977) illustrate
a major use of the job description/specification:

Data repeatedly indicate that if an interviewer knows

a lot about the 19b he is interviewing for and what

kind of people tend to succeed in it, he or she will

be more objective and the result will be better.

(p. 288)
Selection researchers recommend that clear job descriptions
and specifications be written in choosing school district
administrators (Sheffield, 1951; Rassi, 1975) and college
faculty (Miller, 1959).

O'Leary (1976) suggests that in defining the quali-

ties wanted, it may be helpful to interview those who

37

have held the position in question. Denerley and Plumbley
(1969) classify candidate attributes as (l) essential
attributes, indispensable to satisfactory performance;

(2) desirable attributes, which are less essential but
preferred; and (3) contra—indicators, which would dis—
qualify a candidate.

Recruiting is defined as obtaining a pool of
qualified candidates for an available position (Ericson,
1974). Though considerable literature on recruiting is
available, this topic is peripheral to the present dis—
cussion.

In selection literature, debate is evident con-
cerning the value of the "clinical method" (primary
reliance on the judgment of interviewers) as opposed to
the "actuarial method" (using tests and other structured
diagnostic tools) in making selection decisions. O'Leary
(1976) contends that the common heavy dependence on the
interview is a mistake and that all available information
(including that from tests, references, and application
blanks) should be integrated in the selection decision.
Sydiaha (1958) studied selection decision-making by
clinical and actuarial methods and concluded that clinical
methods add new information to that obtained with tests.
Yet the copious literature on selection testing illus—

trates the prevalence of actuarial methods.

' u‘

38

Korman (1968), in reviewing research on the pre-
diction of managerial performance, found judgmental pro-
cedures (i.e., peer ratings and executive assessment
procedures) generally better than psychometrics as pre-
dictors of leadership success. His hypothesis, which may
help explain the value of the clinical method, was that
judges can deal with fluid success criteria better than
tests validated on limited criteria.

Bennett (1959) supports the judgmental (clinical)
approach by arguing that "until the behavioral sciences
have produced far more accurate selective tools than are

currently available,‘ staff selection "must of necessity
remain a matter of human judgment, exercised either by
an individual or a committee" (p. 176). Actuarial tech-
niques, Bennett asserts, cannot make selection decisions
but can only aid the judgment process.

Despite these endorsements of clinical methods,
research reveals that the judgment process is subject
to many sources of error. Webster (1964) summarizes
the results of a series of McGill University studies on
selection decision-making by interview:

1. Interviewers seek to match candidates with
their stereotype of the "good" candidate.

2. Early in the interview, a bias is established
which tends to affect the interviewer's final judgment of

the candidate.

39

3. Unfavorable candidate information has greater
influence on interviewer judgment than does favorable
information.

4. "Interviewers seek information to support or
refute hypotheses and, when satisfied, turn their atten—
tion elsewhere" (Webster, 1964, p. 87).

In one of the McGill studies, Sydiaha (1958)
found that selectors using the clinical method appeared
to rate applicants on very similar criteria. He found
high inter-rater correlations on evaluations of "ideal"
applicants and concluded that interviewers compare appli—
cants to ideal stereotypes which are remarkably similar
across raters.

Mayfield and Carlson (1966) reached somewhat
different conclusions. In their experiment, managers
rated hypothetical applicants (each defined on paper by
six pieces of information) for jobs as insurance agents.
In a previous study, subjects had disagreed on the fav—
orableness of the information used to define these
hypothetical "applicants." Mayfield and Carlson found
wide manager disagreement in ranking the desirability of
these "applicants." A similar study by Rowe (1963) had
defined "applicants" using pieces of information on which
raters had agreed; she found substantial agreement among
managers in ranking her hypothetical "applicants." May—
field and Carlson concluded from the results of the two

studies that

 

.AWV yr

40

Interviewers do not hold an identical picture of the
ideal applicant for the job of insurance agent.
Rather, it would appear that every interviewer has

a picture or stereotype of the "ideal" applicant
which is composed of two parts. The first part is
what might be considered a "common" stereotype which
most interviewers share. The common stereotype con-
sists of those individual characteristics, both
favorable and unfavorable, on which there is inter-
interviewer agreement. The second part consists of
a "specific" stereotype which is different for dif—
ferent interviewers. The specific stereotype con-
sists of items on which interviewers disagree as to
favorability. . . . Thus, any one interviewer's
overall stereotype of an ideal applicant will consist
of the "common" stereotype defining one set of
requirements plus his own "specific" stereotype
which adds another set of requirements. (Mayfield &
Carlson, 1966, pp. 48—49)

Schneider (1976) asserts that first impressions
may exert undue influence in the judgmental process.
An individual's first contact with an organization
is especially important when the individual has no
prior work history. For such people everything is
new, and the impressions they form of an organi-
zation fill an information—hungry vacuum. (p. 142)
Thus, the first-impression effect may be especially strong
when the available position is entry—level.

Springbett (1954) conducted research on both
industrial and army officer selection. In his study,
applicants were rated (in varying order) on appearance,
personal history, and application form data. Springbett
found that first ratings (regardless of the item on which
they were based) are significantly related to final
decisions. He concluded that "early impressions, based

on quickly assessed material, play a significant role in

determining the final outcome" (Webster, 1964, p. 20).

 

41

When the application form was the first item
rated, it predicted the decision better (85% of the time)
than when appearance was rated first (Webster, 1964,

p. 21). Springbett's interpretation of this effect was
that greater downgrading of a candidate may occur later,
based on subsequent negative inputs, if the first impres-
sion was formed on more ambiguous material. When there
was a change between the first rating and the final
decision, Springbett found, it was more likely a down-
grade than an upgrade. Springbett saw the interview as
mainly a search for negative evidence; he discovered that
"even one unfavorable impression is followed by final
rejection in over 90% of the cases" (Webster, 1964, p. 23).
Sydiaha (1958) explains order effects as the result of

. . . a process of selective attention, whereby the

perceiver attends to an increasingly narrow range

of stimuli, as the sequence of perceptual activities

proceeds from initial to final stages. (Webster,

1964, p. 8)
Thus, the effect of information on a selection decision
depends, in part, on when it occurs in the decision pro-
cess. Data received early (particularly unfavorable data)
tend to carry more weight. Certainly these conclusions
indicate the importance of even preliminary interviews
and other data inputs to the final selection outcome.

When managers make hiring decisions under pres-
sure, they appear to weigh negative evidence more

heavily——another source of error in the clinical method.

42

Wright (1974) studied the hypothesis that negative evi-
dence receives disproportionate weight as a simplifying
strategy in making hiring decisions. He suggested that,
when one has "limited information—handling ability," one
must balance a desire to choose the best candidate with
a need to "reduce the cognitive strains of the decision
task" (Wright, 1974, p. 555). This need to simplify the
task, Wright felt, would become stronger under high
information loading; the task might be simplified by
restricting attention to only certain of the incoming
data. Wright conducted an experiment in which subjects
completed rating tasks under various levels of time
pressure and distraction. He found that subjects under
time pressure "rely heavily on negative data" (Wright,
1974, p. 559). Although not as strong, the results on
distraction support the idea that subjects depend on
negative data "when distractions place a strain on
attention" (p. 559). Subsequent analysis also showed
that both the high time pressure and high distraction
groups used significantly feweg dimensions in making
evaluations.

Since Wright's experiment did not involve evalu—
ations of people, his findings may or may not generalize
to the selection decision. However, a study by Rowe
(1963) supports Wright's conclusions. Rowe confirmed

the importance of unfavorable information in hiring and

 

43

concluded that "interviewers tend to place greater
reliance on the negative characteristics" (Webster,
1964, p. 84).

Wright (1974) suggests that decision—makers may
ignore either positive or negative evidence depending on
"the payoff structure of the task" (p. 556). Thus,
employers, aware of the difficulties an unsuitable
employee can cause, may be especially wary of the false
positive error and may, therefore, be especially atten—
tive to negative cues.

Based on the McGill studies, Webster offers some
suggestions on how managers can make better hiring
decisions. Unlike some other authors, he suggests that
interviewers not study information about candidates any
earlier than necessary. A good technique, according to
Webster, is to use multiple independent evaluations
where several interviewers record their decisions and
later resolve differences. Evaluators can benefit,
Webster suggests, by receiving a large amount of infor—
mation at one time. This minimizes preconceived notions
and lessens the effects of selective attention. Finally,
and for the same reason, it is suggested that someone
other than the interviewer should do all the preliminary
screening.

Miner (1977) comments further on Webster's con-
clusion that all candidate information should be reviewed

at once, following the interview.

 

 

44

Contrary to common practice, application blanks,
test scores, and the like should be withheld until
after the initial selection interview. Personal
history data should be obtained directly from the
candidate in oral form even if written versions are
available. This approach will serve to delay
decision—making in the interview with the result
that information obtained during the latter part of
the discussion can be effectively utilized in reach-
ing a judgment. If data are needed to fill in the
gaps between the various selection techniques, these
can be obtained from a second interview. Thus, the
interview as an independent selection tool should

be clearly differentiated from the interview as a
means of following up on leads provided by other
devices. The interviewer should be clear in his

own mind as to which objective he is seeking. (p. 48)

Summary: Overview of the Selection Process

 

Selection is typically seen as a process of
matching the best candidate with a job. As such, the
process involves steps of job analysis, recruiting,
gathering candidate information, combining that infor—
mation, and making a decision to hire. Authors strongly
assert that a job analysis should be the first step in
this process; the job analysis should produce written
specifications of the characteristics to be sought in a
candidate.

The "clinical method" (centered on interviewer
judgment) and the "actuarial method" (centered on test
results) are two approaches to selection decisions dis—
cussed in the literature. While much literature is
available concerning selection testing, it appears that

the clinical method is valuable to selection decisions.

m M

45

Probably the best approach is to integrate both actuarial
and judgmental information in making selection decisions.

Research reveals that the clinical approach is
subject to various sources of error: (1) interviewer
stereotypes and biases may heavily influence outcomes;

(2) unfavorable candidate information may be given too
much weight, especially if the interviewer is under
pressure; (3) interviewers may not persist in gathering
new information once their biases appear to be supported;
and (4) first impressions may excessively influence
selection decisions.

Selectors may seek to match job candidates with
stereotypes of an "ideal" candidate. Such stereotypes
may contain a common element, composed of candidate
characteristics which different selectors value about
the same, and an individual or specific element, composed
of characteristics about which selectors disagree.

One author suggests that to reduce bias, inter-
viewers should have someone else do preliminary screening
and should avoid reviewing candidate information before
interviews.

Procedures Used to Gather Information
for Selection Decisions

 

 

The Resumé and Application Blank

 

Business literature appears to offer little sup—

port for the resumé as a selection tool. Gaudet and

46

Casey (1959) see the resumé as a screening device "to
identify those candidates who are not worth investigating

further" (p. 62). They report that "the resumé has never

 

undergone any extended investigation and remarkably little
has been written about it over the past 10 years" (p. 62).
Gaudet and Casey (1959) conducted study on resumés
submitted to a large manufacturing company by six candi-
dates hired for industrial engineering jobs. Three years
after selection, three of the six were successful and
three had been fired. In the first part of the study,
five experienced personnel directors tried, using only
the resumé, to distinguish the three successful engineers
from the three unsuccessful ones. Their results were no
better than chance. The same resumés were then given to
45 company recruiters interviewing on a college campus.
Again, their ability to discriminate successful men was
no better than chance. Five of the recruiters asked to
try again. After one month, the same resumés were sub-
mitted to the five recruiters, in a different order.
Even on the second try, these judges were no better than
the group as a whole had been. Of the predictions, only
20 of 30 were the same on both occasions. The authors
also noted that one failure, who had had his resume pro-
fessionally prepared, was expected to succeed on most
ratings in all three studies. Gaudet and Casey conclude

that, in this case, the resume was "worse than useless;"

47

while this pattern might not hold in other circumstances,

severe doubts were cast on the usefulness of the resumé.
Lopez (1965) contends that the resumé is no sub—

stitute for an employer's application blank. Resumés

are constructed to flatter the candidate and thus are

biased. Fleishman and Bass (1974) assert that "practi-

cally every (business) organization uses an application

 

blank in its employment procedure" (p. 74). Life history
data (from such written instruments) has been used to
develop predictions of performance and creativity (Blum

& Naylor, 1968).

Beatty and Schneier (1977) list the most frequent
uses of application blanks: (l) to screen out the
obviously unqualified applicant; (2) to furnish data
useful in planning interviews with applicants; (3) to
obtain the names of references so that personal contacts
can be made; and (4) to collect information (for example,
Social Security numbers) useful in administering personnel
programs (p. 178). Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick
(1970) suggest a more compelling use of information from
the application blank: "Indicators of past successes and
accomplishments can be utilized in an objective way to
identify persons with different odds of being successful
over the long term in their management career" (p. 196).

If a "successive hurdle approach" is taken (in

which an application blank, preliminary interviews, and/or

48

other techniques are used for screening), then each
"hurdle" is a predictor and should be related to the
candidate's future effectiveness (Anthony & Nicholson,
1977). However, most organizations do not try to validate
the application blank as a predictor of job success. Thus,
Anthony and Nicholson argue, the application blank is not
a valid step in the "successive hurdle approach" to
screening.

Beatty and Schneier (1977) have elaborated on the
validation of application blanks as predictors:

The application blank itself can be used as a pre—
dictor of future job performance. . . . In scored
application forms each item of information . . . is
examined to determine if it is actually predictive
of some aspect of work performance, such as tenure
or quality and quantity of work output. Items that
actually discriminate between successful and unsuc-
cessful employees (i.e., a strong positive cor—
relation exists between those whose performance is
high and those who respond in a certain way to an
item) are usually scored quantitatively. In other
words, each item is assigned a weight or score and
the score is awarded if the item is answered in the
way the organization thinks is most appropriate.
All of the scores awarded are then summed so that

a numerical total score can be used as a basis for
making selection decisions. . . . (p. 178)

Miner and Miner (1977) note that only data to be
used should be included and retained on application blanks;
otherwise the forms may grow too long. Items should be
weighted, the authors suggest, according to their ability
to differentiate the relatively successful employees.

Though complicated weighting methods are available, Miner

and Miner find the simpler "horizontal percent method" to

49

be equally valid. Here items are weighted according to
their ability to distinguish the better half of the
employees (divided at the median on performance ratings).
The weight for each item is the rounded percentage of
employees rated above the median (Miner & Miner, 1977,
p. 294).
Schneider (1976) endorses the value of a "bio-

graphical information blank," which he defines as

a blank (form, questionnaire, survey, etc.), which

seeks information about a person's background

(including present circumstances) when it has

already been established that answers to the

questions differentiate more from less successful
employees. (p. 200)

 

Schneider asserts that such forms can be quite valid over

a short period (one to two years) in predicting candidate
success. The validity of biographical information blanks
has been documented in the selection of clerical personnel,
industrial research scientists, life insurance salesmen,
and unskilled workers (Schneider, 1976, p. 203). Schneider
cautions against the use of biographical information blanks
as the sole basis for hiring decisions; if this is done,

he suggests, applicants with effective personal qualities

but without the "right" personal history may be excluded.

The Interview

Many authors agree that the selection interview,
which is the tool most consistently used in both business
and education, is often lacking in validity and reliability

(Kahn & Cannell, 1957; Dunnette, 1966; Taylor, 1972;

50

Carlson et al., 1974). Taylor (1972) is the most pessi-
mistic of all: "For some reason we all seem to feel that
we can make accurate predictions (of job success) . . .,
but the scant evidence says that we cannot" (p. 139).

Denerley and Plumbley (1969) point out that the
fault is with the interviewer, not the method, since
interviewing skill varies greatly. Lopez (1965) defends
the interview: "The little evidence that has been pro-
duced, if nothing else, has repeatedly demonstrated that
trained, knowledgeable interviewers 25g effective" (p. 5).
Miner (1977) concurs that the interview can be "quite
effective" if used in a standardized manner and if biases
are controlled. Ghiselli (1966) contends that data col—
lected many years ago suggesting the invalidity of inter-
views should not be taken too seriously today. He sug-
gests that later studies (Mayfield, 1964) and the
increased skill of those currently doing selection
point to improved interview validity.

There is general agreement among authors on the
central purpose of the selection interview: to predict
the candidate's future success. Blum and Naylor (1968)
see the interviewer as "a sort of intuitive regression
equation;" he collects and weighs interview data (pre-
dictor variables) to project the applicant's potential
success.

Downs (1968) studied the attitudes of college

recruiters toward selection interviews and reported some

 

51

of the ways in which interviews were considered valuable:
(1) They reveal the whplg candidate, not just job qualifi-
cations. (2) The interviewer can ask personal questions
and explore the answers in detail. (3) Detailed infor-
mation about the job can be exchanged, and the candidate
can obtain information about specific interests. (4) The
candidates' appearance, poise, and oral communication
ability can be evaluated in an interview.

Miner and Miner (1977) support the interview for
its flexibility, particularly in filling the gaps in the
information procured through other selection techniques.
They endorse the interview as a recruiting technique
which can sell the job and organization. Moreover, they
emphasize, the interview may be the gply realistic tech-
nique in wooing a candidate not strongly motivated to
move to the new position.

Symonds (1939) lists factors which can "influence
the quantity and quality of data collected in the inter-
view" (p. 149). These include factors inherent in the
applicant and interviewer (such as their experiences
immediately preceding the interview), factors inherent
in the general situation (such as the surroundings) where
the interview is conducted, and factors in the form and
content of the interview (such as question content and

interviewer reactions).

 

 

52

The validity of an interview has been defined as
the degree to which the interviewer can accurately pre-
dict the job success of a candidate (Blum & Naylor, 1968).
Denerley and Plumbley (1969) list the "prevalent weak—
nesses" in interview validity as shown by research:

(1) Interviews may be brief and unsystematic, which
allows prejudices and hunches to assume a major
role.

(2) Interviewers are often unaware of their limi-
tations, and they make inferences going beyond
the available data.

(3) Interviewers have favorite questions, the
answers to which are allowed to assume dis-
proportionate weighting in their assessments.

(4) Interviewers may fail to establish rapport with
candidates.

(5) Interviewers often talk too much. (pp. 91—92)
Mayfield (1964), Ulrich and Trumbo (1965), and Wright
(1969) published extensive research reviews on interview
validity. Only a few of the studies they discuss showed
the interview to be a good predictor of either job or
training success. However, there were productive find-
ings indicating how validity in the interview can be
enhanced. These will be covered below.

Denerley and Plumbley (1969) have listed the pur—
poses of the interview as follows: (1) evaluate the
candidate's suitability for employment; (2) be sure the
candidate receives an accurate picture of the job,
including its undesirable aspects; and (3) conduct the
interview in such a way that the candidate feels he or

she has had a fair, complete hearing (pp. 90-91). Cole-

man, Siegel, and Sateja (1977) discuss the second purpose

 

 

53

above in terms of a psychological contract. Satisfaction,
performance, and turnover, they say, are related to the
congruence between the expectations of the organization
and those of the candidate. Explicating the job helps
establish a psychological contract affecting candidate
expectations and behavior after hiring.

Wanous (1975) asserts that when emphasis on pre—
dicting performance is the only concern in selection, the
costs of turnover "resulting from mismatches" between the
candidate and the organization are overlooked (p. 51).

He makes a case for communicating, early in the selection
process, a realistic picture of a job's good apd bad
points. Though this may be done in the interview, Wanous
advances a more active approach. He reports on several
studies showing that "Realistic Job Previews" (expressed
through short films) resulted in lower subsequent turnover
as compared with approaches which "sell" the position to
candidates.

Lopez (1965) provides a typology of interviews
based on the levels of information which is exchanged.

A primary interview, Lopez states, is one in which only

 

factual data are exchanged. A secondary interview also

 

involves logical data, including beliefs, opinions, and

feelings. In a tertiary (depth) interview, factual,

 

logical, and psychological data are exchanged. Psycho—

logical data include values and attitudes.

 

54

Lopez further classifies interviews by the stra-

tegies used. A patterned interview is one with structured,

 

written questions and procedures. A serial interview com—
bines successive interviews of a single candidate by
several interviewers. In a panel interview, several
interviewers talk with one candidate. If several candi—
dates talk with one or more interviewers, it is termed a
group interview. Blum and Naylor (1968) provide a related
typology based on hiring strategy. In the team decision
model, multiple interviewers do interviews together (panel

interviews). The multiple cutoff approach consists of

 

serial interviews, after which the candidates all inter—
viewers approve are hired.

Several authors provide specific procedures for
conducting selection interviews. Taylor (1972) emphasizes
that the interviewer must know not only the job but also
"what specific attitudes, knowledge, skills, or other
attributes are needed to perform these tasks" (p. 141).
O'Leary (1976) suggests that the interview begin with the
candidate reviewing his education and work experience.
This makes sense to the applicant, reduces his nervousness,
and helps establish rapport. O'Leary provides three spe-
cific suggestions as to how the candidate may be induced
to talk more: (1) the interviewer should be prepared for
the interview and know a good deal about the candidate

in advance; (2) the first few minutes should be devoted

 

55

to reducing the candidate's anxiety; and (3) the inter-
viewer should ask open—ended questions (O'Leary, 1976,

p. 22). Mayfield (1964) states the "generally accepted
rule" that interviewers should avoid asking leading
questions. Closure can be reached by asking the candi-
date if he wishes to add anything. As the interview ends,
the selection process should be explained; the candidate
should be told when he/she can expect to hear from the
employer again (O'Leary, 1976).

The difficulty of evaluating the validity of
selection interviews has long been recognized (Symonds,
1939). A great deal of experimental research has been
done on the interview, but this research has revealed
surprisingly few unqualified facts.

Sydiaha (1958) reviewed the literature on selec—
tion by interview and concluded that: (l) judgments
about the same applicant differ "markedly" between dif—
ferent interviewers; and (2) the validity of predictions
about candidate success varies greatly between inter—
viewers. Yet Sydiaha's evaluation of the interview as
a selection tool is not totally negative: "The interview
is an important technique because of its widespread use.
Compared to test procedures, the interview is simpler,
more flexible, and evokes a greater degree of confidence

in judgments made" (Webster, 1964, p. 3).

 

 

 

 

56

The reliability of the selection interview may
be defined as the consistency with which the technique
gathers candidate information and leads to conclusions
based on the same information. Reliability is a necessary
(but not sufficient) condition for validity. Wagner
(1949) and Ulrich and Trumbo (1965) reviewed research on
interview reliability. Both found few studies on inter-
views reporting reliability data. Those reliabilities
that were reported varied greatly, and most were lower
than would usually be "accepted for devices used for indi—
vidual prediction" (Ulrich & Trumbo, 1965, p. 153). The
authors of both reviews concluded that the unreliability
of interviews is a significant problem.

Schneider (1976) commented that decisions based
on interview information "are generally unreliable (across
judges) and thus nonvalid" (p. 194). Mayfield and Carlson
(1966) illustrate a major source of unreliability: dis-
agreement among interviewers as to what candidate infor-
mation is important. The authors conducted a series of
studies designed to ascertain how life insurance managers
make decisions in hiring agents. They found that, for
some items of candidate information, managers agreed on
their favorableness or unfavorableness. In other cases,
there was marked disagreement about whether a single piece
of information was highly favorable or highly unfavorable.

Thus, different selectors would be attentive to different

 

 

57

aspects of the interview and would reach different con-

clusions even if the same information were collected.

Studies on information and perception in the

 

selection interview. Keating, Peterson, and Stone (1950)

 

studied the accuracy of information given by job inter-
viewees. They found high correlations between infor—
mation given in interviews and that which was checked by
other means. Both men and women were shown to be over
90% accurate in reporting previous salaries; they were
around 95% accurate in listing their duties on previous
jobs (Keating et al., 1950, p. 155). Weiss and Davis
(1960), in a similar study on handicapped applicants,
found much poorer accuracy (up to 55% inaccurate data
given) (p. 156).

Carlson (1967) studied the effects of a candi—
date's appearance on a manager's decision. He found that
appearance had the most effect when it complemented per—
sonal history information. The latter received twice as
much weight as did appearance in making hiring decisions.

Dailey (1952) notes that first impressions are
lasting but are not likely to be accurate unless they
are based on important and relevant data. Often, Dailey
observes, the perceiver does not know what is important,
relevant, and predictive of later behavior. Moreover,

the wrong information may be emphasized through selective

 

___—,—

58

perception. This is the process whereby one selectively
seeks information to support a first impression (McKay,
1972).

Soskin (1953) describes limitations on an inter—
viewer's ability to form accurate impressions of others:
(1) the influence of surroundings may affect perceptions;
(2) a limited sample of behavior leads to broad generali-
zations; (3) there may be no chance for the candidate to
show behavior relevant for evaluation; and (4) the per-

ceiver reacts in an individualized way (pp. 124-125).

Dynamics of the interview. After analyzing a

 

group of selection interviews, Daniels and Otis (1950)
found that 57% of the time the interviewer was talking.
The candidate was found to be talking an average of 30%
of the time; during the remaining 13%, both were silent.
Anderson (1960) analyzed over 100 selection inter-
views. He found differences in speaking times for cases
in which the candidates were hired, as compared with those
who were not hired. Interviewers talked more with candi-
dates who were later accepted than with those later
rejected. There was less silence in interviews with
accepted candidates. Anderson found candidates talking
about the same proportion of the time regardless of
whether or not they were hired. The total length of

interviews was also about the same, regardless of the

 

 

59

outcome. In a similar study in 1961, Anderson found
results supporting these same conclusions.

Mayfield (1964), in his review of research on
selection interviewing, concluded that in unstructured
interviews, candidates often talk less than do inter-
viewers.

Verbal reinforcement plays an important role in
interview dynamics. Verplank (1955) studied interviewers'
reinforcement of candidate responses; he found significant
increases in opinion statements by candidates when such
statements were reinforced by interviewers. The rein-
forcements used were statements of agreement and para—
phrasing of the candidate's words. O'Leary (1976) sug-
gests that interviewers should use selective verbal rein-
forcement to encourage candidate statements about those
attitudes which are most important for the assessment.

Candidates respond differently depending on the
support they sense from interviewers. Alderfer and
McCord (1970) studied the reactions of M.B.A. students
interviewing for permanent and summer jobs. They found
that "supportive, interested" behavior resulted in posi-
tive reactions by candidates (reflected in positive
evaluations of interviews, expectations of receiving
job offers, and expectations of accepting an offer).

More confrontive behavior by the interviewer (such as

asking the candidate to evaluate his/her strengths and

 

 

 

60

weaknesses or to answer a technical question in his field)
algp received positive reactions. This, according to
Alderfer and McCord, suggests "that behavior from the
interviewer which asks a candidate to show his own com-
petence may result in positive reactions to the interview"
(p. 383). A key to successful interviewing, the authors
suggest, may be in confronting the candidate without
causing any discomfort.

The 1961 study by Anderson, cited above, also
analyzed the tone of the interview. Anderson compared
the tone of the interviewer's speech in the first and
second halves of interviews resulting in both acceptances
and rejections. In acceptance interviews, the inter—
viewer's speech was found less harsh and less tension-
producing for the candidate. In interviews ultimately
resulting in rejections, Anderson found a change in
emotional tone in the second half; candidates felt more
tension and began hesitating longer before speaking.
Anderson felt his results were "compatible with the
impression that the interviewer uses the interview to

confirm an impression of the applicant" (p. 34).

Effects of comparisons and unfavorable information.

 

Evidence shows that evaluations of candidates are often
not absolute but can be affected by comparisons with
others. Carlson (1968) found that when managers were

evaluating more than one candidate at a time, other

 

 

 

61

candidates were used as a standard. In another study,
Carlson (1970) showed that an average candidate, inter-
viewed after several poor ones, would be evaluated highly.
Wexley, Yukl, Kovacs, and Sanders (1972) reported similar
conclusions, noting that contrasts most affected the
ratings given average applicants. Based on these find-
ings, there appears to be a need for some standard evalu—
ation system "to reduce the large amount of information
developed from an interview to a manageable number of
constant dimensions" (Carlson, Thayer, Mayfield, & Peter—
son, 1971, p. 53).

As already noted, negative information about a
candidate appears to be very powerful in affecting an
interviewer's impressions. Bolster and Springbett (1961)
provided interviewers with protocols containing combi-
nations of statements which had been rated for favorable—
ness/unfavorableness. The interviewers' reactions showed
that unfavorable information more readily produced rating
shifts than did positive information. A highly unfavor—
able item produced a more negative attitude shift than
did two moderately unfavorable items.

In their study of ratings given hypothetical
applicants for jobs as life insurance agents, Mayfield
and Carlson (1966) found support for the contention that
raters give more weight to negative than to positive

information. In addition, Blakeney and McNaughton (1971)

 

___—i—7

62

found that unfavorable information introduced early in
interviews shifted ratings more unfavorably than did
similar information introduced toward the end of the
interviews.

"Halo effect" is the term given to an opposite
source of error in the selection interview. If an
employer is favorably impressed by one or more candidate
attributes, he may allow this to color subsequent unre—
lated judgments toward the positive side. Denerley and
Plumbley (1969) state that "if most of the other candi-
dates for the job have already been eliminated, the inter-
viewer may be especially prone to . . . halo effect"

(p. 96).

Interviewer memory and experience and the effects

 

of pressure. Interviewers vary in their ability to remem-
ber details from interviews. Carlson et a1. (1974) report
a study in which 40 managers watched a 20-minute video
tape of a selection interview and imagined themselves as
the interviewer. Following the tape, the managers were
given a 20—question test on the interview; their mean
score was 10 wrong. Those who took notes and followed

an interview guide, on the other hand, were "quite
accurate." The authors conclude that "note—taking in
conjunction with a guide appears to be essential"

(Carlson et al., 1974, p. 82). They also found that

those managers whose memories were least accurate rated

 

63

the candidate more highly and with less variability than
did the more accurate managers. This led the researchers
to the conclusion that a "halo strategy" was used by the
less effective managers, while those with better memory
focus more on the individual differences of the candidates.

Carlson (1967) studied how pressure for results
in interviews affected interviewer judgments. He dis-
covered that interviewers under pressure to hire (those
behind on hiring quotas) evaluated the same recruits more
favorably and were more likely to hire, in comparison
with other interviewers not under pressure. Managers
with more concentrated interviewing experience were less
susceptible to this effect than were those with less con—
centrated experience.

In another part of this same research, Carlson
(1967) compared the selection decisions of managers having
varied interviewing experience. He found no greater
agreement on candidate ratings between highly experienced
interviewers than between those with differing experience
levels. Carlson concluded that interviewers do not neces-
sarily learn how to make better hiring decisions through
experience. The author argued that systematic interviewer
training is needed to improve performance in selection.

Schneider (1976) supports the need for interviewer

training:

 

64

One thing seems clear: because of the generally
unreliable nature of the interview, people who do
employment interviews should be carefully trained
and provided with reasonably structured interview
formats. (p. 199)
Since different interviewers use varying styles and empha—
ses, they may weight candidate responses differently even
if they ask for the same information (Miner & Miner, 1977;
Mayfield, 1964). But "interviewers can be trained to
follow similar patterns in their questioning and to eval-
uate responses using the same standards" (Miner, 1977,
p. 45). Thus, interview reliability can be increased
through systematic interviewer training.

Carlson et a1. (1971) describe an interview train-
ing program developed by the Life Insurance Agency Manage—
ment Association. This three—day workshop attempted to
build life insurance managers' knowledge, skill, and self-
confidence in interviewing and selection techniques. Video
tapes demonstrated the effects of violating selection
principles; practice and critique were used to build
interview skills. In the final evaluative exercise,
trainees combined information from a variety of data-

gathering methods to make simulated selection decisions.

Structure of the interview. Interviews may range

 

along a continuum from very unstructured to totally pre—
planned and structured. In the unstructured interview,

the interviewer makes decisions, along the way, to obtain

 

65

the "best" information. In the patterned or structured
interview, on the other hand, all questions may be written
out in advance.

Blum and Naylor (1968) assert that since the
interviewer can noticeably affect applicant behavior, it
is important to standardize interviews. They argue in
favor of highly structured selection interviews, although
they caution that too much structure can prevent followup
on valuable topics that may arise spontaneously.

Mayfield (1964) supports the structured interview
because it yields higher inter—rater reliability than
does the unstructured approach. In his research review,
Mayfield found that "in almost all cases where a satis—
factory reliability for the selection interview was
reported, the interview was of a structured form" (p. 250).
Ulrich and Trumbo (1965), in their review, reached a simi-
1ar conclusion: "both the highest validities and the
greatest gains in validity over other predictors involved
interviews described as systematic, designed, structured,
or guided" (p. 112). Stanton (1977) recommended a struc-
tured selection interview and provided an extensive list
of suggested questions.

Yonge (1956) asserts that the poor validation of
the selection interview through research has resulted
from (1) lack of clear definition of the aim of the inter—

view; (2) diversity in the criteria used for validating

 

 

 

66

the predictive interview; and (3) variation in the form
(degree of structure) of the interview. He recommends
having specific objectives, carefully defining the traits
to be assessed, having some (but not too much) structure,
and using a reliable criterion measure. Yonge reports
a pilot study conforming generally to these principles.
In his study, scores by 46 workers on broad attitudes,
measured by interviews, correlated between .48 and .99
with overall ratings by supervisors (Yonge, 1956, p. 31).
Yonge's overall conclusion about interview structure is
that

The interview should not be formless; yet if it

becomes very restricted in form, it loses the

essential character of the interview; insofar as

it takes on the nature of an impersonal psycho—

logical test, it is unable to use a spontaneous,

dynamic interaction between two people as a means

of relieving certain complex personality features.

(p. 27)

Carlson et a1. (1974) studied three interview
strategies: structured, in which all questions came
from an interview guide; semistructured, where the inter-
viewer followed the guide generally but could ask other
questions; and unstructured, where no guide was used.
Only the structured interview enabled three different
interviewers to agree on the decision. The authors con-
tend that if decisions cannot be consistent, the infor-
mation obtained is unreliable and, therefore, cannot be
valid. "Thus, a highly structured interview has the

greatest potential for valid selection" (Carlson et al.,

1974, p. 80).

67

A series of studies by McMurry (1947) reported
good predictive validities (in the vicinity of .60) for
interviewers' overall estimates of employment suitability
when patterned interviews were used. Predictive validity
is poorer when the interview is less structured, however.
Mayfield (1964) cites evidence to conclude that "a general
suitability rating based on an unstructured interview
with no prior information provided has extremely low inter-
rater reliability, especially in an employment situation"
(p. 249).

From the consistency of the above findings, it
seems safe to conclude that structure is important in
selection interviews. O'Leary (1976) suggests that a
standard form be used for structure and notetaking.
Notes, he says, should be made immediately following the
interview. Sheffield (1951) recommends that a uniform
rating scale be used in judging candidates interviewing
for school district administrative positions. The need
for a structured rating scale for notetaking is supported
by a number of authors, and especially so by the study
on memory Cited above (Carlson et al., 1974).

Miner (1977) asserts the importance of producing
written evaluations of candidates following interviews.
These evaluations can later be compared with criterion
information on the performance of those hired. The com—

parison would provide feedback to interviewers as they

 

 

68

make modifications in their techniques to enhance the

predictive validity of the interview.

Recommendations concerning interviewing practices.
Carlson et a1. (1971), in summarizing the results of a
series of interview studies conducted from 1965 to 1971,
make two major recommendations:
First, the selection interview should be made an
integral part of an over-all selection procedure,
and to accomplish this, new and additional materials
are needed. The new materials should include a
broad-gauge, comprehensive, structured interview
guide; standardized evaluation and prediction forms
that aid the interviewer in summarizing information
from all steps in the selection process; and an
evaluation system that provides feedback to the
interviewer in language similar to the preemployment
job predictions he must make. The second major
applied implication is that an intensive training
program for interviewers is necessary if inter—
viewers are to initially learn enough in common to
increase the probability of obtaining general
validity from the selection interview. (p. 56)
Schneider (1976) summarizes the findings of the
McGill studies and those by Carlson and others. Among
the implications of this research, according to Schneider,
are the following: (1) Interviewers function better with-
out pressure to fill quotas. (2) Interviewers should use
a standard, well—structured interview schedule and should
take extensive factual notes for later use in decision-
making. (3) Interviewers should receive feedback on their
performance so they can improve it (Schneider, 1976,

p. 196). Particularly significant to the present study

is Schneider's conclusion that interviewers need an

 

69

accurate behavioral description of the "good" candidate
to use as a selection criterion. The present study's
attempt to identify the important competencies for entry-
level College Student Personnel candidates is designed to

help fulfill this need.

References or Recommendations

 

References are almost universally used in Student
Personnel selection. "In some situations letters of
recommendation are the main tool used to assess candi—
dates"; yet recommendations have severe limitations (Rim,
1976, p. 437). Blum and Naylor (1968) offer four main
causes of inaccuracies in references:

(1) The writer does not know the candidate well.

(2) The writer may not be able to assess the candi-
date, even if he has observed him.

(3) The writer may lack the ability to communicate
well.

(4) The writer may be reluctant to be honest about
the candidate's unfavorable aspects, and may
even inflate the reference to get rid of him.

(p. 168)

In their text on school administration, Hall and
McIntyre (1957) are highly critical of the written
reference as a selection tool.

The almost total lack of proof that letters of

recommendation have any real value should cause

those who select educational leaders to be

extremely cautious in assigning much weight to

"evidence" of such flimsy nature. (p. 415)

Rim (1976) studied the reliability of recommen-

dation letters written on behalf of candidates for aca-

demic teaching positions or promotions. Five full

7O

Professors each rated a variety of such letters; the
Professors assigned ratings of positive (contributes to
a hiring decision in the candidate's favor), negative

(leads to a rejection), or indifferent/ambiguous. Rim

 

found a tendency for the judges to dlgagree on the value

of the letters. "In over 20% of the letters, the dis-
agreements are pronounced, in that the same letters are
evaluated as damaging, indifferent, or definitely positive"
(p. 444). Judges also differed widely in their styles of
judging. Some were very lenient, rating over two—thirds
of the references positively; others rated under one-third
positively. "Such a variety of assessment doubtless adds
to the unreliability of the tool" (p. 443). Rim found a
general tendency for favorable letters to be longer than
unfavorable ones. Ambiguous letters (over which the
judges most disagreed) were longest. Rim's overall con—
clusion was that letters of recommendation are unreliable
selection tools.

Browning (1968) correlated objectively scaled pre—
employment reference ratings of 508 teachers with their
overall performance ratings after one academic year on
the job. Because of the low validity shown, he concluded
that "scaled reference data have limited practical value
in predicting teacher competency" (p. 392). Validity
coefficients varied with the raters. The best validity

coefficient was obtained for ratings by the person's last

 

71

supervisor (.23); the lowest coefficient (.09) was found
on ratings by Professors of practice teaching (Browning,
1968, p. 391).

Peres and Garcia (1962) studied 625 reference
letters for engineering job applicants. They noted that
rather than describing observable behaviors, the references
applied adjectives to the candidates. One hundred seventy
different adjectives from the letters were isolated. Peres
and Garcia then asked supervisors to recall their best and
poorest engineers and to rate all adjectives on a scale of
1 (describes him very poorly) to 5 (describes him very
well). A factor analysis of the results showed five fac-
tors (groups of adjectives) with varying abilities to dis-
criminate good from poor engineers. From best to worst
in discrimination, they were: (1) mental agility;

(2) vigor; (3) dependability-reliability; (4) urbanity;
and (5) cooperation—consideration. Peres and Garcia com—
ment on this result:
It can be hypothesized that, when an individual is
asked to submit a reference for an applicant that
he feels is not truly qualified for the position
under consideration, the best the referent can say
is, "Joe is a pretty nice guy" (since very few
referents deprecate the job applicant). (p. 285)

Check (1978) argues that in the competitive job
market of College Student Personnel, jobs are often "won
or lost by the credentials offered for preliminary review"
(p. 370). In an effort to replace references' "general

glowing statements" with specific facts, Check offers a

 

72

l6—item questionnaire eliciting candidate information for
the use of recommendation writers. This "Check-Recommend-
ogram," when completed by the applicant, provides refer—
ences with specifics on experience, accomplishments, and
job desires. Thus, vague "nice guy" statements can be
replaced with "a much more accurate and convincing picture
of the applicant" (Check, 1978, p. 371).

Mosel and Goheen (1958, 1959) completed a series
of studies on the validity of the Employment Recommendation
Questionnaire (ERQ), which is used as a reference in hiring
for Civil Service positions. In the first study, the
authors correlated candidates' ERQ scores with supervisors'
performance ratings after a period of work at skilled
trade jobs. Correlations ranged from -.10 to +.29; only
five out of 12 correlations were over .20 (Mosel & Goheen,
1958, p. 487). The authors found little support for the
validity of the ERQ. The main problem, they assert, is
that the recommendations discriminated little because they
were varied and positive.

In the second study (Goheen & Mosel, 1959), ERQ's
for economists, budget examiners and training officers
were correlated with field investigations (interviews
with a variety of people who had known candidates at work
since they had been hired). Correlation coefficients
were: economists .22; budget examiners .54; and training

officers .45 (p. 304). The authors note that only the

 

 

 

 

73

field investigations produced information on things like
alcoholism, gross incompetence, or homosexuality. The
value of personal contact with previous employers was
thus supported.

In the third study (Mosel & Goheen, 1959) dif—
ferences in ERQ validity were assessed according to who
completed the reference. Acquaintances tended to be the
most favorable, followed by previous subordinates and co-
workers. Previous employers wrote the least favorable
ERQ's. Correlations were computed between a performance
criterion and ERQ ratings by the different respondent
types. Only past supervisors (.19) and acquaintances (.19)
had significant coefficients. But "the low order of these
coefficients makes them of doubtful practical value"
(Mosel & Goheen, 1959, p. 476).

Numerous authors have recommended that personal
contacts with references be made, usually by telephone
(Mandell, 1958; Lipsett, 1972; Beatty & Schneier, 1977;
Miner & Miner, 1977; Stanton, 1977). Mandell (1958) sug—
gests that specific facts rather than evaluations be
obtained in reference checks and that ambiguous replies
be followed up with pointed questions. The selector,
Mandell suggests, should have a list of written questions
before initiating a call to check a reference. Stanton
(1977) provides a structured form for telephone reference

checks and contends that contrived answers will be

 

___-i—7

74

prevented if questions are asked quickly. Questions
phrased in a forced—choice format can minimize excessive
leniency in the reference check (Beatty & Schneier, 1977).

Summary: Procedures Used to Gather Information
for Selection Decisions

 

 

The resumé provides a biased and unreliable view
of an applicant and should be considered suspect. Appli-
cation blanks can provide better controlled information
for screening and personnel uses. If application blanks
are used in selection decisions, each item should be
weighted for its validity in helping to predict subse—

quent employee success. More detailed "biographical

 

information blanks,‘ when validated against performance
criteria, may be useful in making short—term predictions
of candidate success.

Both validity and reliability of the selection
interview have been called into question by research
findings. However, the interview can make unique con-
tributions in revealing the whole candidate, in filling
gaps in the information provided by other techniques,
in recruiting, and in giving candidates accurate infor—
mation about a job. Interview results may be unreliable
unless different interviewers first agree on the criteria
to be used in evaluating applicants. Because biases may
be established early in interviews, first impressions

(especially unfavorable ones) often determine outcomes.

75

Interviewers tend to talk more than candidates, especially
in unstructured interviews. Verbal reinforcements given
by the interviewer can substantially affect the tone of
the interview. Because candidates tend to be evaluated
in comparison with one another, rather than against an
absolute standard, fixed evaluation criteria are needed.
Unfavorable information may affect evaluations more than
favorable information, particularly if introduced early
in the interview.

Interviewers who take notes during interviews
retain more information and may be more discriminating
than those who do not. Interviewers under pressure to
hire may be more lenient in judging applicants. System-
atic interviewer training is important in standardizing
procedures and enhancing interview reliability.

One of the clearest research findings is that
structured interviews (where detailed questions are spe—
cified in advance) are more reliable and valid than un—
structured interviews. Standardized written evaluations
of candidates enhance the effectiveness of the interview
as a selection tool.

Though written references are widely used, they
are often vague and inaccurate. Since judges have been
found to disagree as to the value of the same reference
letters, the reliability of the written reference is

suspect. The validity of objectively scaled references

76

has been shown to be generally low and to vary depending
on the writer. References often apply adjectives to
applicants rather than giving specifics; different kinds
of adjectives may vary in their discrimination between
good and poor applicants. Authors strongly recommend
that references be corroborated through field investi-
gations or personal telephone contacts with the writers.

Literature on Staff Selection in
Student Personnel and Education

 

 

Selection of Residence Hall
Paraprofessional Staff

 

 

There is a considerable body of published Student
Personnel literature concerning the selection of para—
professional staff, particularly Resident Assistants (RAs).
In general, these staff members are part—time undergrad-
uates. Studies attempting to validate standardized instru—
ments as predictors of success in such positions have often
yielded disappointing results (Correnti & Tuttle, 1972;
Atkinson, Williams, & Garb, 1973). Lack of agreement in
defining the role of the Resident Assistant (Biggs, 1971;
Atkinson et al., 1973) and inability to clearly define
criteria of effectiveness (Wyrick & Mitchell, 1971) have
been major difficulties in such validation studies.

Traditional procedures for selecting parapro—
fessionals have included application forms, interviews,
and references (Schroeder & Willis, 1973). Both individual

and panel interviews are common; professional staff and

 

 

77

current paraprofessionals often serve as interviewers
(Correnti & Tuttle, 1972). Banta (1969) and Delworth,
Sherwood, and Casaburri (1974) have discussed group
interviews and other group techniques in the selection
of student paraprofessionals.

Tibbits (1977) explains a method of selecting
part-time student staff using only peer ratings. Tibbits
had applicants rate each other anonymously on ability to
perform specified tasks. His method was tested in three
different settings and compared to traditional methods of
selecting Resident Assistants (RAs) and orientation staff.
Tibbits reports that 34 of 35 people actually chosen by
more costly methods in these three tests would have been
selected by the peer evaluation method (p. 67). He con—
tends that peer evaluation methods are "based on more
authentic interactions than can be obtained in an inter—
view setting," and he makes a strong argument for the
economy of this selection approach (Tibbits, 1977, p. 67).

Wotruba and Crawley (1967) used a similar socio—
metric questionnaire in selecting RAs at Holy Cross Col—
lege. They found peer nominations quite effective in
predicting student selection by conventional interview
methods.

In a continuation of this study, Wotruba (1969)

had the selected RAs take the Edwards Personal Preference

 

Schedule (EPPS), the Bell Adjustment Inventory (BAI), and

 

 

 

78

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Wotruba reports

 

on the ability of these instruments to discriminate

 

between RAs subsequently rated "effective," "satisfactory,"
or "unsatisfactory." Though Wotruba's analysis is some-
what vague and lacks statistical explanation, he did find
some interesting comparisons between effectiveness and
subscale scores on the EPPS and the MBTI. The BAI pro—
files showed no clear differences between groups. Wotruba
points out that none of these instruments comprehensively
measures the full pattern of traits relevant to RA effec-
tiveness.

Sheeder (1963) reports on the use of role—playing
as an RA selection tool. In this approach, applicants
role-played three situations in which they might be
involved if selected as dormitory counselors: (1) lead—
ing a floor meeting; (2) conducting an academic advising
session; and (3) dealing with a minor disciplinary situ—
ation. Staff evaluated candidates' performances using
pre-determined criteria. Sheeder presents results of
subsequent evaluation of this selection method by both
staff and candidates. Significantly, Sheeder omits
mention of when student candidates wrote their evalua-
tions; though these were mostly positive, one cannot
interpret them without knowing whether anonymity was
granted and whether selection decisions had been made

at the time they were written. Still, Sheeder presents

79

some evidence that role-playing may be a helpful selection
tool. No evidence is given as to whether those selected
in this way performed better than those selected under
previous procedures.

Nair and Sonders (1969) discuss a similar socio—
drama" technique used at Lycoming College. Following
role-playing, professional observers rate candidates on:
(1) apparent comprehension and acceptance of the RA role;
(2) permissiveness or authoritarianism revealed; (3) poten-
tial for counseling insight; and (4) comprehension of the
residence hall as an educational setting. No data are
presented to document the effectiveness of this procedure,
although the authors do feel it is satisfactory.

The Leaderless Group Discussion or LGD (Bass,
1949) has been used by several authors as a selection
procedure. Brady (1955) reports on a technique wherein
professional staff observe five RA candidates discussing
typical hall situations. Brady found the procedure val-
uable for its economical use of staff time. He observed
that self-consciousness (a problem in the typical inter-
view) is lost by candidates in their discussion, enabling
them to behave more as they app. Brady believes the pro—
cedure reveals much information about candidates' phil-
osophy, level of development, and knowledge.

Banta and McCormick (1969) had trained Head Resi—

dents use a rating scale to evaluate Residence Hall

 

8O

Counselor applicants who participated in Leaderless Group
Discussions. These LGD ratings were combined with other
information to yield point-total scores for each candi—
date. The authors express satisfaction with this method,
which they hoped would "substitute a more valid and
reliable decision—making procedure for selection (for-
merly) based on intuitive judgment" (Banta & McCormick,
1969, p. 30). However, no data are presented showing
whether or not Residence Hall Counselors selected by this
method were more successful than those chosen "intuitively."
Applicants expressed satisfaction with the LGD approach,
which they felt minimized their anxiety.

Mullozzi and Spees (1971) report a study investi—
gating the ability of the LGD and two other measures to
predict which of a group of applicants would be chosen as
Resident Fellows (RFs). The subjects were 272 students
applying for about 90 RF positions at Southern Illinois
University. Applicants were rated on LGD performances,

and they also completed the Affective Sensitivity Scale

 

and the Personal Orientation Inventory. Standard selection

 

methods (interviews, recommendations) were then used to
select RFs. A stepwise linear regression analysis was
computed to determine the effectiveness of the three
measurements in predicting the selections actually made.

The Affective Sensitivity Scale (measuring empathy) was

 

not found useful as a selection predictor. The LGD was

 

81

the best predictor; and, since it took less time than
interviewing, the LGD "promises to be an excellent future
device for use with RF selection" (Mullozzi & Spees, 1971,
p. 189).

Since the criterion in this study was selection
itself and not job success, the study was really con-
cerned with economy of selection. No data were found in
any of the reviewed studies to validate the LGD as a pre-
dictor of success in residence hall positions.

Correnti and Tuttle (1972) used a six—week appren—
ticeship program as a selection tool. This program offers
RA candidates presentations and small group discussions
concerning topics of concern to Resident Assistants.
During the small group discussions, candidates were eval—
uated by group leaders and current RAs; participants
also evaluated each other at the end of the program.
Following this training, those who still wished to become
RAs could apply for the job. Ratings from the appren-
ticeship program were used in selection. The program,
which provided valuable training, was also seen as a
worthwhile addition to the selection process.

Two publications report on special training con—
ducted for staff who participate in RA selection. Gar-
field, Holland, and Humphrey (1978) used videotaped role
plays of interviews to train selectors and found the pro—

cedure helpful. Morgan, Smith, and Zirkle (1974) trained

 

 

82

teams of staff selectors to use specifically defined cri—
teria to make selection decisions. Role playing tech-
niques were also used in this approach; evaluation
instruments provided feedback to selector trainees.

The Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) has been

 

used in several selection studies. In one study described
above, Mullozzi and Spees (1971) found that one scale of
the POI added slightly to the prediction of selection as
a Resident Fellow. Atkinson et a1. (1973) related POI
scores to ratings of RA effectiveness after one quarter
on the job. Their findings indicated that the POI was
not an effective instrument for predicting effectiveness.
Schroeder and Willis (1973) found the P01 unable to dis-
tinguish RA candidates rated differently by conventional
interview methods, and they drew a similar conclusion.

In a study by Graff and Bradshaw (1970), the con-
clusions were more positive than those of the two studies
discussed above. Graff and Bradshaw administered the POI
to a group of male RAs who had been in their positions
for two quarters. About two months later, resident stu-
dents and Student Personnel Deans rated the RAs' effec—
tiveness. Four POI scales were found to predict effec-
tiveness as rated by the students and Deans. However,
Atkinson et a1. (1973) have rightly criticized this study

because the POI was given after the subjects had had two

 

83

quarters' work experience. Thus, the data are not pre—
dictive in the sense of providing pre-service data rele-
vant to selection.

Based on these conflicting studies, it appears
that POI results vary with the situation in which the
instrument is used. The case for the P01 as a predictor
of success as a Resident Assistant is a weak one.

A number of other instruments have been tested
as RA selection tools, with mixed findings. Murphy and
Ortenzi (1966) found no significant differences between
the scores of high- and low-rated RAs on the Strong

Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB) and the Edwards Personal

 

Preference Schedule (EPPS). On the other hand, Holbrook
(1972) found the EPPS generally good in discriminating
between volunteer residence staff rated effective/
ineffective by their supervisors. Holbrook's findings

were different for male and female subjects, leading him

to conclude that "different personality factors seem to
contribute to male and female effectiveness . . ." (p. 561).

Wachowiak and Bauer (1977) explored the relation

of scores on the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to

 

selection and subsequent effectiveness of RAs. Both
accepted and rejected RA applicants scored significantly
more extroverted on the MBTI than did a control group.
Accepted applicants were less perception—oriented than

those rejected. Resident student evaluations of RAs were

 

 

84

not related to MBTI scores, but RAs with lower sensing—
intuiting scores received more positive evaluations from
their Head Residents. Wachowiak and Bauer concluded that
the MBTI can be useful in selecting RAs.

Schroeder and Dowse (1968) report two studies
investigating the usefulness of various instruments in
selecting Graduate Assistants (GAS) as residence hall

counselors. In the first study, Minnesota Multiphasic

 

Personality Inventory (MMPI) profiles failed to predict

 

which GAs would be rated high or low by Head Residents.
In the second study, three more instruments were tested
as potential selection devices: the women's form of the

SVIB, the EPPS, and the California Psychological Inventory

 

(CPI). Graduate Advisors took these instruments and were
rated by Head Residents and students. Discriminant
analyses showed no significant differences among rated
criterion groups in scores on any of the three instruments.
In a similar study, however, Morton (1975) found
relationships between some CPI personality-trait scores
and RA effectiveness as judged by supervisors. Above-
average RAs had higher scores (significant at least at
the .05 level) than below—average RAs on eight traits:
dominance, capacity for status, self—acceptance, responsi—
bility, socialization, good impression, achievement via
conformance, and intellectual efficiency (Morton, 1975,

p. 21). Morton concludes that the CPI may have value as

 

85

one of several tools in the RA selection process. He
correctly points out, however, that his findings cannot
be generalized to other institutions. In addition, the
results cannot be applied to women because Morton studied
a small number of women appointed to newly created female
RA positions.

Wyrick and Mitchell (1971) tested the possible
relationship between RA effectiveness (as rated by stu—
dents and Head Residents) and results from instruments
measuring three aspects of counseling behavior: accurate
empathic understanding, nonpossessive warmth, and genuine-
ness. They found that accurate empathy and warmth were
significantly related to student ratings for female RAs
but not for males. None of the three measures was related
to effectiveness ratings by Head Residents.

Bodden and Walsh (1968) administered the Adjective

Check List, the Authoritarian F—Scale, and the Overall

 

Agreement Scale to 65 Residence Counselors at Ohio State
University. Residence Hall Directors rated each Residence
Counselor using a scored rating form. A multiple regres-
sion analysis showed the three instruments jointly effec—
tive in predicting the ratings given the subjects. The
authors believe the three instruments "have considerable
potential for use in the selection of college residence
hall counselors" but call for replication at other insti—
tutions to determine the generalizability of these results

(Bodden & Walsh, 1968, p. 194).

86

Biggs (1971) developed the Residence Hall View-

 

points Inventory to examine relationships between atti-

 

tudes held by Residence Counselor candidates and subse—
quent RC job success. Biggs identified four relevant
attitude scales: Job Loyalty, Role Activity, Attitudes
About Interpersonal Differences, and Attitudes About
Authority. A significant multiple correlation of .61
between scores on these scales and effectiveness ratings
by Head Residents was shown (Biggs, 1971, p. 113). The
author concludes that attitudes toward interpersonal
relations and toward the Resident Counselor position can
help predict success in the job.

Shelton and Mathis (1976) divided a group of
Resident Assistants into "high-assertive" and "low-

assertive" groups, using the Rathus Self-Reporting

 

Assertiveness Schedule. RAs were then rated for effec-

 

tiveness. "High-assertives" were rated significantly
higher overall and were seen as more open and honest,
less likely to go out of their way to avoid conflict,
better communicators, and better in floor discipline
situations. However, "high-assertives" were judged sig-
nificantly less available when needed.

Following their study, Atkinson et a1. (1973)
concluded that "despite the growing trend toward consensus
regarding role and function, it appears that a single

instrument for resident assistant selection is yet to be

 

87

identified" (p. 331). Indeed, the findings reviewed here
show that while some encouraging results are available,

no single instrument or group of instruments has consis-
tently shown predictive validity in a variety of selection
settings.

Professional Staff Selection and

the Job Market in College
Student Personnel

 

 

 

Hester (1971) interviewed Presidents and Chief
Student Personnel Officers at 12 midwestern universities
to find out what characteristics were seen as most impor—
tant in selecting administrative Student Personnel staff.
She found that Chief Student Personnel Officers and execu-
tive staff were expected to have a broad experiential
knowledge and perspective. Other managers were expected
to have in—depth knowledge and experience in their par—
ticular specialty areas. There was consensus that the
following factors were important in choosing Student
Personnel administrators: personality; previous admin—
istrative experience, preferably in similar environments;
a Ph.D. in a relevant area; leadership ability; and good
communication skills. Hester found that selection pro—
cedures were more rigorous for higher level positions;
however, she did not conduct a detailed evaluation of
the selection tools used.

An extensive survey of Student Personnel literature

revealed no additional studies on procedures and criteria

 

 

 

88

for selecting full-time professional staff. As stated
in Chapter I, this appears to be a significant omission.
The remaining Student Personnel literature in this area
consists of job market surveys and post-conference place-
ment evaluations, which are limited to examining overall
placement trends. These are summarized briefly below.
Studer and Heath (1974) criticize the mechanistic
approach to conference placement in Student Personnel:
"the reality of the buyer's market has contributed to
recruiting and interviewing behavior antithetical to the
humanistic models being proposed simultaneously in con-
ference programs" (p. 81). The authors urge employers
to adopt a more student development—oriented approach to
conference placement. They suggest that more information
on positions be given candidates before interviews and
that promising candidates be given repeated interviews so
they may receive more detailed information on positions.
A list of guidelines for more humane selection is offered.
Ferrari (1972) reports a NASPA survey on the job
market in Student Personnel. His committee mailed ques-
tionnaires to Chief Student Personnel Officers and Stu-
dent Personnel educators at 1,659 colleges. The usable
response rate was only 26%, which renders the validity
and generalizability of this study suspect. The ques-
tionnaires asked for past trends and future projections.

Ferrari reports that 57% of the staff hired in 1970-72

 

89

came from academic programs in counseling, psychology,

or other fields or from non—Student Personnel positions
(p. 94). No expectation of growth in staffing for 1972—75
was found, yet "increases in (Student Personnel) graduates
accelerate yearly" (p. 99). Ferrari predicted that “an
over-supply of student personnel job candidates" was

probable (p. 100). This prediction may have been overly

 

pessimistic in View of shortcomings in the sample and in
light of the findings of subsequent surveys.

Escott (1974) reviewed placement experience at the
1973—74 joint NASPA/ACPA/NAWDAC conference. He noted
that, excluding 500 entry-level Army counseling positions,
569 entry—level candidates registered for 139 entry-level
jobs. For staff positions, the ratio of available posi-
tions to applicants was 1:1.7, and for deanships it was
1:3. For all levels, the ratio of jobs to applicants was
1:2.4, excluding the Army positions (p. 87). Escott
noted that 10% of the listed positions required some
special highly skilled training not usually a part of
traditional Student Personnel preparation.

Packwood (1976) reports on a survey of 1973—74
graduates of Student Personnel preparation programs.
This survey is part of an ongoing annual study by ACPA
Commission XII. Of 864 graduates that year, 95% were
employed (15% outside College Student Personnel) (p. 23).

Twenty-four percent of M.A. graduates (the largest

 

 

9O

proportion) obtained positions in residence programs

and housing (p. 24). Most graduates stayed in the geo-
graphical area where they obtained their degrees, and
only one-third had jobs by the end of the academic year.
Packwood found these and other data consistent with the
previous year's unpublished Commission XII study and
concluded that the job market in Student Personnel was
healthy.

Escott (1976) contends that "in recent years the
number of positions available is far outdistanced by the
number of individuals entering the market" (p. 40). He
analyzed 1974—75 data and found that 68% of the candidates
hired through the NASPA Placement Service obtained their
positions through conference placement and referrals from
colleagues (p. 43). Consistent with Packwood's study
of the previous year, Escott found residence halls and
housing to be the major source of entry—level positions.
He followed up on his previous findings that positions
requiring special skills were on the increase. From 281
employers surveyed, 333 special skill positions were pro-
jected to become available between 1975 and 1978: 181
in developmental education (reading and study skills
specialists, tutors, and others); 118 in administration
(management systems specialists, computer technologists,

accounting specialists); and 34 in judicial—legal areas

 

 

“flir- ___ZILJLLT. 3...... ,. .._... __ . H. .q-I-u—

91

(p. 52). Thus, a trend toward specialization is apparent
in Escott's 1974 and 1976 findings.
Greer, Blaesser, Herron, and Horle (1978a) con—

tinue the series of ACPA Commission XII surveys. From

 

September 1975 through August 1976, 1191 graduates were
reported by the Student Personnel training programs sur-
veyed; of these, 655 (59%) were placed in Student Person-
nel positions or returned to previous positions in the
field (pp. 344—345). Six percent of the graduates were
unable to find Student Personnel employment in restricted
geographical areas, and another 5% found no positions
(p. 345). Just over half the graduates had been placed
in four—year public colleges and universities. Twenty-
two percent found positions in community/junior colleges,
which marks an increase in this area (p. 346). More
graduates were staying in the same geographical area than
in the previous year. The authors report that "career
planning and placement, women's and minority programming,
affirmative action, and preadmission counseling (recruit-
ing) are providing areas of employment for recent grad—
uates" (p. 348). The study concludes that the employment
picture has remained stable but that this stability is
due in part to the exodus of more graduates (15% in 1976)
to non-Student Personnel positions (p. 348).

For 1976-77, 1049 College Student Personnel degree
program graduates were reported in the Commission XII

survey, a decrease of 142 from the previous year (Greer

92

et al., 1978b, Tables 1 and 2). Of these, 846 received
the M.A. degree; as in the previous year, 59% of the M.A.
graduates were placed in Student Personnel positions
(Table 2). Thirty-three percent of these took positions
in Residence Programs/Housing; 18% were placed in Student
Activities, Programming, Orientation, Unions, or Student
Life positions (Table 3). Again, the authors conclude
that Student Personnel employment is stable, although

19% of the graduates took positions outside the field
(pp. 4-5).

Armstrong et a1. (1978) surveyed a sample of
administrators listed as “contact persons" in the 1977
NASPA Conference placement materials. They compared
these responses to those from similar questions asked of
a candidate sample. The survey covered all administrative
levels and a number of different kinds of positions. Data
were provided on advertising methods, timing of selection
activities, number of conference and on-campus interviews,
characteristics of persons hired, and opinions about the
job market in general. This study confirmed the prevalence
of personal interviews in Student Personnel selection.
Most employers used conference interviews to screen out
unwanted applicants; about two—thirds of the employers
reported conducting on-campus "finalist" interviews with
two to five candidates per position. The authors con-

cluded that the 1977 NASPA job market was an "employer's

 

 

93

market" but that candidates would benefit by more care-
fully choosing the positions for which they apply. Pro-
fessional conference placement activities appeared to be
of particular value to employers in screening entry-level
candidates.

Differences in methodology and response rates in
these studies have resulted in some conflicting overall
conclusions. Ferrari's pessimistic 1972 projections have
been challenged by the more favorable conclusions of sub-
sequent research. However, it is clear that the job
market is competitive for newly graduated candidates.

A degree is not a sure ticket to a College Student Per-
sonnel position. On the other hand, from the viewpoint
of the selector, there still appears to be keen compe—
tition for the best candidates (particularly those with
special skills).

Selection in Other Areas of
Education

 

 

Relevant studies were located concerning the
selection of college faculty and of public school
teachers, principals, and other administrators.

A study of personnel procedures in 14 higher
education institutions was discussed by Hopkins (1926).
In his section on the selection of instructors, Hopkins
asserted that none of the schools had found a good

solution to this problem. His chief criticism is

 

 

94

directed at the lack of agreement on, and specification

of, the qualities desired in instructors. Hopkins further
criticizes "the inadequacy of (selection) methods and the
extreme flexibility which characterizes their use" (p. 67).
He finds this "a serious weakness in the administrative
scheme of education" (p. 66).

Caplow and McGee (1958) used patterned interviews
to study faculty hiring practices at 10 major universities.
They found highly subjective procedures being used; "old—
boy networks" and nepotism were much in evidence. The
main criterion for selection was the expectation that the
candidate would develop a national scholarly reputation.
Academic departments avoided the person who would not fit
in; "'fitting in' involves the acceptance of the values
of the department as a peer group and a willingness to
defend it under attack from without, especially from
higher administrators . . ." (p. 134). Caplow and McGee
also found departments hesitating more than candidates
in making hiring commitments. They describe the frequent
outcome of selection as “a happy candidate and a worried
department" (p. 136).

Miller (1959) studied procedures used to select
physical education personnel in state teachers colleges.
Only a minority of the colleges he studied clearly spe—
cified the selection criteria and procedures to be used;

Miller recommended that more exact and verifiable selection

 

95

practices be instituted. He also felt that selection
would be improved by the use of a uniform application
blank.

Trandem (1974) examined the selection of teachers
in certain California public schools. He found that very
few of his respondents had completed detailed position
analyses or specified the functions performed and the
qualities needed in teachers. Though all his respondents
used interviews and felt interviews were the most valid
predictors of candidate success, very few interviewers
had had training in interview techniques. Trandem con—
cluded that more training in innovative staff selection
procedures was needed by school district personnel direc-
tors.

Hadley (1952) offers recommendations concerning
the selection of school principals. He arrived at these
suggestions by studying selection practices at school
systems across the nation which had been identified as
particularly effective by "a jury of leading educators."
Though many of Hadley's recommendations do not apply to
higher education, two are notable: (1) As a first selec—
tion step, the job should be carefully defined. Existing
staff should cooperatively identify the qualifications
needed and wanted for the particular job. (2) References
should be checked with the writers, either through per—

sonal interviews or by telephone. "It is a valuable

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

practice to ask persons recommending candidates to give
the basis for their judgments" (Hadley, 1952, p. 26).
Structured interviews were used by Briner (1968)

to investigate the criteria used by school superintendents

 

in selecting subordinate administrators. He found three
kinds of information that were used to evaluate candidates:
the "physical and character image," professional and non-
professional potential (including academic training, lan— i
guage skills, and verbal intelligence), and competence.
The latter was defined in reference to experience, recom—
mendations, professional contributions, and special
knowledge demonstrated by the candidate. Briner con-
cluded that no common, accepted procedures were used by
superintendents in selecting administrative candidates.
Rassi (1975) surveyed a regional group of super—

intendents to determine the relative importance of 11
criteria in selecting school administrators. He found
consensus that "Professional Competence" was the most
important selection criterion. Rassi defines Professional
Competence:

This category may relate to the candidate's degree

of technical, conceptual, and human skills with

capacity to perform at a satisfactory level in his

specialized area including general management

functions involving planning, communicating, allo-

cating, and evaluating. (p. 90)
Human Relations, a category important in the competency

literature in College Student Personnel (and, therefore,

perhaps not a different category in the context of the

97

present study) was rated third in importance as a selection
criterion. It is also noteworthy that written recommen-
dations were not seen as an important factor in selecting
school district administrators.

Rassi's study did not concern entry—level positions;
accordingly, these data cannot be generalized directly to
the present study. However, Rassi's findings do offer
some support for the importance of competencies as selec-
tion criteria. Rassi was trying to remove "vagueness and
ambiguity" he found in the literature describing selection
criteria. However, his definitions of various criteria
are neither precise nor mutually exclusive. More thorough
operational definitions of the many concepts inherent in
"professional competence" and more detailed study of com-
petencies as selection criteria are needed.

Summary: Literature on Staff Selection in
Student Personnel and Education

 

 

Considerable literature is available concerning
the selection of student paraprofessionals, particularly
as Resident Assistants (RAs). Though application forms,‘
interviews, and references are the traditional selection
techniques in this area, studies have explored the
economy and predictive validity of several other approaches.
Peer ratings and sociometric questionnaires have
been found to lead to almost the same RA selections as do

more expensive interview techniques. Role playing of

98

simulated on-the-job situations has been used as a tech—
nique for rating RA candidates; though authors liked this
approach, no data were offered to support its predictive
validity. Another technique involves the rating of RA
candidates as they participate in Leaderless Group Dis-
cussions (LGDs). It is argued that this procedure saves
time for selectors and reduces candidate anxiety. One
study found LGD results to predict which candidates would
be selected by conventional methods; no data on the
validity of the LGD in predicting RA success were found.

A six-week apprenticeship program has been suc-
cessfully used as a training/selection vehicle for RAs.
This approach has the advantage of providing an extensive
sample of candidate behavior for rating and selection
purposes. Authors have also reported conducting training
programs for staff who are to participate in selection
activities.

A number of standardized paper—and-pencil instru-
ments have been tested for validity as RA selection tools.
The instruments most often used in these studies are the

Personal Orientation Inventory, the Edwards Personal

 

 

Preference Schedule, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,

 

 

and the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Results of

 

these studies varied with the institutional setting, the
sex of the subjects, and the criteria against which test

results were validated. No instrument or combination of

99

instruments consistently produced accurate predictions
of success in the Resident Assistant position.

Student Personnel literature on the selection of
full-time professionals consists almost entirely of job
market surveys and post-conference placement evaluations.
A series of studies by ACPA Commission XII has followed
the employment of College Student Personnel graduates
for several years. From these and other studies, it is
evident that the Student Personnel job market is fairly
stable, with more new graduates than available jobs each
year. The largest proportion of recent Student Personnel
graduates (over one-third) are currently entering resi—
dence hall positions. Despite the surplus of candidates
for entry-level positions, employers must be competitive
in recruiting and selecting the best of the new graduates
(especially those with special skills).

Studies show that selection of higher education
faculty has been poorly structured and that selection
criteria have in some cases been vague. Before selection
begins, jobs should be carefully described and the needed
qualifications should be specified. It appears that pro-
fessional competence may be the most important criterion
for judging educational administration candidates. "Pro-
fessional competence" has, to date, been a poorly defined
concept in selection research: more detailed study is
needed to examine speCific competencies as selection

criteria.

 

 

 

 

100

Competencies Expected in Entry-Level
Student Personnel Professionals

 

 

A major purpose of the present study is to explore
the relative importance of 36 specific competencies as
criteria in the selection of Student Personnel profes-
sionals for five kinds of entry-level positions. Each
of the competencies listed in the instrument comes, either
directly or indirectly, from College Student Personnel
literature. Authors have identified the competencies
needed by Student Personnel professionals in discussions
of three main topics: (1) professional education for
Student Personnel Work, (2) professional standards for
the field, and (3) student development theory. This
section summarizes these writings and relates the con-
tent of the present study to the professional literature
on competencies. This material is presented chronologi-
cally.

In 1958, Williamson wrote that the many competen-
cies needed for Student Personnel Work could be acquired
through both experience and professional preparation.
"Obviously, one does not acquire even minimum competence
in all of these diverse areas of functioning at any one
particular time in one professional career" (Williamson,
1958, pp. 3-4). If one accepts this statement, the impor-
tance of identifying and acquiring the most vital compe-

tencies is clear.

 

101

Robinson (1966) analyzed three statements on
professional preparation for Student Personnel Work (one
by the Council of Student Personnel Associations, 1963;
one by ACPA, 1965; and the third by the American Personnel
and Guidance Association, 1965). Robinson found remark-
able agreement in the three statements concerning the
functions of Student Personnel professionals:

Interpreting the institution to students, counseling,
advising student groups, supplementary educational
programming . . ., programming of . . . recreational
activities, administrative functions ranging from
policy development and implementation through budget—
making, research and program evaluation, recruitment
of professional staff, collecting and disseminating
information about students, the development of "cli-
mate" and facilities necessary for growth, and the
integration of all relevant institutional resources
contributing to the education of the student. (p. 255)
Robinson's summary implies that professionals need a wide
variety of competencies in order to perform these diverse
functions.

Trueblood (1966) suggested that the preparation
of the future Student Personnel professional should be
interdisciplinary, incorporating knowledge of the
behavioral sciences, of research, and of the college
student. Skills in "counseling, group work, adminis-
tration and research" are necessary (p. 84). According
to Trueblood, the Student Personnel professional should

be a resource person for all members of the community

and should assist in the understanding of the student.

 

102

In 1967 the American Personnel and Guidance

Association (APGA) published a position statement on

"The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers

in Institutions of Higher Learning." The statement

includes a list of "basic functions which must be per-

formed by the majority of student personnel workers":

1.
2.

10.

Understanding the college student as a learner;
Accurately and effectively interpreting the
values, goals, objectives and actions of the
student to the institution and others;
Interpreting the goals, values, objectives and
actions of the institution to the student;
Understanding the significant political, cul—
tural, and social forces operating within the
college community as they affect both the
individual student and groups of students;
Counseling on a one-to-one basis at some level
ranging from the relatively perfunctory to
psychotherapy;

Group work ranging from advising student
interest organizations and influencing student
attitudes and behavior to group counseling;
Programming of educative experience which sup-
plements classroom learning as well as the
development of meaningful recreation oppor-
tunities;

The collection, organization, and dissemination
of information about students ranging from the
simple descriptive to that needed for the study
of student behavior;

The performance of administrative functions
such as policy formulation and implementation,
staff development and budget-making;

Research ranging from the demographic and evalu—
ative to basic studies of psychological, social,
and cultural forces influencing student per—
formance and behavior. (APGA, 1967, p. 63)

The 1967 APGA statement emphasizes that preparation pro—

grams must build both knowledge and practical skills.

Certainly the above list of functions suggests the need

 

 

103

for a number of fundamental professional competencies;
these have been incorporated into the instrument for the
present study.

In looking to future needs for Student Personnel
competencies, Greenleaf (1968) calls for

. knowledge of the characteristics of the young
adult, knowledge of management, of personnel prac~
tices and communication, an ability to use coun-
seling and interviewing skills, the skills of a
teacher to provide inservice training for staff

., a knowledge of legal procedures, and a
broad knowledge of world affairs. (p. 32)

In 1969 APGA and the Council of Student Personnel
Associations in Higher Education (COSPA) prepared a
statement on guidelines for graduate programs of study
for Student Personnel Workers. Such programs, the paper
averred, should require both knowledge and competencies
in these areas:

1. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education,
including the history, philosophy, purposes,
organization and administration, ethics and
standards, students' roles and rights, current
legal and social issues, and discipline; and
in addition, an overview of its specialty
areas

2. Higher Education as a Social Institution, includ-
ing the context, setting, history, philosophy,
and objectives of post—secondary education, as
well as problems relating to organization,
administration, and curricula. ... .

3. Human Growth and Development, including a broad
understanding which focuses on the nature and
needs of the college student as an older ado-
lescent and young adult . .

4. Social and Cultural Foundations . .

5. Methods, Techniques, and Concepts Used by Stu-
dent Personnel Workers including counseling,
group dynamics, human relations, decision—
making, fiscal management, selection, and in-
service training and communication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-‘fl

..- urn—...”...-

104

6. Research and Evaluation including statistics,
research methods, tests and measurement, indi—
vidual study, and research and applications of
research. (Commission on Professional Develop-
ment, COSPA, and Interdivisional Committee, APGA,
1969, p. 495)

 

The foregoing learning objectives, in addition to those
of the earlier COSPA, ACPA, and APGA statements, provides
a detailed core of basic competency expectations which
has affected all subsequent writings in this area. Sub-
stantial agreement has remained on the rather extensive
list of skills and knowledge expected in entry-level pro-
fessionals; many similarities are evident in the foregoing
statements. The role of the Student Personnel profes—
sional, as defined in these statements, is a broad one.
But which competencies are most basic and vital? This
question has often sparked controversy.

O'Banion (1969) asked an "expert panel" of coun—
selor educators, Student Personnel educators, and Deans
of Students to rate the importance of various topics in
Student Personnel preparation. Though the panel rated
areas of study, not competencies, it is interesting to
note those studies O'Banion found should be part of the
"core of experiences . . . common to all" College Student
Personnel workers: psychology, counseling, practicum and
overview in Student Personnel Work, study of the college
student, of sociology, anthropology, and higher education

(O'Banion, 1969, p. 251).

105 !

Silverman (1971) suggests that because Student
Personnel workers are on the "boundary" between faculty,
students, and administrators, they must have mediating
ability. Academic and administrative competence, as well
as rapport with students, can facilitate the necessary
negotiations.

While he does not extensively discuss competen—
cies as such, Brown (1972) offers a major recommendation
that "Student personnel staffs (in tomorrow's higher edu-
cation) are going to have to possess new sets of compe-
tencies"; "all other efforts will fail if student person-
nel staff who wish to function as student development
educators do not have clearly demonstrated skills and
competencies that have meaning for the academician" (p. 47).
Competency in classroom instruction and outreach will be
needed. Understanding, describing, and relating to stu-
dents will remain important. Finally, Brown asserts that
professionals must be able to "design programs that will
change the environment and provide a setting for optimal
student growth" (p. 47).

In discussing the expected outcomes of professional
preparation, Sorrells (1972) offers a number of recommen-
dations. Among them are the following: (1) There should
be "orientation to the nature of higher education as a
unique part of our social order" (p. 311). (2) In-depth

experience in group work and counseling must be emphasized.

106

(3) Training should include "opportunities for research
related to student environments and student cultures"
(p. 311). (4) Finally, graduates should acquire suf—
ficient statistical background to enable them to conduct
research and to use research findings.

Newton and Hellenga (1974) used the Delphi tech-
nique to establish consensus as to the learning and pro-
cess objectives of Student Personnel training. Of 44
original subjects associated with the University of
Georgia's graduate program, only 19 completed all three
of the authors' questionnaires: two instructors, seven
doctoral students, and 10 master's students. Through
this process, desirable outcomes of master's level Stu-
dent Personnel training were identified and rated on a
five-point scale of importance. Newton and Hellenga's
competency ratings are reproduced in the following table
(see Table 2.1).

It is important to note that the ratings do not
range from "important" to "unimportant." All listed
objectives were seen as important (rated at least 4 on
the 1-5 scale), although there was a range in importance.
Newton and Hellenga concluded that a competency-based
approach was to be preferred over the traditional course-
centered approach. Their respondents strongly endorsed
the application of "creative and individual-centered

processes for training based on competencies" (Newton &

 

107

Table 2.1

Ratings of Competency Importance from the Study
by Newton and Hellenga (N=19)a

 

Modal %

Item Rating Agreement

 

Attain awareness of one's own personal

development 1 95
Develop high level communication Skill 1 89
Develop skills to establish and imple-

ment student development programming 1 89

Develop philosophy for the role and
function of student personnel within

higher education 1 84
Become effective in methodology of

change 1 74
Understand and demonstrate skill in

group dynamics 1 74
Know counseling theory and appli-

cation to one—to—one helping 2 84
Know of administrative patterns of

operation 2 68
Know the scope of Stu. Personnel and

its specialties 3 84
Understand and develop skill in man-

agerial functions 3 74
Know research techniques, including

uses of computer 3 68
Understand and make commitment to

prof. ethics 3 58
Know nonwhite-oriented lit. and

research in field 3 53
Understand St. Personnel in Higher

Ed. context 3 37
Know and apply ways of program

evaluation 4 79
Know and be able to interpret tests 4 74
Develop personal theory of nature

of man and stu's. 4 53
Develop ability to speak and write

persuasively 4 47

 

aExcerpted from Newton and Hellenga, 1974,
Table 2, p. 495.

108

Hellenga, 1974, p. 494). An important limitation of
this study, acknowledged by the authors, is the narrow
composition of the respondent group. Accordingly, the
learning objectives identified in the study were not
considered all-inclusive.

The advent of student development philosophy and
theory has brought increased emphasis on professional
competency. Crookston (1972) termed this new philosophy
"competency oriented," as compared with the "status
oriented" Student Personnel approach.

COSPA (1974) provided a new student development
model emphasizing competencies in goal-setting, assess-
ment, and the use of change strategies for human develop—
ment. According to the COSPA position, a master's degree
program should prepare "a beginning professional who has
the basic values and competencies for facilitating stu-
dent development" (p. 78). A few specific illustrations
of the three COSPA competency objectives are paraphrased
below.

1. Goal Setting: Competencies in personnel manage—
ment, budget planning, identifying underprepared
students, career planning, and individual/group
counseling.

2. Assessment: Competencies in understanding the
socio—political aspects of campus governance,
knowing available learning resources, evaluating
outcomes of student development programs, and
assessing behavior.

3. Using Change Strategies: Competencies in con—
flict resolution, conducting personal growth

seminars and discussion groups, and solving
student—related problems. (COSPA, 1974, p. 77)

 

 

 

109

The COSPA approach emphasizes the selection of staff com-
petent as administrators, teachers, researchers, consul-
tants, and counselors.
The ACPA Tomorrow's Higher Education (T.H.E.)

Project has emphasized similar competencies (ACPA, 1975;
Miller & Prince, 1976).

Our need as a profession is to continue develOping

skills, competencies and knowledge which, when

joined in a collaborative effort with others in

post-secondary education, can lead to the achieve-

ment of the goal of facilitating student develop-

ment. (ACPA, 1975, p. 335)
The competencies suggested in the T.H.E. model, though
not detailed, again center around the major functions of
goal-setting, assessment, and strategies for student
development. Goal-setting demands that student develop-
ment specialists have the competency to write goals/
objectives and to teach this skill to students. Assess-
ment requires competencies in testing and other diagnostic
methods so that students' levels of development can be
ascertained. Student development strategies call for
competencies in instruction, consultation, and milieu
management. Comprehension of campus ecology, social
systems, management theory, and behavioral science is
prerequisite to successful milieu management. Finally,
competency in evaluation (both of programs and of indi-
vidual growth) is stressed.

In 1974, ACPA began a project to clarify the com—

petencies needed by student development specialists. The

 

110

result of Phase I of that project was a "Tentative Tax-
onomy of Student Development Staff Skills and Competencies"
(Hanson, 1976). This taxonomy arranges 195 specific com—
petencies into six major categories corresponding to the
ACPA T.H.E. student development model. Hanson's list
draws on all the literature reviewed above to provide an
extremely detailed competency list. Analysis of the list
shows that it is generally compatible with the instrument
used in the present study.

One illustration of the movement toward competency—
based Student Personnel education is a program at the
University of South Carolina preparing student activities
administrators (Meabon, Bailey, & Whitten, 1975). Here
developmental contracts are used to organize individual
students' programs of competency acquisition. The authors
identify 37 competencies as program objectives; these are
categorized as "generic" (specific student activities
skills) or "enabling" (needed by all entry-level Student
Personnel professionals). The following were among the
"enabling" competency areas listed: budgeting and
accounting, group methods and motivational techniques,
organizational structure and behavior, program evalu-
ation, programming philOSOphy, planning of meetings,
working cooperatively with individuals and groups,

teaching, and understanding student body composition.

 

111

Newton and Richardson (1976) surveyed a small
regional sample of Student Personnel practitioners to
assess which competencies are most needed by entry-level
staff.

Ninety—three percent of the respondents ranked
skills in mature interpersonal relationships as
being top priority among the competencies most
essential for entry-level positions. Other top
priority competencies were preparation for under-
standing, organizing, and administering student
personnel programs; practicum and/or internship
experiences; ability to work cooperatively with
students and colleagues; and self—awareness.

Second-priority competencies were leadership
skills, acceptance of others (especially minori-
ties), effective test administration and interpre—
tation, and tolerance for stressful and anxiety-
producing situations. (p. 427)

Newton and Richardson found that competencies
applicable to any situation (i.e., interpersonal skills,
cooperative working relationships, administrative and
organizational skills) were highly rated. They suggest
that training models be built on such general learnings,
as a base for acquisition of more specific knowledge. It
is significant that practitioners expressed concern for
careful selection of applicants to Student Personnel
training programs. Newton and Richardson suggest that
their findings can be applied in identifying criteria
for the selection of entry-level professional staff.

A group of Student Personnel educators has
recently discussed competencies in the context of pro—

fessional education (Knock, 1977). In this anthology,

Peterson (1977) discusses the "Student Personnel Education

112

Process-Outcome Model," in which learners negotiate con-
tracts for competency attainment in three areas:

(1) skills/techniques, (2) substantive knowledge, and
(3) personal growth. Matson (1977) provides a list of
competencies needed by entry-level Student Personnel
professionals in community colleges. Matson's list
supports the competencies suggested above and need not
be repeated here. Riker (1977) recommends entry-level
competencies in such things as problem-solving, goal
setting, program development, facilitation of inter-
personal relationships, group work, career planning,
psychological measurement, and consultation.

The competency statements used in the present
study were drawn directly (with slight modifications)
from research by Minetti (1977). After extensive review
of the literature on competency, Minetti produced a list

of 47 competencies important to the entry-level Student

Personnel professional (see Appendix B). These compe-
tencies were arranged under six headings: (1) counseling,
human relations, and interpersonal skills; (2) theory and

practice of administration and management; (3) research,
testing, and measurement; (4) historical, philosophical,
and social foundations of higher education; (5) meeting
student needs; and (6) professional purpose and role

identity (Minetti, 1977, pp. 63-64). Yates, in develop-

ing a study of learning outcomes for doctoral programs

113

in Student Personnel administration, had listed 40 com-
petencies; many of these were incorporated in Minetti's
list. A comparison of Minetti's competency list with
the more detained ACPA taxonomy (Hanson, 1976) showed
substantial compatibility between the two.

Minetti's (1977) study focused on identifying
the locus of preparation for the listed competencies, as
seen by several different respondent groups at each of
three institutions. He found that academic knowledge
areas (i.e., educational foundations, statistics,
developmental theory) were viewed as acquired primarily
through classroom work. The respondents felt, on the
other hand, that skill areas (i.e., leadership, staff
selection and supervision, decision-making) are best
acquired through experience in the paid assistantship.

Minetti concluded that his results "strongly sup-

port the value of academic training programs,‘ as well
as that of practical experience, in professional prepar-
ation (p. 150). Because his study demonstrates a need
to integrate theory and practice, Minetti advocated
periodic evaluation of competency in assistantships and
frequent collaboration between faculty and assistantship
supervisors.

Domeier (1977), in a study of the training of

Student Personnel administrators for specific competen—

cies, reviewed the literature and generated a list of

114

58 competencies. Examination of her list reveals con-
siderable overlap with that developed by Minetti (1977).
Domeier surveyed Student Personnel administrators at
eight Michigan universities to determine the importance
of each competency to their present positions and the
source(s) of training for each competency. Because only
10.7% of Domeier's respondents held entry-level positions,
the data generated cannot be confidently related to the
present study. However, those competencies found impor-
tant by most of the entry-level respondents were generally
represented in Minetti's list and in the instrument used
in the present study. Domeier found differences in the
importance ascribed to the majority of the competencies
by respondents at entry, middle-management, and executive
levels.

Summary: Competencies Expected in

Entry-Level Student Personnel
Professionals

 

 

 

A major source of literature on entry-level com—
petencies has been a series of statements by professional
organizations listing standards for the training of prac—
titioners. Comparison of these statements reveals sub-
stantial agreement on the value of a very wide-ranging
list of competencies. Though much of this literature
concerns course content, there has been wide recognition
of the need for practical skill application as well as

specialized knowledge. It has been agreed that

115

interdisciplinary preparation is needed in the acqui-
sition of Student Personnel competencies. Broad prepar—
ation is necessitated because of the large number of
functions involved in entry-level Student Personnel
positions.

In recent years, competency-based education has
come closer to the forefront in Student Personnel prepar—
ation. Training has increasingly focused on competency
outcomes rather than course titles. Developmental con—
tracts are being increasingly used in some preparation
programs.

The growth of the student development point of
View, particularly evident in the T.H.E. Project of ACPA
and in work by COSPA, has placed increased emphasis on
professional competence. Competencies suggested under
this model focus on goal—setting, assessment, instruction,
consultation, and milieu management. Though organized
under a new rubric, most of these competencies have been
identified in previous Student Personnel literature.
Basic skills applicable to any situation include admin—
istrative and organizational skills, the ability to work
cooperatively, and effective interpersonal communication
skills.

Minetti (1977) reviewed the above literature and
developed a list of 47 competencies suggested as impor—

tant for entry—level staff. Included are the categories

116

of counseling, human relations, and interpersonal skills;
theory and practice of administration and management;
research, testing, and measurement; historical, philo—
sophical, and social foundations of higher education;
meeting student needs; and professional purpose and role
identity. Comparison of Minetti's competency list with
those of other authors shows it to be representative of
the literature on this topic. This competency list, with
minor alterations, formed the basis of the instrument

used in the present study.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has included reviews of the literature
on four separate topics related to the present study:
(1) the steps and considerations involved in the overall
process of staff selection; (2) the procedures used to
gather candidate information for use in making hiring
decisions; (3) the literature on selection in College
Student Personnel and in other educational settings; and
(4) the competencies expected in entry-level Student
Personnel professionals. The chapter was designed to
provide a resource for educational administrators con-
ducting staff selection or establishing training programs
in selection procedures.

Staff selection is a broad topic; the literature
of Personnel Psychology has elucidated the selection

process in great detail. It appears that many common

117

selection practices need closer scrutiny in View of this
literature. One purpose of the present study was to pro—
vide this examination for a limited number of College
Student Personnel selection practices.

The instrument used in the present study (Appen—
dix A) incorporates a large number of the findings from
the above literature review. A particular debt is owed
to Minetti (1977), whose competency list (Appendix B)
was a major source of material for this instrument.

Chapter III will outline the development and
methodology of the present study. Chapter IV will pre-
sent the survey findings. Finally, Chapter V will offer

an overall summary, conclusions, and recommendations.

 

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE DESIGN

OF THE STUDY

The general problem of this study was to investi-
gate certain procedures and criteria used in the selection
of entry-level College Student Personnel professionals
in 1978. Data were collected from administrators listed
as "contact persons" (those to whom one would apply) in
position listings from the 1978 ACPA, NAWDAC, and NASPA

conference placement services.

Research Questions

 

To provide direction in accomplishing the pur-
poses of the study, the following research questions

were formulated:

1. What were some of the specific procedures in
use during 1978 for gathering information about candidates

for entry—level positions in College Student Personnel?

2. Are these procedures effective as judged

against available research findings?

118

n In an»

un-

 

119

3. What was the selection ratio for entry-level
positions listed in conjunction with conferences of the
three major national College Student Personnel profes—

sional organizations in 1978?

4. What was the experience level of those admin-
istrators listed as "contact persons" in 1978 entry-level

job listings?

5. What were the respondents' attitudes con—

cerning:

a. The use of objective and systematic selection
procedures?

b. The value of selection activities at profes-
sional conferences?

c. The importance of the reputation of a candi-
date's graduate training program in judging
his/her qualifications?

d. The usefulness of the resumé and the written

recommendation as selection tools?

6. How did the respondents rate the importance
of various competencies in evaluating candidates for
entry-level positions? What competencies are viewed as

most and least important?

Development of the Instrument

 

The questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed after

a review of the literature on staff selection and on

120

 

entry—level Student Personnel competencies. Most of the
questions were suggested directly or indirectly by the
findings of this review. Other questions originated from:
(1) the need to classify and describe the respondents,

(2) suggestions of administrators who participated in

 

pilot testing, and (3) the competency items proposed in

a study by Minetti (1977). Eleven of Minetti's suggested
entry-level competencies (see Appendix B) were combined
with others or eliminated for brevity in the present
instrument.

Three pilot tests were conducted to refine suc-
cessive drafts of the survey instrument. During this
process, seven administrators with current selection
experience (five from Michigan State University and two
from Alma College) completed and critiqued the three
versions of the questionnaire. In addition, two admin—
istrators at Michigan State University with previous
selection experience, and one research consultant from
the University's College of Education, critiqued the
instrument.

In conducting these pilot tests, the investigator
met personally with each individual and presented a brief
overview of the study. Each reviewer was specifically
asked to look for: (l) biased questionnaire items which
might induce respondents to answer in particular ways;

(2) vague or misleading items, or ones containing terms

-—-~-———-———— .- - ___—4..-“.

121

needing definition; (3) multiple-choice items in which
the available response choices were not mutually exclu-
sive, or in which not all the logically probable responses
were included; and (4) any other items which, for any
reason, the reviewer felt needed rewriting. Immediately
after completion or review of the questionnaire, the
investigator again met with each reviewer to discuss
criticisms and suggestions for improvement of the instru—
ment. Some reviewers suggested additional questions; a
few of these were added in later drafts of the question-
naire.

Reviewers found the third and final draft of the
instrument clear, concise, and in keeping with the pur-
poses of the study. On the basis of these pilot studies,
face validity was claimed for the instrument.

The final 61-item questionnaire (Appendix A) was
typeset and offset printed. It contains items of various
types: open—ended, multiple choice, rating, and Likert
scales. The instructions ask respondents to answer in
reference to the selection process for a particular
position title appearing in the blank at the tOp of the
questionnaire. Items ask for data on the number of
positions and applicants, the selection experience of
the respondent, and some of the selection procedures used
in hiring for the named position. Respondent attitudes

are explored in several items. A major 36-item

122

questionnaire section asks respondents to use a five-
point scale to rate the actual importance of various

competencies in judging candidates for the named position.

Testable Hypotheses

 

The following null hypotheses were tested through

analysis of responses to the survey instrument:

Hol:

Respondents with different selection experience do
not differ significantly in their responses to atti-
tude items on the instrument.

HO1.1

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
an administrator's effectiveness in the art of
staff selection cannot be significantly improved
by the use of systematic and objective selection
procedures."

H01.2

Respondents with different selection experience

do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
staff selection can be done just as effectively
without any selection activities (i.e., recruit-
ing and interviewing) at professional conferences."

Hol.3.

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, “In my opinion,
the reputation of a candidate's graduate training
program was generally an important factor in
judging his/her qualifications for the position
named above."

 

123

H01.4‘

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their attitudes
toward the resumé as a selection tool.

H01.5‘

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their attitudes
toward the written reference as a selection tool.

H01.6:

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
references written individually for a particular
application are usually more credible than
references which come from a candidate's place-
ment file."

 

H02:
Respondents from different-sized institutions do not

differ significantly in their responses to attitude
items on the instrument.

H02.l:

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions

do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
an administrator's effectiveness in the art of
staff selection cannot be significantly improved
by the use of systematic and objective selection
procedures."

Ho2.2‘

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
staff selection can be done just as effectively
without any selection activities (i.e., recruit-
ing and interviewing) at professional conferences."

H03:

124

2.3'

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my Opinion,
the reputation of a candidate's graduate training
program was generally an important factor in
judging his/her qualifications for the position
named above."

H02.4:

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their attitudes toward
the resumé as a selection tool.

H02.5‘

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their attitudes toward
the written reference as a selection tool.

2.6‘

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
references written individually for a particular
application are usually more credible than
references which come from a candidate's place—
ment file."

 

There are no significant differences in entry-level
staff selection procedures in use at different-sized
institutions, as reported by the respondents.

3.1‘

 

There are no significant differences in the use
of application blanks at different-sized insti-
tutions.

125

H03.2:

 

There are no significant differences in the use
of job specifications (written descriptions of

required/desired candidate characteristics) for
positions at different-sized institutions.

H03.3‘

 

There are no significant differences in the levels
of detail included in job specifications for
positions at different-sized institutions.

HO

3.4

 

There are no significant differences in procedures
for making reference checks at different-sized
institutions.

3.5'

 

There are no significant differences in the pro-
cedures for conference selection interviews
(degree of interview structure, note-taking, or
prior review of candidate information) in use at
different—sized institutions.

3.6‘

 

There are no significant differences in the degree
of advance training given conference selection
interviewers at different-sized institutions.

There are no significant differences in selection pro-
cedures used in hiring professionals for different
types of entry-level positions (i.e., Head Resident/
Residence Staff, Residence Hall Programming, Campus
Activities, Administrative/Generalist, and Advising/
Counseling positions).

Ho4.1:

 

There are no significant differences in the use of
application blanks in selection for different
types of positions.

126

H04.2:

There are no significant differences in the use
of job specifications in selection for different
types of positions.

4.3'

 

There are no significant differences in the levels
of detail included in job specifications for dif-
ferent types of positions.

H04.4:

 

There are no significant differences in procedures
for making reference checks in selection for dif-
ferent types of positions.

1104.5:

 

There are no significant differences in the pro-
cedures for conference interviews (degree of
interview structure, note-taking, or prior review
of candidate information) in selection for dif-
ferent types of positions.

4.6'

 

There are no significant differences in the degree
of advance training given conference selection
interviewers concerned with different types of
positions.

H05:

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed to
the various entry—level competencies is independent

of the degree of experience in staff selection held
by the respondents. (Note: This hypothesis is repli-
cated over questionnaire items numbered 10 to 45.)

127

H06:

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed
to the various entry-level competencies is indepen—
dent of the type of position (i.e., Head Resident/
Residence Staff, Residence Hall Programming, Campus
Activities, Administrative/Generalist, or Advising/
Counseling) for which selection is being conducted.
(Note: This hypothesis is replicated over question—
naire items numbered 10 to 45.)

The Population and Sample

 

The population for this survey included all con-
tact persons whose names were printed in listings for
full-time, entry-level Student Personnel professional
positions available during the 1978 ACPA, NAWDAC, and
NASPA conferences. The investigator first wrote to all
three organizations and obtained complete placement list-
ings (pre-conference and supplementary). The next step
was to identify listings for entry-level positions and
separate them from the rest. In general, an entry-level
position was defined as one for which a candidate with a
newly conferred M.A. degree in Student Personnel (or
some related field) might compete successfully. Because
of variations in job titles and differences in the con-
tents of position listings, it was not immediately clear
in all cases whether or not a listed position should be
classified as entry-level. Moreover, the investigator
could locate no comprehensive definition of the term
"entry level" in the Student Personnel literature.

Accordingly, the following criteria were established

128

in order to fully define the entry-level position and to

distinguish listings for such positions to be included

in this study:

1. A listed position was always classified as

entry-level if:
a.

b.

the listing specified "entry-level," or
the listing specified that a master's
degree in College Student Personnel,
Counseling, or a related field would be
required or desired, and that one year or
less of related experience would be

required.

2. A listed position was always classified as

non-entry-level if:

a.

the listing specified that a doctoral
degree would be required or preferred, or
the listing specified a requirement for
more than one year's experience or for
"extensive experience," or

the listing stated that more than one
professional (master's-level) staff mem-
ber would be supervised by the person
hired, or

the listing required only a B.A. degree
and did not mention that the M.A. would

be desirable.

 

129

Not all listings could be definitely classified
as entry-level or non-entry—level by the above criteria.
In those cases, a number of other criteria were considered
jointly in reaching a decision. In general, it was indi-
cated that a listing should be included in the entry-level

population if:

1. the listing did not indicate that other pro-
fessionals would be supervised by the person to be hired,

and/or

2. the listed salary was low (under $12,000 for

twelve months--much lower in many cases), and/or

3. the institution was small in size and the
listed duties were relatively narrow in scope (i.e., small
number of residents in the hall or complex; small number

of groups advised; small population served), and/or

4. the position required living in a residence

hall, and/or

5. the listed duties did not include a major

policy-making role.

Finally, some classifications were made using

the position title as a criterion:

1. The following position titles were excluded
from the entry-level group unless there were clear indi-
cations that the position was entry-level: Vice President,

Dean, Director, and Associate/Assistant Dean/Director.

130

2. Residence Hall Directors were included in
the entry-level population, unless it was clear that only
a B.A. was desired. In the absence of a clear degree
specification, the desire for an M.A. was assumed and

the listing was included in the population.

3. Area Directors/Coordinators were excluded
from the entry-level group, unless there were clear indi-
cations that such positions were entry-level (i.e., low
salary, small area, no professionals supervised, and/or

listed as "entry-level").

4. Counseling positions were excluded from the
entry-level group in the absence of clear indications

that they were entry—level.

Using the foregoing criteria, all listings for
full-time entry-level professional positions were separ-
ated and filed alphabetically by state. All duplicates
were consolidated. Thirty—one listings were excluded
from the population because they lacked identifying
information (usually the name of a contact person).

In the above manner, a complete set of different
entry—level position openings, each including the name
of a contact person, was assembled. Careful examination
of this list showed that the positions could be cate-
gorized into five different types: 111 Head Resident/

Residence Staff positions, 14 Residence Hall Programming

   

 

 

131

positions, 23 Campus Activities positions, 25 Adminis—

trative/Generalist positions, and 6 Advising/Counseling
positions. A summary of the exact position titles for

each group is presented in Appendix E.

Head Resident/Residence Staff positions always

 

required living in a residence hall. Typical duties
included broad responsibility for the operation of a
single residence hall, often including Resident Assistant
selection and training, in-hall programming, student
counseling/advising, and disciplinary responsibilities.

Residence Hall Programming positions generally

 

involved living in a residence hall and operating that
hall. However, all of these positions were described as
including major responsibilities for educational, cul—
tural, social, recreational, student government, and/or
other programs for an area of two or more residence halls.
In a few of these cases the programming responsibilities
extended to the whole campus and/or to working in a stu-
dent union.

The Campus Activities positions focused on duties

 

in group advising, campus-wide programming, student union
work, and orientation. Only one of the 14 positions in
this group involved living in a residence hall. These
positions differed from the Residence Hall Programming

group in their focus on a campus-wide (resident and

132

nonresident) clientele. Six of the 14 listings in this
group specified advisement of Greek organizations as a
major duty.

The Administrative/Generalist positions were most

 

often titled "Assistant Dean" or "Assistant Director."

In many cases, these positions involved working in the
Dean of Students office or the Housing, Placement, or
Admissions offices. A few positions involved living in

a residence hall, but all of these specifically indicated
major generalist duties (often half-time) in some central
office. The distinguishing features of this group of
positions were that: (1) they carried some administrative
responsibilities, usually in a variety of areas; and

(2) their administrative roles involved some broad, campus-
wide concern. Despite their administrative nature, each
of these positions had been classified as entry—level by
the criteria discussed above; many position listings with
similar titles (but different descriptions) had been
excluded from the entry-level population.

The Advising/Counseling positions were mainly con—

 

cerned with individual student contacts involving guidance
and advisement. Group—process or outreach duties were
involved in some of these positions. Two of the six
positions involved special student support programs

(Upward Bound/Special Services programs).

133

One purpose of this study was to identify pos-
sible differences in selection procedures and criteria
for different kinds of positions. The Head Resident and
Residence Staff positions numbered 111, while no other
group numbered over 25. To preserve the full size of the
smaller groups for comparison purposes, all of the con-
tact persons in these groups were included in the study.
It was determined that a 50% random sample of the large
group would be ideal for the analysis within the investi-
gator's time and financial limitations. The Head Resident/
Residence Staff listings were assigned consecutive numbers
from 101 to 211; a table of random numbers was then used
to draw a simple random sample of 56 listings for inclu-
sion in the study. These listings, combined with the 68
listings from the other four groups, comprised the final

stratified sample of 124 listings.

Collection of Data

 

The questionnaire was mailed to the survey sample
on October 10, 1978, along with a transmittal letter
explaining the study (Appendix C) and a self-addressed
business reply envelope. On October 27, 1978, a follow-
up letter (Appendix D) was mailed to 38 persons who had
not yet responded. A personal contact was made with one
local nonrespondent in lieu of a followup letter. The
second mailing again included a questionnaire and a

return envelope. For both mailings, the title of the

134

related position was typed in at the top of each respon-
dent's questionnaire. Each questionnaire was given a
three-digit number for identification purposes. Respon-
dents were offered the option of receiving a detailed
summary of the study's findings.

By mid—November, 1978, all but 14 members of the
sample had returned usable responses. A member of the
researcher's Advisory Committee telephoned some of these
nonrespondents to request their participation. Additional
questionnaires were then mailed to sample members who

requested them in order to participate in the study.

Data Analysis

 

Data from the returned questionnaires were coded
and keypunched for computer analysis. Data analysis
techniques were performed on the Michigan State University
CDC 6500 computer, using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (Nie, Hall, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent,
1970). Descriptive data (frequencies and percentage fre—
quencies of response and, where applicable, means, stan-
dard deviations, and ranges) were compiled on all ques—
tionnaire items using subprogram Frequencies. Chi-square
tests of independence were computed for hypothesis testing
by the use of subprogram Crosstabs. For all hypothesis
testing, the .05 level of significance was adopted as a
criterion. It was concluded that a larger alpha level

(for example, .10) would have permitted too great a

135

probability of a Type I error, given the number of chi-
square tests to be done. On the other hand, a smaller
alpha level (for example, .01) would have been unneces-
sarily stringent for the type of conclusions to be drawn
here. Accordingly, the conventional .05 level was

selected.

Summary

The research methods and design of the study were
presented in Chapter III. This study was an effort to
explore some of the procedures and criteria used during
1978 in selecting entry—level College Student Personnel
professionals.

A mailed sample survey was used to collect the
data in October and November, 1978. Following a review
of selection literature, a questionnaire was developed
and locally pilot-tested. The questionnaire items were
mainly concerned with four kinds of content: (1) descrip-
tive information on the respondents and on the positions
for which they were selecting staff in 1978; (2) respon—
dent attitudes toward several selection—related issues;
(3) the staff selection procedures in use for entry-level
staff hiring in 1978; and (4) the importance of specific
competencies as selection criteria for particular entry-
level positions.

The questionnaire was mailed to a disproportionate

stratified sample of "contact persons" identified in

136

entry-level position listings from the 1978 ACPA, NAWDAC,
and NASPA conferences. Contact persons completed the
questionnaires with reference to particular positions
for which they had selected new staff in 1978. These
referent positions were classified into five types for
subsequent analysis.

Descriptive data were compiled on all items using
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
A number of hypotheses were specified and tested at the
.05 level, using the chi-square statistic.

Chapter IV will present the analysis of data col-

lected and analyzed through the above procedures.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

 

The data presented in this chapter were gathered
through a nationwide survey of College Student Personnel
administrators who had recent experience in staff selec—
tion and hiring. A mailed questionnaire was used to
collect data concerning the involvement of these admin-
istrators in selecting entry-level Student Personnel pro-

fessionals in 1978.

Purposes of the Study

 

The study had two major foci. The first was an
investigation and evaluation of the procedures currently
used in the selection of entry—level professional staff
in College Student Personnel. ("Entry-level professional
staff" were defined as those holding recent master's
degrees in Student Personnel or related fields but having
little or no post-master's experience in the field.) The
study's second major focus was the exploration of criteria

used by administrators in evaluating the competence of

137

138

candidates for entry-level professional Student Personnel
positions. More specifically, the purposes of the study

were:

1. To provide a detailed review of the theory
and research on staff selection, as found in the liter-
ature of Personnel Psychology. This review supplied
relevant information for Student Personnel administrators
wishing to improve their selection practices and to con-

duct staff training on selection methodology.

2. To describe the current use of a limited
number of specific selection procedures, as practiced in
1978 by Student Personnel administrators selecting staff
for entry—level professional positions. (This nationwide
investigation included all types of entry-level profes—
sional positions which were listed as available in the

1978 job market.)

3. To evaluate these procedures, as well as
certain attitudes of 1978 Student Personnel selectors,
in light of the literature reviewed from Personnel Psy-
chology. To suggest possible improvements in the cur-
rently prevailing practices for selecting entry-level

professional staff in College Student Personnel.

4. To explore possible differences in the use of
particular selection procedures at institutions of dif—

ferent size and among selectors of varying experience.

 

139

5. To explore possible differences in the use
of particular selection procedures to fill different types

of entry-level Student Personnel positions.

6. To identify the relative importance of various
competencies as criteria for the selection of entry~level
professional staff, as seen by administrators involved in

the 1978 Student Personnel selection process.

7. To explore possible differences in the impor-
tance ascribed to particular competencies for different

types of entry-level Student Personnel positions.

8. To explore possible differences in the impor-
tance ascribed to particular competencies by administra-

tors with differing levels of selection experience.

The survey population included all administrators
named as "contact persons" in job listings for full—time,
entry-level Student Personnel positions advertised during
the 1978 ACPA, NAWDAC, and NASPA conferences. Each
respondent answered questions concerning selection pro—
cedures and criteria in reference to a particular position
title. The particular title was taken from the position
listing and named on the questionnaire. These positions
were classified into five groups according to the type of
work involved. One subgroup (Head Resident/Residence
Staff positions) was larger than the rest; a 50% random

sample of this subgroup was included in the study. All

140

population members classified in the remaining position
types were included in the study.
The following is a report of the findings of the

study.

Analysis of the Respondents

 

Rates of Response to the
Survey

 

A total of 116 sample members returned usable
survey responses, an overall response rate of 93.5%. A
response breakdown by groups is shown in Table 4.1.
Response rates ranged from 78.6% (from contact persons
listing Residence Hall Programming positions) to 98.2%
(from contact persons listing Head Resident/Residence

Staff positions).

Table 4.1

Breakdown of Usable Survey Responses

 

 

Grou n in n of Percentage
p Sample Responses Response
Head Resident/
Residence Staff 56 55 98.2
Residence Hall
Programming 14 11 78.6
Campus
Activities 23 22 95.7
Administrative/
Generalist 25 23 92.0
Advising/
Counseling 6 5 83.3

Total Sample 124 116 93.5

 

141

Representativeness of Respondents:
Analysis of Four Relevant
Variables

 

 

Further analysis was undertaken to determine the
representativeness of sampled and respondent groups on
four variables: size (enrollment) of the institutions
listing positions; control or affiliation of these insti-
tutions; titles of the contact persons; and regional dis-

tribution. The Education Directory for Colleges and Uni-

 

versities, 1977—78 (Podolsky & Smith, 1978) provided data

 

on enrollment and control/affiliation. Titles of contact
persons were available from the listings. For regional
distribution, the NASPA regional breakdown was used:
Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont

Region II: Delaware, D.C., Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania

 

Region III: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, N. Carolina,
8. Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia

 

Region IVE: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, West Virginia,
Wisconsin

 

Region IVW: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico,
N. Dakota, Oklahoma, 8. Dakota,
Wyoming

 

Region V: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, Washington

Region VI: California, Hawaii

 

142

Since only the Head Resident/Residence Staff list-
ings had been sampled, they were analyzed separately from
the other listings. Analyses for the Head Resident/
Residence Staff listings are presented in Tables 4.2 to
4.5.

Table 4.2 illustrates that the respondents over-
represented the largest institutions by 5.5%, when com—
pared with the pOpulation. Though other minor deviations
occurred, none of these exceeded 4.7%. There was no clear
trend showing any important difference between the popu-
lation and the respondents in enrollment. Almost no dif-
ference was apparent in the enrollment distributions of

the sampled and responding institutions.

Table 4.2

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position Listings:
Distribution by Institutional Enrollment

 

 

(Percentage)
Enrollment Population S2321: Respgndents
(N—lll) _ (n—55)
(n—56)
0- 4,000 31.5 28.6 27.3
4,001- 8,000 17.1 21.4 21.8
8,001—12,000 16.2 12.5 12.7
12,001-16,000 8.1 10.7 10.9
16,001-20,000 15.3 10.7 10.9
20,001-24,000 4.5 3.6 3.6

Over 24,000 7.2 12.5 12.7

 

As Table 4.3 demonstrates,

is very similar to the population in its control

the respondent group

143

distribution. However, the respondents included 4.3%
fewer religious—affiliated institutions and 4.2% more
state institutions than did the population. As seen in
Table 4.4, the distribution by title of contact person
showed differences of 4% or less between the population
and the respondents in each category. Again, in both
Tables 4.3 and 4.4, the sample and the respondents are
nearly identical in their distributions on the variables.

When the population and respondent groups for
Head Resident/Residence Staff positions were compared
by region, the Midwest (Region IVE) was underrepresented
by 6%, while Region IVW was overrepresented by 4.7%.
Otherwise, the regional distribution of respondents
was similar to that of the pOpulation (see Table 4.5).
Again, the random sample and the respondents were simi-
larly distributed.

A comparison of population and respondent distri—
butions on these same four variables was computed for all
the remaining position listings taken together. These
breakdowns are presented in Tables 4.6 to 4.9.

Table 4.6 reveals that, for positions other than
Head Resident/Residence Staff, the respondents closely
followed the distribution of enrollments in the population.
In no category did the proportion of respondents differ
from that of the population by as much as 2%. In Table 4.7,

the distribution of these positions by institutional

 

 

 

143

distribution. However, the respondents included 4.3%
fewer religious-affiliated institutions and 4.2% more
state institutions than did the population. As seen in
Table 4.4, the distribution by title of contact person
showed differences of 4% or less between the population
and the respondents in each category. Again, in both
Tables 4.3 and 4.4, the sample and the respondents are
nearly identical in their distributions on the variables.

When the population and respondent groups for
Head Resident/Residence Staff positions were compared
by region, the Midwest (Region IVE) was underrepresented
by 6%, while Region IVW was overrepresented by 4.7%.
Otherwise, the regional distribution of respondents
was similar to that of the population (see Table 4.5).
Again, the random sample and the respondents were simi-
larly distributed.

A comparison of population and respondent distri-
butions on these same four variables was computed for all
the remaining position listings taken together. These
breakdowns are presented in Tables 4.6 to 4.9.

Table 4.6 reveals that, for positions other than
Head Resident/Residence Staff, the respondents closely
followed the distribution of enrollments in the population.
In no category did the proportion of respondents differ
from that of the pOpulation by as much as 2%. In Table 4.7,

the distribution of these positions by institutional

144

Table 4.3

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position Listings:
Distribution by Control/Affiliation

 

 

 

(Percentage)
Control/ Population Sggdiz Respondents
Affiliation (N=lll) _p (n=55)
(n—56)
State 61.3 64.3 65.5
Religious 20.7 , 16.1 16.4
Independent Nonprofit 12.6 J 16.1 a 14.5 9
State/Independent 4.5 5 3.6 2 3.6 7
State/Local 0.9 0 0
Table 4.4

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position Listings:
Distribution by Title of Contact Person

 

 

(Percentage)
. . Random
Title of Population Sam 1e Respondents
Contact Person (N=lll) _p (n=55)
(n-56)
Vice President or
Assistant V.P. 9.9 7.1 7 3
Director/Dean of Stu—
dents, Student Ser-
vices/Life 16.2 12.5 12.7
Associate/Assistant Dean 14.4 17.9 18.2
Director of Housing/
Residence Life 32.4 35 7 36.4
Associate/Assistant
Director of Housing 14.4 16.1 16.4
Area Director/Coordinator 4.5 5.4 5.5
Other Known Titles 5.4 3.6 1.8
Unknown 1.8 1.8 1.8

 

 

145

Table 4.5

Head Resident/Residence Staff Position Listings:
Distribution by Region (Percentage)

 

Random

 

 

NASPA Population Sample Respondents
Reglon (Nelll) (n=56) (n=55)
I 3.6 7.1 5.5
II 22.5 25.0 25.5
III 15.3 12.5 12.7
IVE 40.5 33.9 34.5
IVW 11.7 16.1 16.4
V 1.8 1.8 1.8
VI 4.5 3.6 3.6

Table 4.6

Listings for Positions Other than Head Resident/Residence
Staff: Distribution by Institutional Enrollment

 

 

(Percentage)
Population Respondents
Enrollment (N=68) (n=6l)
0- 4,000 52.9 52.5
4,001- 8,000 10.3 9.8
8,001-12,000 10.3 11.5
12,001-16,000 4.4 4.9
l6,001-20,000 5.9 4.9
20,001—24,000 10.3 9.8

Over 24,000 5.9 6.6

 

 

146

control/affiliation is presented. Several differences
between 2.0% and 2.5% occurred in comparing the population
with the respondents; however, these differences were

small in numbers.

Table 4.7

Listings for Positions Other Than Head Resident/Residence
Staff: Distribution by Control/Affiliation

 

 

 

(Percentage)

. . . Population Respondents
Control/Afflllatlon (N=68) (n=6l)
State 36.8 39.3
Religious 38.2 36.1
Independent Nonprofit 20.6 23.0
State/Independent 2.9 1.6
State/Local 1.5 0

 

As illustrated by the data in Table 4.8, the
titles of contact persons were distributed almost identi-
cally in the population and respondent groups for these
positions. The distribution of respondents by NASPA
region likewise followed that of the population quite
closely (Table 4.9).

Based on the analyses presented in Tables 4.2 to
4.9, it was concluded that the data collected could be
considered representative of the population on the four
variables examined. The small variations in the distri-
butions of the four variables for the Head Resident/

Residence Staff group were largely due to the random

147

Table 4.8

Listings for Positions Other than Head Resident/Residence
Staff: Distribution by Title of Contact Person

 

 

 

(Percentage)
Title of Population Respondents
Contact Person (N=68) (n=6l)
Vice President or

Assistant V.P. 5.9 6.6
Director/Dean of Students,

Student Services/Life 36.8 36.1
Associate/Assistant Dean 16.2 16.4
Director of Housing/

Residence Life 10.3 11.5
Associate/Assistant

Director of Housing 0 0
Area Director/Coordinator 4.4 3.3
Other Known Titles 22.1 21.3
Unknown 4.4 4.9

Table 4.9

Listings for Positions Other than Head Resident/Residence
Staff: Distribution by Region (Percentage)

 

 

NASPA Population Respondents
Region (N=68) (n=61)
I 4.4 4.9
II 10.3 9.8
III 27.9 27.9
IVE 41.2 41.0
IVW 4.4 3.3
V 8.8 9.8
VI 2.9 3.3

 

148

sampling procedure rather than to an identifiable bias in
the pattern of responses. A slight overrepresentation
of respondents from state institutions and a slight under—
representation of religious-affiliated institutions was
noted; however, these variations were small in numbers.

Respondent Experience and Role
in Selection

 

 

Respondents were asked the number of years they

had "personally been involved in staff selection for at

 

least one full-time professional Student Personnel
position." They reported having a mean of 7.3 years'
experience in selection, with a standard deviation of

5.0 years. As the data in Table 4.10 indicate, the range
of experience was from one to 30 years, with a mode of
four years. Fifty-seven and seven-tenths percent of the
respondents had between three and seven years of selection
experience.

Respondents reported acquiring this experience at
relatively few different institutions (see Table 4.11).
Most had been involved in selection at three institutions
or fewer, with a mean of 1.8 and a standard deviation of
1.0.

A majority of the respondents (56.6%) shared
authority to make hiring decisions, while about one-third
(34.8%) had sole authority to hire for the named entry-

level positions. Final hiring decisions were made by the

4:21“. W" "

 

149

Table 4.10

Number of Years of Selection Experience Reported
by the Respondents

 

 

Number Number Indicating Percentage
of Each Indicating
Years Response Each Response
1 l 0.9
2 8 7.0
3 10 8.7
4 18 15.7
5 16 13.9
6 11 9.6
7 12 10.4
8 6 5.2
9 6 5.2
10 9 7.8
11 2 1.7
12 4 3.5
13 0 O
14 2 1.7
15 3 2.6
Over 15 7 6.3
(Maximum: 30)

 

Table 4.11

Number of Institutions at Which Respondents
Acquired Their Selection Experience

 

 

Number Number Indicating Percentage
of Each Indicating
Years Response Each Response
1 51 44.0
2 42 36.2
3 19 16.4
4 2 1.7
6 l 0.9
7 1 0.9

 

150

institution's President in nine (7.8%) of the cases, and
by a Student Personnel Vice President in 10 (8.6%) of
the cases. Deans made final hiring decisions in 28 of
the cases (24.1%).

In those instances where respondents reported
sharing authority to hire, authority was most often
shared with a superior or with a staff group. Such
groups varied greatly in their composition, and no pre—
dominant patterns were identified. However, formal
search committees were relatively unusual for the group

of entry-level positions studied.

Respondent Attitudes

 

Four questionnaire items asked respondents to
indicate their personal agreement or disagreement with
attitude statements (see Table 4.12). Very few respon-
dents agreed that selection effectiveness could ngt be
improved by using "systematic and objective selection
procedures" (statement 1). Just over three-fourths of
the respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
second statement, which indicates that most believe in
the value of selection activities at professional con-
ferences. However, in evaluating this finding, it must
be noted that all the administrators sampled made some
use of conference placement services.

It appears that the reputation of a candidate's

graduate training program may affect how that person is

151

Table 4.12

Responses to Four Attitude Statements

 

Statement

Response (Percentage)

 

t 1 'th .
S rong y Agree Nel er Disagree Strongly
Agree A nor D Dlsagree

 

1. In my opinion, an ad—
ministrator's effective—
ness in the art of staff
selection cannot be sig—
nificantly improved by
the use of systematic and
objective selection
procedures

2. In my opinion, staff
selection can be done
just as effectively with—
out any selection activ—
ities (i.e., recruiting
and interviewing) at pro—
fessional conferences

 

3. In my opinion, the
reputation of a candi-
date's graduate training
program was generally an
important factor in judg—
ing his/her qualifications
for the position named
above

4. In my opinion, refer—
ences written individu-
ally for a particular
application are usually
more credible than
references which come
from a candidate's place-
ment file

 

0.9 6.9 6.9 64.7 20.7

7.9 40.4 18.4 28.9 4.4

19.8 44.0 24.1 11.2 0.9

 

 

152

evaluated by employers, in many cases. In statement 3,
7.9% strongly agreed and 40.4% agreed that the reputation
of a training program was "generally an important factor"
in judging candidate qualifications for particular entry—
1eve1 positions.

Individually written references were seen as more
credible than those coming from placement files by a total
of 63.8% of the respondents.

Two questionnaire items asked for respondents'
personal attitudes toward the resumé and the written
reference as selection tools (see Tables 4.13 and 4.14).

Most respondents see the resumé only as a pre—
liminary indicator of some candidate qualifications.
However, 11.2% apparently have considerable faith in the
validity and reliability of the resumé as a selection
tool.

The most frequent response concerning references
indicates that many responding employers (45.2%) assume
references to be valid and reliable unless there is some
reason to doubt the writer (Table 4.14). Over one—third
see the reference only as a source of preliminary indi-
cations about some candidate information. Very few (13%)
believe that references are a source of much valid and

reliable candidate information.

153

Table 4.13

Respondent Attitudes toward the Resume as a Selection Tool

 

Percentage Indicating

Res onse Ch ' e .
P 01C Each Response Ch01ce

 

The resume provides a great deal of valid and
reliable information about candidates'
qualifications 11.2

The resumé is valid only in giving prelimi—
nary indications about some of the qualifi-
cations of candidates 87.1

The resume is generally unreliable and invalid,
permitting only gross discriminations concern-
ing candidates' qualifications 1.7

 

Table 4.14

Respondent Attitudes toward the Written Reference
as a Selection Tool

 

Percentage Indicating

Res onse Choice ,
p Each Response Ch01ce

 

References provide a great deal of valid and
reliable information about a candidate 13.0

References are valid/reliable only in giv-
ing preliminary indications about some

candidate information 36.5

References generally are valid/reliable, but
may not be, depending on the writer 45.2

References generally are not valid/reliable,
but may be, depending on the writer 3.5

Other 1.7

 

154

Results of Hypothesis Testing:
Respondent Attitudes

 

 

The first general null hypothesis (Hol) led to
six more specific hypotheses concerning possible relation-
ships between the experience of the respondents and their

answers to the six attitude items discussed above.

H01:

Respondents with different selection experience do
not differ significantly in their responses to atti—
tude items on the instrument.

HO

1.1

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
an administrator's effectiveness in the art of
staff selection cannot be significantly improved
by the use of systematic and objective selection
procedures."

H01.2:

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
staff selection can be done just as effectively
without any selection activities (i.e., recruit-
ing and interviewing) at professional conferences."

1.3'

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
the reputation of a candidate's graduate training
program was generally an important factor in
judging his/her qualifications for the position
named above."

155

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their attitudes
toward the resume as a selection tool.

1.5°

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their attitudes
toward the written reference as a selection tool.

1.6:

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
references written individually for a particular
application are usually more credible than refer-
ences which come from a candidate's placement
file."

 

 

Each of the specific null hypotheses (H01.1 to
Hol 6) was tested using a chi-square contingency table,
with respondent experience level as the row variable and
response to the attitude question as the column variable.
The experience factor was defined in two different ways:
(1) years of experience, separated into low- and high-
experience categories by dividing at the median of six
years; and (2) number of schools at which the respondent
acquired selection experience, divided into those with
experience at one school and those with experience at
more than one school.

None of the resulting chi-square values was sig-

nificant at the .05 level, with only one exception. This

exception involved a significant relationship between

134;

156

responses to one attitude item (Ho ) and the number of

1.2
institutions at which respondents acquired selection
experience. In all other cases, the null hypotheses
were not rejected. No significant relationships were
identified between the experience of respondents,
measured in years, and the responses on any of the six
attitude questions.

Table 4.15 illustrates the single significant

relationship found in testing Ho As the row percent-

1’
ages illustrate, respondents with selection experience
at more than one institution showed somewhat more agree-
ment and less ambivalence than did those with experience
at only one institution. Despite the statistically sig—
nificant relationship shown here, it is probably more
important to note the high level of disagreement with
the statement by both groups. Majorities in both groups
appear to endorse the value of conference recruiting and
interviewing.

A second general null hypothesis (H02), and six
specific null hypotheses, explored possible relationships

between attitude responses and the size of the institutions

from which they came.

HO2
Respondents from different-sized institutions do not

differ significantly in their responses to attitude
items on the instrument.

157

Table 4.15

Relationship between the Number of Schools at Which
Respondents Acquired Selection Experience and
Responses on One Attitude Item (Hol.2)

 

Percentage Response to the statement,
"In my opinion, staff selection can be
done just as effectively without any

 

 

Experience selection activities (i.e., recruiting
Acquired and interviewing) at professional con-
At ferences."
Strongly Neither Agree Dlsagree/
Agree/ . Strongly
Nor Dlsagree .
Agree Disagree
One Institution 3.9 13.7 82.4
More than One
Institution 20.0 6.2 73.8

 

Chi—square = 7.707; df = 2; Significant at .021
level.

HO2.1

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis—
agreement with the statement, "In my opinion, an
administrator's effectiveness in the art of staff
selection cannot be significantly improved by the
use of systematic and objective selection pro-
cedures."

HO2.2

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis—
agreement with the statement, "In my opinion, staff
selection can be done just as effectively without
any selection activities (i.e., recruiting and
interviewing) at professional conferences."

158

H02.3:

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis—
agreement with the statement, "In my opinion, the
reputation of a candidate's graduate training
program was generally an important factor in
judging his/her qualifications for the position
named above."

H02.4:

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their attitudes
toward the resumé as a selection tool.

H02.5:

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their attitudes toward
the written reference as a selection tool.

H02.6:

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis—
agreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
references written individually for a particular
application are usually more credible than
references which come from a candidate's place—
ment file."

 

In testing these hypotheses, respondents were
classified into four groups representing institutions of
varying sizes (as measured by enrollment). Chi-square
contingency tables were established for each of the six
specific hypotheses. None of these tests produced a chi-
square value significant at the .05 level; thus, the data
failed to reject any of the null hypotheses. This method
identified no significant differences in the attitudes of
administrators from different-sized institutions, as

measured by the six attitude items.

159

Selection Ratios

 

One questionnaire item asked for the number of
positions available having the named title; another item
sought the number of applicants for each position. Using
these data, comparative information on selection ratios
for different position types was computed (see Table 4.16).
The mean number of applicants per position ranged from
21.8 (for Head Resident/Residence Staff positions) to
51.0 (for Administrative/Generalist positions). A sep-
arate analysis of all live—in positions, regardless of
type, shows that about half as many persons applied for
these when compared with positions not involving residence

hall living.

Table 4.16

Selection Ratios for Different Position Types

 

Mean Number of Percentage of

Position Applicants Per Applicants
Type Available Who Could
Position Be Hired

 

Head Resident/Residence

Staff 21.8 4 6
Residence Hall Programming 31.5 3.2
Campus Activities 46.4 2.2
Administrative/Generalist 51.0 2.0
Advising/Counseling 44.4 2.3
All Live-In Positions 24.1 4 1
A11 Live-Out Positions 49.2 2 0

 

As shown in Table 4.16, employers needed to hire
only 2.0 to 4.6% of the applicants, depending on position

type. This favorable selection ratio appears to satisfy

160

one of Haire's (1956) conditions for effective selection
(see pp. l7-18 of this report for a full discussion of
Haire's argument). According to Haire, when the selection
ratio is favorable, and when candidates vary in ability
and valid predictors are available, a systematic selection
process can be effective. This finding concerning selec-
tion ratios helps to support the need for a critical look
at entry—level selection procedures in College Student

Personnel.

Selection Procedures Reported in Use

 

Descriptive Findings

 

This section presents the results of the study
concerning selection procedures used in 1978 entry-level
staff selection. For each procedure, the findings relat—
ing to selection for Head Resident/Residence Staff
positions are presented separately from those relating
to the remaining position types. This is necessary
because the former represents a randomly sampled homo—
geneous reference group, while the latter represents a
heterogeneous group including all population elements.

Virtually all respondents (just over 98% in both
groups) reported having written job descriptions for the
named entry-level positions. In almost all cases (96.4%
of the residence group; 98.3% of the others), a review of
the job description was conducted in preparation for

hiring. Almost three—fourths of the respondents (71.7%

161

for the residence group; 68.9% for the others) reported
having a written specification of the characteristics
and/or competencies needed by incumbents of the named
entry—level positions. These specifications could be
part of a job description or might be available in
separate documents. Of those respondents having written
specifications of candidate characteristics, most include
only essential and/or desired candidate characteristics
(see Table 4.17). It appears that very few job specifi—
cations include not only essential and desired character-
istics but also undesirable and/or disqualifying character-
istics. Thus, the reported job specifications may not be

as detailed as recommended in the literature.

 

 

Table 4.17
Characteristics Included in Written Job Specifications
(Percentage)
Job Specifications Job
Characteristics For Head Resident/ Specifications
Included Residence Staff For Other
Positions Positions
Essential Character-
istics Only 13.5 7.3
Desired Character-
istics Only 43.2 19.5
Essential and Desired
Characteristics 37.8 65.9
Undesirable Character-
istics Only 2.7 0

Essential, Desired,

and Undesirable

Characteristics 0 4.9
Essential, Desired,

Undesirable, and

Disqualifying

Characteristics 0 2.4

 

162

A specific application blank was used in hiring
for 23.6% of the residence positions and for only 11.5%
of the other positions. Almost no employers used any
standardized tests as selection tools. The only exception

was one state university which used the Myers-Briggs Type

 

Indicator in evaluating candidates for a Graduate Resident

 

Advisor position.

Responses indicate that it is common practice for
selectors to contact some writer(s) of references/recom-
mendations for those candidates under serious consider—
ation (see Table 4.18). Some contact with references
was reported by over 95% of the respondents selecting
residence staff and by 90% of those selecting for other
position types. Moreover, 58.2% of the residence respon-
dents and 46.7% in the other group reported contacting
some reference(s) get listed as such by candidates. About
one-half the respondents in each group reported contact-
ing at least one reference for all serious candidates.

A series of items asked for information about
selection interviewing at professional conferences.
Forty-nine of the residence respondents (89.1%) and 47
of the other respondents (77.0%) indicated that they had
conducted some conference interviewing as part of their
selection processes. The responses to the remaining
interview questions are all based on those who did use

the procedure. It should be noted that the high

163

Table 4.18

Practices Related to Employer Contacts with the
Writers of References (Percentages)

 

Carried Out

In Reference to Carried Out

In Reference

 

Practice Head Resident/
Residence Staff Pgsitggis
Positions

No personal contact with

reference writers 5.5 10.0
Only references listed by

candidate were contacted 36.4 43.3
In some case(s), people not

listed as references were

contacted 58.2 46.7
Of those who make reference

contacts:

At least one reference is

always contacted 46.9 53.1
At least one reference is

contacted in the majority

of cases 32.7 32.7
At least one reference is

contacted in a minority

of cases 20.4 14.3

 

164

proportions of respondents conducting conference inter-
views were predictable because the sample represents only
those employers using conference placement services to
list positions.

Responses indicated that conference selection
interviews were not highly structured, although a few
more structured interviews were reported by respondents
hiring residence staff than by those hiring for other
positions. Only three of the residence respondents (6.3%)
used detailed lists of questions to guide conference
interviews; none in the other group reported doing so.
Eight of the residence respondents (16.7%) and four in
the other group (8.5%) reported using a written interview
guide. Majorities in both groups (66.7% in the residence
group; 74.5% of the others) indicated that, "Though no
written guide was used, interviewer(s) developed, in
advance, a clear understanding of the areas to be covered
in all interviews." Interviews were reported as being 22’
structured by 10.4% of the residence group and by 17.0%
of the others.

Respondents were asked, "How many different staff

 

members conducted at least one conference interview in
1978 for the named position title?" Responses to this
item are shown in Table 4.19. Although about half the
respondents in each group reported interviews by only one

or two different persons, a significant number of

165

employers used multiple interviewers. This was slightly
more true of those hiring for residence positions; they
reported a mean of 3.22 interviewers, as compared with
2.40 for the other group. In the residence group, 23.8%
of the respondents reported more than four persons inter-

viewing; 6.6% of the other group reported more than four.

Table 4.19

Number of Different Staff Conducting at Least
One Conference Selection Interview

 

Number For Head Resident/Residence For Other Positions

 

 

 

 

of Staff Positions (n=46) (n=45)

Staff
Number (Percentage) Number (Percentage)

1 14 (30.4) 17 (37.8)

2 10 (21.7) 12 (26.7)

3 7 (15.2) 7 (15.6)

4 4 ( 8.7) 6 (13.3)

5 2 ( 4.3) l ( 2.2)

6 3 ( 6.5) 1 ( 2.2)

7 2 ( 4.3) O 0

8 3 ( 6.5) 0 0
Over 8 l ( 2.2) l ( 2.2)

Note. Head Resident/Regidence Staff: i = 3.22,

S.D. = 2.47; Other Positions: X = 2.40, S.D. = 1.83.

Despite the number of institutions having multiple
selection interviewers, very little formal or detailed
interviewer training was reported by the respondents.
Almost half (45.7%) of the residence respondents, and
71.7% of the others, reported that g9 training was
offered to prepare staff to conduct conference selection

interviews. Brief and informal training was reported by

166

47.9% in the residence group and by 26.1% of the others.
Fairly detailed and/or formal interviewer training was
conducted by only three (6.3%) of the residence respon-
dents and by only one (2.2%) in the other group.

Almost all respondents (95.9% in the residence
group and 95.7% of the others) reported taking notes at
conference selection interviews for the named positions.
However, only 37.5% in the residence group and only 20.0%
of the others used established rating forms for note-
taking. Majorities in both groups took notes only gftgg
each interview (71.1% in the residence group and 56.8%
in the other group). Another 22.2% in the residence group
and 36.4% in the other group took notes both during and
after conference interviews. A few (6.7 and 6.8%,
respectively) reported taking notes only during con-
ference selection interviews.

The majority of interviewers reviewed written
candidate information (i.e., resumés, correspondence, or
possibly application blanks) just before conference
interviews (63.0% in the residence group and 51.1% of
the others). About a third of the interviewers (28.3%
and 31.9%, respectively) reviewed written information
well before interviews. Only 8.7% of the residence
respondents and 14.9% of the others reported waiting
until conference interviews were under way to read

written information on candidates. One nonresidence

167

respondent indicated that no written information was

reviewed before or during conference selection interviews.
At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were

asked, "Do you use any selection techniques you feel are

particularly useful to you? If so, would you briefly

 

describe them?" In the space provided, 32 of the 116
respondents (27.6%) wrote brief comments. Seven of these
endorsed the value of including students and faculty in
candidate screening and interviewing. Five wrote that
the telephone can be used effectively for reference
checks and/or telephone interviews. One of these con-
ducted conference calls, using a microphone, to enable a
screening committee to choose three of 12 candidates for
on—campus interviews. Three respondents noted the value
of informal interviewing in relaxed settings. Three
noted the importance of giving information to candidates
about the job and institution. Finally, two respondents
wrote that personal referrals and references from trusted
colleagues are especially valuable. The written comments
are presented fully in Appendix F.

Results of Hypothesis Testing:

Selection Procedures
Reported in Use

 

 

 

Two general null hypotheses were tested, each in
relation to six specific selection procedures. The first
(H03) explored possible relationships between the size of
the responding institution and the use of six selection

procedures.

167

respondent indicated that no written information was

reviewed before or during conference selection interviews.
At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were

asked, "Do you use any selection techniques you feel are

particularly useful to you? If so, would you briefly

 

describe them?" In the space provided, 32 of the 116
respondents (27.6%) wrote brief comments. Seven of these
endorsed the value of including students and faculty in
candidate screening and interviewing. Five wrote that
the telephone can be used effectively for reference
checks and/or telephone interviews. One of these con-
ducted conference calls, using a microphone, to enable a
screening committee to choose three of 12 candidates for
on—campus interviews. Three respondents noted the value
of informal interviewing in relaxed settings. Three
noted the importance of giving information to candidates
about the job and institution. Finally, two respondents
wrote that personal referrals and references from trusted
colleagues are especially valuable. The written comments
are presented fully in Appendix F.

Results of Hypothesis Testing:

Selection Procedures
Reported in Use

 

 

 

Two general null hypotheses were tested, each in
relation to six specific selection procedures. The first
(H03) explored possible relationships between the size of
the responding institution and the use of six selection

procedures.

168

H03:

There are no significant differences in entry-level
staff selection procedures in use at different-

sized institutions, as reported by the respondents.

H03.1‘

There are no significant differences in the use
of application blanks at different-sized insti—
tutions.

H03.2‘

There are no significant differences in the use
of job specifications (written descriptions of

required/desired candidate characteristics) for
positions at different-sized institutions.

H03.3:

There are no significant differences in the levels
of detail included in job specifications for
positions at different-sized institutions.

There are no significant differences in procedures
for making reference checks at different-sized
institutions.

H03.5:

There are no significant differences in the pro-
cedures for conference selection interviews (degree
of interview structure, note-taking, or prior
review of candidate information) in use at dif-
ferent—sized institutions.

H03.6

There are no significant differences in the degree
of advance training given conference selection
interviewers at different—sized institutions.

168

H03:

There are no significant differences in entry-level
staff selection procedures in use at different-

sized institutions, as reported by the respondents.

H03.l:

There are no significant differences in the use
of application blanks at different-sized insti-
tutions.

H03.2‘

There are no significant differences in the use
of job specifications (written descriptions of
required/desired candidate characteristics) for
positions at different-sized institutions.

HO

3.3‘

 

There are no significant differences in the levels
of detail included in job specifications for
positions at different-sized institutions.

H03.4‘

There are no significant differences in procedures
for making reference checks at different-sized
institutions.

HO3.5

There are no significant differences in the pro—
cedures for conference selection interviews (degree
of interview structure, note—taking, or prior
review of candidate information) in use at dif-
ferent—sized institutions.

H03.6:

There are no significant differences in the degree
of advance training given conference selection
interviewers at different—sized institutions.

 

169

Each of the six null hypotheses (Ho to Ho

3.1 3.6)
was tested using a chi-square contingency table, with
institution size (expressed in four enrollment categories)
as the row variable and response to the procedural item
as the column variable. For the first four null hypothe-
ses, no chi-square value reached significance at the .05
level; thus, none of these four null hypotheses (H03.l to
H03.4) was rejected.

No significant differences were found between
different-sized institutions (1) on the degree of con—
ference interview structure, (2) on when notes were taken,
or (3) on prior review of candidate information (H03.5).
However, there was a significant relationship between
institution size and the use of an established rating
form for note-taking. As Table 4.20 shows, the larger
institutions were significantly more likely to use an
established rating form than were smaller institutions.
In the smallest size category (representing 76.9% of
the private colleges in the sample), 87.1% of the
respondents had no established rating form. In the
largest category, on the other hand, 65.2% of the respon—
dents used a rating form during conference interviews.
The latter group was comprised entirely of state insti-
tutions (mostly universities). The intermediate size

categories responded similarly to the smallest group.

Thus, prevalence of rating forms in the largest

170

institutions, compared with the relative rarity of such
forms in the other size categories, probably accounts

for the significant result.

Table 4.20

Relationship between Institution Size and Use of an
Established Rating Form during Conference
Selection Interviews

 

 

Enrollment Established . Established
Category Ratlng Form Used Rating Form Not Used
(Percentage) (Percentage)
0- 2,500 12.9 87.1
2,501- 7,500 19.0 81.0
7,501-15,000 22.2 77.8
Over 15,000 65.2 34.8

 

Chi-square = 19.952; df = 3; Significant at .0002

level.

A significant relationship was found between
institution size and the use of pre-conference staff
training in selection interview techniques (see Table 4.21).
Whereas 78.1% of the respondents from the smallest insti-
tutions reported no interviewer training, 66.7% of the
largest institutions conducted some training (either brief
and informal or formal training). The use of interviewer
training is more prevalent with each increase in enrollment
category. Based on this analysis, H03.6 was rejected.

Another general null hypothesis (H04) concerned
the possible relationships between the type of position

involved and the same six selection procedures.

171

Table 4.21

Relationship between Institution Size and
Pre-Conference Interviewer Training

 

 

Training Was No Training
E2::::§:;t Conducted Was Conducted
(Percentage) (Percentage)
0- 2,500 21.9 78.1
2,501- 7,500 33.3 66.7
7,501-15,000 52.9 47.1
Over 15,000 66.7 . 33.3

 

HO

Chi-square = 12.832; df = 3; Significant at .005
level.

There are no significant differences in selection
procedures used in hiring professionals for dif-
ferent types of entry-level positions (i.e., Head
Resident/Residence Staff, Residence Hall Program—
ming, Campus Activities, Administrative/Generalist,
and Advising/Counseling positions).

H04.1:

 

There are no significant differences in the use
of application blanks in selection for different
types of positions.

H04.2:

 

There are no significant differences in the use
of job specifications in selection for different
types of positions.

H04.3‘

 

There are no significant differences in the levels
of detail included in job specifications for dif-
ferent types of positions.

172

H04.4‘

 

There are no significant differences in procedures
for making reference checks in selection for dif—
ferent types of positions.

H04.5:

 

There are no significant differences in the pro-
cedures for conference interviews (degree of
interview structure, note-taking, or prior review
of candidate information) in selection for dif-
ferent types of positions.

4.6‘

 

There are no significant differences in the degree
of advance training given conference selection
interviewers concerned with different types of
positions.

Each of the six sub-hypotheses (H04.1 to H04.6)
was tested using a chi—square contingency table. None of
these tests produced a chi—square value significant at
the .05 level; thus, the data failed to reject any of
these six null hypotheses.

Importance of Specific Competencies as
Entry—Level Selection Criteria

 

 

Descriptive Findings

 

Each respondent was asked to rate the importance
of 36 specific competencies as criteria used in selecting
the best candidate for a particular 1978 position. The
list of competencies used in the questionnaire was derived
from a typology developed by Minetti (1977). Appendix B
gives Minetti's list in full; for purposes of the present

study, 10 of his items were collapsed or deleted.

173

The key question put to respondents was, "In

selecting the best candidate for the position named on

the questionnaire, how important was each of the compe-

tencies

listed, in your opinion?" Respondents rated

each competency for importance by using the following

rating scale:

1:

ratings

Absolutely Essential: A candidate had to have

 

this competency to be considered.

Very Important: This competency is used often

 

and/or is important in the referenced job; a
candidate without it was at a disadvantage in

selection.

Moderately Important: This competency would be

 

used occasionally and/or is desirable in the job;
the competency helped in differentiating between

candidates in many cases.

Of Minor Importance: This competency might be

 

used infrequently in the job; it was only a

minor factor in selection in some cases.

Of No Importance: This competency is unimportant

 

in the job; it was not a factor in judging can—
didates.

Table 4.22 presents the distribution of importance

given each competency by the respondents. Again,

the percentages relating to Head Resident/Residence Staff

174

 

 

 

m.v o.a m.a o.ma o.aa sm.a o
o m.oa m.oa H.aa a.am ao.m m mmsouo mma>6<
o m.m m.aa o.ma H.6m mm.a o mmsoum 62m
0 m.m o.m a.ma m.av ms.a m mamswa>aeca cmmzumn maoaaucoo mumawmz
o a.v m.m m.ma o.ma aa.a o

m.H m.a m.a o.mv m.mv He.a m mcaxme-:0amaome w>auomuum ca mommcm

o.a m.m m.m a.am m.ea as.a o

m.a o.m o M.Aa m.aa oo.a m mummumuca 6cm mama: namwsum mammm<
o m.v o.a H.6m a.am am.a o

m.a o.m o.m m.mm a.mm am.a m maaaxm mabmumpmma mmammao

o.a m.m o.a a.am a.mm am.a o mamsca>acca mo

m.m o o 0.0m m.aa Na.a m magma meaz m Baas sam>auommmm xuoz

maaaxm

m.m ©.H o ©.vm m.o> mv.a O COHDMOHchEoo paw mcoHDMHmH HMGOm

o.m m.a o.m 0.0m a.oa aa.a m -ummuwuaa 66d0am>mcuaamg ummmacmz

m.m o.a o.a o.mm m.oa aa.a o

m.m o m.a a.ma o.ow mm.a m mumnuo Haas sam>auaummooo xuoz

ammmaa ”WHOM”. .MHMM”... ...mwm... .mmmww an...
. m w>m DOmOMHCMOO
cows

mafipmm zoom mcfl>flw mucmpcommmm mo momwcmouwm

mocmumeou

 

mwaocmuwmeou mzu mo mmcflumm mocmunomEH

NN.¢ OHQMB

175

 

 

 

o.a m.HH m.©m H.0m o.vm Om.m mcHHmmcsoo msoum
m.H m.m H.mm H.0v m.vH Hm.m 0cm Hm5©H>HUCA CH wocmuwmfioo mmamwflo
m.HH m.Hm m.va m.©m N.om oo.m mmmum mum
m.m o.m m.oa m.om H.mv ow.a Inam>o pcm .omfl>uwmsm .GHMHD .uomamm
o 0.0 m.om m.vv o.mm ©H.N moaufluocaa HMHOMH paw oflgcum mo mpmm:
m.a s.mH o.mm o.mq m.ma om.m Hmaommm any umadumuca cam muacmoomm
mucmpsum op mcoauma
m.m o.m w.vm m.mm m.mm mH.m Ismom msmemo Hmnuo map mo meHQoum
m.a a.ma m.mm m.qm m.mm Hm.m 6cm .mamom .mcumocoo mnu umudumucH
o m.w m.am 6.4N a.am wo.m macaumasmom madame
o 0.0H m.mm m.vm H.mm wH.N Hmnuo Op mcuoocoo pampsum pcmmwummm
o m.@ e.ma m.mm m.mm mo.m
o m.m ©.mm m.mv m.mm mo.m moHEmc>p msoum mumsam>m paw muflcmoomm
moflufl>fluom
m.v m.m o.mm H.Hm n.>m mo.m pcm mEmumoum Haasofluusonoo amsoung
@.m m.H m.oa m.mm m.mm oo.m momma Hmucmemoao>wp ucmpsum poms
@.H m.m o.mH w.om m.©m mo.m moanum pcm mpumpcmum Hmcoam
o.m m.m m.va o.ov v.0m oo.m Immmoum mNHHmcuoucH paw mumaomummé
mocmuuomEH oesopuomEH ucmuuomEH ucmuuomEH amaucwmmm "on muflaanm
oz mo Hose: mo mamumumpoz >Hm> >HmuDHOmQ< .
m w m N H mcaumm map m>mz pasogm mumpflpcmo m£B
cmmz

mcflumm Somm mcH>HD mucmpcommmm mo mmmucmommm hocmgmmfiou

 

Apmscaucoov mm.¢ magma

176

 

6.0 m.om H.Hm m.am m.qa mm.m mmanaaaomm
o m.mm m.HN m.Hv m.oH mo.m paw mmouSOmmu Havammnm woman:
m.v 6.6 m.mm H.6m H.ma am.m unmwsum mmwaaoo cmoaumsa
o.m m.va m.vm o.mm o.mm Hm.m och mo moaumaumuomumno mnu mamasoauua
o 6.6 N.om m.aq s.ma om.m has: no ucmsuummmc mg»
m.m m.h m.av o.o¢ m.m >©.m cflnpflz mcflccmHm oeumfimumhm ca mommgm
o.H 6.6 m.am m.mv o.ma mm.m
m.a m.oa m.4m 4.6m v.6H oa.m soaaom umamumuca 6cm mumH52uom
o m.v m.Hm m.sv m.om mo.m
o H.@ m.aa o.ov H.a Hm.m memamoam mumsam>m
xuo3
m.m w.m H.Hm o.Hv m.va ov.m amusemumd pcmcsum mo mcoapocsm cmua
m.a m.m H.0N 0.0m h.mH mm.m lamaommm onu pcmumumpcs paw wumaomummm
o.a m.aa o.mm a.am m.om mm.m moauomam can
0 m.va m.mm o.mv a.oa mm.m xaomnu cmozpmn smasmcauman
H.ma o.mm s.ma o.mm m.am vm.~ homecoomas ucmcsum mo mcaad
o.m m.H m.e m.aa o.ov mm.H -aomac m>auommmm 6cm uamm euomumm
immamas .wwwam. ..mmmam... ...mmms ..mwm: 3:...
mm m m H m U m H Ha Dd mcapmm on» m>ms pasosm mumpflpcmo one
cow:

 

mcflumm £08m mcH>HU mucmpcommmm mo momucmouom

 

wocmuwgfioo

 

Aewscapcoov mm.a magma

177

 

v.0H m.mm H.0m m.HH 0.0 mm.m O COADMUSUm mono“: ca mommmoonm

a.ma v.0m m.am m.qa m.a av.m m Hmoauaaom musamcm cam muacmoomm
0.6H m.mm m.mm o.ma m.v Hm.m o

m.va n.mm m.mm n.ma m.a 0v.m m #00099 m Monacos 0cm wuwasauom

coaumospm Honda:

H.ma H.Hm H.Hm m.Hm m.m om.m 0 mo muoHumpcsom HavanmomoHflsm

a.ma m.sm a.mm 0.0m m.» mH.m m paw .Hmusuaso .HmaOOm on» mamasoauua

m.va m.am H.0m v.0a m.m 0m.m o ucmsmoam>mc suaam

m.H m.m~ 0.mm m.aa m.a Ha.m m -cOmumm no mmauomnu sammm cam wuao

N.0 m.HN m.0m >.mm 0.0 hm.m O coHumamwmmH ucm>mamu occumumpcs

m.> 0.0m m.Hv m.am 0.m Ha.m m 0cm mQOADMUHHmEH Hmmwa muacmoomm

Amsmfimo 000 new gov coaumHsmom H00H3

0.6 o.mm m.mm m.0m H.ma om.m 0 map on xno3 HoGCOmumm ucmpoum mo

m.H m.va m.om m.mm 0.0 om.m m mamom opp pmumumucH 0cm mumadofluum

pamflm on» ca mpcmnu

paw mmswma ucmuuno mcu mm Hams mm

m.v m.HN H.0m m.mm m.m mw.m O .mudumumufla Hmcoflmmmmoum Hmccowumm

o 4.0a H.aq a.om 0.m ma.m m ucmcsum ms» spas suaamaaaemu smammao

mocmuuomEH mocmuuomEH ucmuuomEH usauuomEH Hmaucmmmm
. "on wuaaanm
02 mo HOGHE MO wamywuopoz >Hm> >Hmusaom3¢ . .
0 v m m a mcaumm mnu w>mn pasozm mumpflpcmo 0:9

 

cam:
wcfiumm £00m mca>flw mucmpcommmm mo mmmucmoumm

 

wocmummeou

 

xemscaucoov mm.a magma

178

.AH0ncv mcoHUHmom

 

Hwnuo Ham on meamuumm O “Ammncv mcofluflmom wocwpflmou How cofluomamm OD mcflmuumm m .0002

 

0.50 m.HN H.MH N.m O mm.v O
v.00 0.Vm m.a 0.0 0.m 0m.v m
0.Nv N.0N N.0N m.¢ o ho.v O
0.mv 0.0v H.m 0.m 0.m 0H.v m
0.vm m.mm ®.hm 0.0 0.H mh.m O
0.0m 0.0V 0.0m 0.0 m.H mm.m m
0.0H H.0m v.vm 0.HH o H0.m O
0.mm H.0N N.mm m.h 0.H 00.0 m
m.mH h.Hv 0.00 m.ma h.H N0.m O
0.¢H v.00 h.mm h.NH 0.0 0v.m m

mucmeusmmmE 0cm mummu
>uflamc0mhmm umnmumpcfi 0cm HmumflcHEU¢

mflmmamcm HMOHumemum
wo mmamflocflum wzu pcmumHmUCD
noumwmon ucwpcmmmpcfl uospcov

mmsumumufla ngoflmmmmoum
cfl pmguommu mm noummmmu umumumuCH

coflumospm
umcmfln 00 mCHocmcflm mnu 0cmumumpc2

 

wUCMDHomEH wocmuuomEH ucmumomEH pampuomEH Hmflucmmmm
oz MO Hocflz mo wawumumpoz >Mm> xaquHOmnd
m a m m a mcanmm

 

cmwz
mcaumm nomm mcfl>flw mucmpcommmm mo wmmucmoumd

no» unflaflnm
may m>m£ pasonm mumpflwcmo 0:9

 

hocmummfiou

 

xemscaucooo mm.a magma

179

positions (R) are presented separately from those relating
to the other subgroups taken together (0). The competen-
cies are listed in approximate order by mean rating, with
the competencies rated as most important at the tOp. The
lower the mean rating, the more importance was attributed
to a competency by respondents. The order of items in the
table is only approximate because means for the two groups
vary on each item. In addition, respondents rated each
competency item separately rather than placing the items
in order of relative importance.

Only four competencies were rated "absolutely
essential" by majorities of respondents in both groups:
"Work cooperatively with others," "Manifest well-developed
interpersonal relations and communications skills," "Work
effectively with a wide range of individuals," and "Dis-
play leadership skills."

Almost half the respondents in each group felt
that competence in assessing student needs and interests
was essential. However, competence in evaluating programs
and in conducting research were rated much lower in impor-
tance. Perhaps this implies that assessing needs or
interests is considered an intuitive process rather than
one involving systematic acquisition and analysis of
information.

Other competencies considered essential or very

important by high proportions of respondents in both

180

groups included abilities in conflict mediation and group
advisement; appreciation and internalization of profes-
sional standards and ethics; programming abilities; and
skills in evaluating group dynamics. Majorities of
respondents in both groups felt it was important for
candidates to be competent in facilitating communication
between students and other campus populations about the
concerns, goals, and problems of each.

Competencies rated relatively low in importance
included psychometric skills, statistical and research
expertise, and financial/budgeting skills. The ability
to conduct independent research was seen as being "of no
importance" by about one-fourth of the respondents in
each group.

Many of the areas of knowledge commonly taught
through course work in master's-level College Student
Personnel preparation programs were rated as somewhat
less important than the majority of competency statements.
These areas include knowledge of statistics; social, cul-
tural, and philosophical foundations of higher education;
theories of personality development; Student Personnel
professional literature; and the characteristics of the
American college student. However, it is more important
to note that majorities of respondents in both groups felt

each of these areas was at least "moderately important."

181

Results of Hypothesis Testing: Importance
of Specific Competencies as Entgy—Level
Selection Criteria

 

Two null hypotheses were tested in relation to
the competency items. The first explored possible
relationships between competency importance ratings and

respondents' selection experience.

H05:

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed to
the various entry-level competencies is independent
of the degree of experience in staff selection held
by the respondents.

In testing this hypothesis, chi-square contin—
gency tables were established for each competency item.
In this way, response patterns on the importance of each
competency were compared for respondents with relatively
low and relatively high experience (years of experience in
staff selection, divided at the median). No significant
relationship was found between respondent experience and
the importance ratings given any of the competencies.

Thus, the data failed to reject Ho for all competency

5
items.

The second null hypothesis in this area explored
the possibility that respondents seeking candidates for

different types of positions rated the importance of the

competencies differently.

182

HO6

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed
to the various entry-level competencies is indepen-
dent of the type of position (i.e., Head Resident/
Residence Staff, Residence Hall Programming, Campus
Activities, Administrative/Generalist, or Advising/
Counseling) for which selection is being conducted.

In testing this hypothesis, a chi—square contin-
gency table was established for each competency, with
position type as the row variable and importance rating
as the column variable. When all five position types
were used, significant relationships were found in six
cases. However, in each of these tests, low expected
frequencies (less than five) were found in more than one-
fifth of the cells and expected frequencies of one or
less were found in some cell(s). Writers have recommended
that the chi-square statistic not be used under this con—
dition (Cochran, 1954; Minium, 1970). For that reason,
the null hypothesis (H06) was not rejected for response
patterns on any of the competencies relating to the five
position types.

To eliminate the low expected frequencies, the
variable of position type was collapsed into two cate-
gories: (1) Head Resident/Residence Staff positions
and (2) all others taken together. Significant differ-
ences in the importance ratings for residence positions,

compared with others, were found in three cases. For all

but these three exceptions, Ho6 was not rejected.

183

Table 4.23 shows the distributions of importance
ratings for the competency, "Select, train, supervise
and evaluate staff." As one might expect, this compe—
tency was rated significantly more important as a selec-
tion criterion by administrators hiring residence staff
than by those hiring for other position types. Almost
half the residence respondents felt this competency was
essential; only about one-fourth found it essential in
the other group. Over 30% of the nonresidence respondents
felt this competency was of low or no importance. It
appears that staff selection, training, and supervision
are less prevalent job tasks in nonresidence entry—level

positions than in residence positions.

Table 4.23

Distributions of Importance Ratings for the Competency,
"Select, Train, Supervise and Evaluate Staff"

 

Percentage of Respondents Giving Each Rating

 

 

Respondent
Group Abso- Very Moder- Of Minor Of No
lutely Impor- ately Impor- Impor-
Essential tant Important tance tance
Those hiring for Head

Resident/Residence
Staff positions 49.1 30.9 10.9 3.6 5.5

Those hiring for all
other position types 26.2 26.2 14.8 21.3 11.5

 

Chi-square = 12.835; df = 4; Significant at .012 level

184

Competency in evaluating programs, on the other
hand, was rated as significantly more important by the
nonresidence group (see Table 4.24). A total of 73.7%
in the nonresidence group found this competency either
essential or very important as a selection criterion; only
49.1% in the residence group did so. This finding is not
surprising because a sizable number of positions in the
nonresidence group involved programming as a major job

function.

Table 4.24

Distributions of Importance Ratings for the Competency,
"Evaluate Programs"

 

Percentage of Respondents Giving Each Rating

 

 

Respondent
Group Abso— Very Moder- Of Minor Of No
lutely Impor- ately Impor- Impor-
Essential tant Important tance tance
Those hiring for Head
Resident/Residence
Staff positions 9.1 40.0 41.8 9.1 0
Those hiring for all
other position
types 26.2 47.5 21.3 4.9 O

 

Chi-square = 9.716; df = 3; Significant at .021 level

Table 4.25 presents the ratings given by the two
groups to the competency, "Perform fair and effective
discipline of student misconduct." This competency was
seen as much more important by employers hiring residence

staff than by those hiring for other kinds of positions.

185

Almost 90% of the residence respondents found competence
in student discipline to be essential or very important;
this was true for less than half the respondents in the

nonresidence group.

Table 4.25

Distributions of Importance Ratings for the Competency,
"Perform Fair and Effective Discipline of
Student Misconduct"

 

Percentage of Respondents Giving Each Rating

 

 

Respondent
Group Abso- Very Moder- Of Minor Of No
lutely Impor— ately Impor- Impor-
Essential tant Important tance tance
Those hiring for Head
Resident/Residence
Staff positions 40.0 47.3 7.3 1.8 3.6
Those hiring for all
other position types 21.3 23.0 19.7 23.0 13.1

 

Chi-square = 24.536; df = 4; Significant at .0001 level

With the three foregoing exceptions, no signifi-
cant differences in the importance of the competencies as
selection criteria for different position types were

identified.

Summary
This chapter presented an analysis of the results
of the study. A mailed questionnaire was used to gather
the data. The survey sample included 124 Student Person—

nel administrators recently involved in selecting

186

entry-level staff; this group was stratified into five
subgroups according to the type of position for which
respondents had carried out selection in 1978. Each
respondent completed the questionnaire in reference to

a particular position named at the top of the first page.

The major purposes of the study were: (1) to
investigate and evaluate certain procedures currently used
in the selection of entry—level College Student Personnel
professionals and (2) to explore the criteria used by
administrators in evaluating the competency of candidates
for the named entry-level positions.

One hundred sixteen of the 124 administrators
sampled (93.5%) returned usable questionnaire responses.
Analysis of the population, sampled, and respondent groups
on four variables (title of each administrator and size,
control, and region of his/her institution) revealed no
major biases in the respondent group on these variables.

Respondents reported having from one to 30 years'
experience in staff selection with a mean of 7.3 years.
Almost all had acquired this experience while working at
three different institutions or fewer (mean: 1.8). A
majority (56.6%) shared authority to make hiring decisions,
usually with a superior or a staff group. Another 34.8%
had sole authority to hire for the named entry—level
positions.

Respondents generally believe that an administra-

tor's effectiveness in staff selection can be improved

187

by the use of "systematic and objective selection pro-
cedures." About three-fourths of the respondents feel
that recruiting and interviewing at professional confer—
ences is valuable. The reputation of a candidate's
graduate training program is generally an important
factor in judging his/her qualifications, according to
48.3% of the respondents. Almost two-thirds of the
respondents think individual references, written for par-
ticular job applications, are usually more credible than
those from candidates' placement files.

Most respondents (87.1%) see the resumé only as a
preliminary indicator of some candidate qualifications.
Written references are seen as valid and reliable only
as preliminary indicators by 36.5% of the respondents.
Another 45.2% feel references are generally valid and
reliable but may not be, depending on the writer.

No significant relationships were identified
between the amount of respondent experience in selection
and responses to any of the attitude items, with one
exception. Respondents with selection experience at
more than one institution (as compared with those having
experience at only one school) were significantly more
likely to indicate that selection can be done just as
effectively without recruiting and interviewing at con-
ferences. This difference, though statistically signifi-

cant, was not great; majorities in both groups supported

188

the value of conference selection activities. No signifi-
cant differences were found in the attitudes of adminis-
trators from different-sized institutions.

The mean number of applicants per position in the
respondent groups ranged from 21.8 (for Head Resident/
Residence Staff positions) to 51.0 (for Administrative/
Generalist positions). About twice as many applications
were reported for live-out as for live-in positions.
Employers hired only 2.0 to 4.6% of the applicants, a
very favorable selection ratio from their viewpoint.

Table 4.26 summarizes the responses to most
questions on selection procedures used in 1978 hiring
for the named entry-level positions. The responses
relating to Head Resident/Residence Staff positions came
from a random sample of the homogeneous subgroup popu-
lation, while those relating to the other four subgroups
were not sampled; therefore, the figures relating to
residence positions and to the other position types are
given separately. In both groupings, most employers
reviewed written job descriptions, contacted references
personally, did some interviewing at conference(s), and
took notes at conference interviews. It is common for
more than one person to conduct conference selection
interviews, but in many cases no interviewer training
is conducted in advance. Conference interviews are gen—

erally not highly structured, but interviews for housing

189

Table 4.26

Percentage of Respondents Reporting the Use of Certain Selection Procedures

 

Procedure

Used in Reference
to Head Resident/
Residence Staff

Used in Reference
to Other
Position Types

 

Positions
A specific application blank was used 23.6 11.5
Applicants were tested 1.8 0
There is a written job description 98.2 98.4
A review of job description or position
requirements was made 96.4 98.3
There is a written specification of
desired and/or required qualifications
for the position 71.7 68.9
Reference(s) were contacted personally; 94.6 90.0
Only those listed by the applicant were
contacted 36.4 43.3
Some not listed by the applicant were
contacted 58.2 46.7
Of those who contacted references personally:
Those who always contacted at least one 46.9 53.1
Those who contacted at least one in a
majority of cases 32.7 32.7
Some conference interviewing was done 89.1 77.0
Structure of conference interviews:
Unstructured 10.4 17.0
Interviewer(s) developed understandings
of what to cover 66.7 74.5
Written guide (not detailed) used 16.7 8.5
Detailed list of questions used 6.3 0
Number of different staff who conducted
conference interview(s):
One 30.4 37.8
Two 21.7 26.7
Three 15.2 15.6
Four 8.7 13.3
Over four 23.8 6.6
Interviewer training conducted:
None 45.8 71.7
Brief and informal training 47.9 26.1
Fairly detailed and/or formal training 6.3 2.2
Notes were taken in conjunction with
conference selection interviews 95.9 95.7
Taken on established rating form 37.5 20.0
Taken only after interviews 71.1 56.8
Taken only during interviews 6.7 6.8
Taken during and after interviews 22.2 36.4
Interviewers first reviewed written
information on candidates:
Just before conference interviews 63.0 51.1
Well before conference interviews 28.3 31.9
During conference interviews 8.7 14.9

 

190

positions tend to be somewhat more structured than those
for other kinds of positions.

Larger institutions were found to be significantly
more likely than smaller ones to use established rating
forms for note-taking at conference interviews and to
provide pre-conference interviewer training. Chi-square
analysis revealed no other significant relationships
between selection procedures used and (1) the size of the
respondents' institutions or (2) the type of position for
which selection was carried out.

A list of 36 competencies suggested in Student
Personnel literature as important to the entry-level pro-
fessional was used in the study. Respondents applied a
five-point scale to rate the importance of each competency
as an actual criterion for selecting the best candidate
for a named 1978 position. Response choices ranged from
"absolutely essential" ("A candidate hag to have this
competency to be considered for the position") to "of
no importance" ("This competency is unimportant in the
job; it was g9: a factor in judging candidates").

Table 4.22 (pp. 174-178) summarizes the results
of this rating process. Only four competencies were rated
"absolutely essential" by majorities of respondents in

both groups: "Work cooperatively with others,‘ "Manifest
well-developed interpersonal relations and communications

skills," "Work effectively with a wide range of

191

individuals,‘ and "Display leadership skills." Other
highly rated competencies included conflict mediation,
group advisement, appreciation of professional standards
and ethics, programming abilities, and group skills.
Competencies rated relatively low in importance included
psychometric skills, statistical and research expertise,
and financial/budgeting skills.

Chi-square analysis revealed no significant
relationships between the levels of respondents' selec-
tion experience and importance ratings given any of the
competencies. The abilities to "Select, train, supervise
and evaluate staff" and to "Perform fair and effective
discipline of student misconduct" were seen as signifi-
cantly more important by respondents hiring for Head
Resident/Residence Staff positions, as compared with
those hiring for other position types. Competence in
program evaluation was significantly less important to
the residence group than to the others.

With the above exceptions, no significant dif-
ferences were found in the importance of the competencies
as selection criteria for different types of positions.
Thus, it appears that a general list of competencies
important to most entry-level Student Personnel profes-
sionals (regardless of specialty area) can be identified.
Although the competency statements used in this study do

not constitute an exhaustive list of the potentially

192

relevant items, respondent support for the importance of
most of these items offers indications of their place in

such a general list.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

 

Staffing is one of the most fundamental of manage—
ment functions. In College Student Personnel, as in any
organization, managers must periodically choose indi-
viduals to fill available positions. A manager's effec—
tiveness in the task of selection may well determine the
difference between success and failure, for staff members
are a primary resource through which the organization and
its managers function.

It has been observed that "Recruitment is more an
art than an exact science; but it calls for a scientific
approach" (Denerley & Plumbley, 1969, p. 10). Although
voluminous research on selection has been published in
the field of Personnel Psychology, there is no published
evidence to show that College Student Personnel adminis-
trators have widely applied these findings in establishing
a "scientific approach" to staff selection.

Selection essentially involves gathering appro-

priate information about candidates and using that

193

194

information to match the best person (the one predicted

to perform best) with a particular job. By gathering the
most relevant and valid information possible, the selector
attempts to reduce the uncertainty inherent in predicting
the best match. Research has developed a great deal of
useful knowledge concerning a variety of techniques for
gathering information about job candidates. Such tech-
niques include the job description, application blank,
resumé and written reference, and the selection interview.
However, authors have asserted that such techniques have
often been used unsystematically and without knowledge of
their usefulness in particular situations (Fleishman &
Bass, 1974; Hall, 1976).

A great deal of effort is regularly expended on
staff selection in College Student Personnel. Each year
the three major national professional organizations in the
field (the American College Personnel Association, ACPA;
the National Association of Student Personnel Administra—
tors, NASPA; and the National Association for Women Deans,
Administrators, and Counselors, NAWDAC) conduct placement
services in conjunction with their annual conferences. A
good deal of this extensive placement activity involves
the selection of candidates to fill entry-level positions.
For purposes of this study, an entry-level professional

position was generally defined as one requiring a master's

195

degree in College Student Personnel (or a related field)
and not more than one year's related post-master's
experience.

The present study was undertaken in an effort to
explore the tOpic of staff selection procedures and cri-
teria relating to entry-level professional positions in
College Student Personnel. The entry level was considered
important for study because turnover at that level dic-
tates a great deal of hiring for such positions each year
and because selection at the first level determines, to an
important extent, the pool of candidates for later selec-
tion to leadership positions in the field.

Chapter V presents a summary of the development
of the study, its findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations.

Summary of the Development
of the Study

 

 

Purposes of the Study

 

Chapter I contained the overview and purposes of
the study. This study had two major foci. The first was
an investigation and evaluation of the procedures cur-
rently in use in the selection of entry-level professional
staff in College Student Personnel. The second major
focus was the exploration of criteria used by adminis-
trators in evaluating the competence of candidates for
entry-level professional Student Personnel positions. More

specifically, the purposes of the study were:

196

1. To provide a detailed review of the theory and
research on staff selection, as found in the literature
of Personnel Psychology. This review supplied relevant
information for Student Personnel administrators wishing
to improve their selection practices and to conduct staff

training on selection methodology.

2. To describe the current use of a limited
number of specific selection procedures, as practiced in
1978 by Student Personnel administrators selecting staff
for entry—level professional positions. (This nationwide
investigation included all types of entry-level profes-
sional positions which were listed as available in the

1978 job market.)

3. To evaluate these procedures, as well as cer—
tain attitudes of 1978 Student Personnel selectors, in
light of the literature reviewed from Personnel Psychology.
To suggest possible improvements in the currently prevail-
ing practices for selecting entry-level professional

staff in College Student Personnel.

4. To explore possible differences in the use of
particular selection procedures at institutions of dif-

ferent size and among selectors of varying experience.

5. To explore possible differences in the use of
particular selection procedures to fill different types of

entry-level Student Personnel positions.

197

6. To identify the relative importance of various
competencies as criteria for the selection of entry-level
professional staff, as seen by administrators involved in

the 1978 Student Personnel selection process.

7. To explore possible differences in the impor-
tance ascribed to particular competencies for different

types of entry—level Student Personnel positions.

8. To explore possible differences in the impor—
tance ascribed to particular competencies by administrators

with differing levels of selection experience.

Rationale and Need for the Study

 

After a review of the related literature, it was
determined that a serious need exists for Student Personnel
research on staff selection. The following observations

support the need for such study:

1. Personnel psychologists have found that many
prevalent selection practices (particularly the interview)
have serious shortcomings. This criticism extends into
various educational settings, including College Student

Personnel.

2. The paucity of literature on professional
staff selection in College Student Personnel is a sig-

nificant omission.

198

3. Even if all graduates of M.A. programs in Stu-
Dent Personnel and related fields are assumed competent,

selection is always for a particular job and setting.

 

Procedures and criteria are thus needed which Optimize

the effectiveness of staff choice.

4. Since job market conditions may be forcing
many entry-level candidates into residence hall positions,
selection for these positions must emphasize sensitivity

to the needs and motives of candidates.

5. Affirmative Action pressures may soon force
College Student Personnel and other fields to do more

research on selection.

6. In a time of financial austerity, professionals
must identify and adopt the most cost-effective selection

procedures available.

7. A need has been identified in Student Personnel
literature for information on the entry-level competencies
needed by practitioners. Thus, an evaluation of competency
statements can be useful to educators, students, and prac-

titioners in the Student Personnel field.

Summary of the Related Literature

 

In Chapter II of the study, a detailed review of
the literature on staff selection was presented. Student
Personnel literature on the selection of full-time profes—

sionals consists almost entirely of job market surveys and

199

post-conference placement evaluations. The only in-depth
examinations of selection practices in the field involved
the selection of paraprofessional residence hall staff.
These studies revealed no standardized paper—and—pencil
instrument which consistently produced accurate predic-
tions of success in such positions. Role-playing and
Leaderless Group Discussions (LGDs) have been used eco-
nomically as selection methods for residence staff;
though authors believe these procedures are highly effec—
tive, very little research has been done to confirm or
deny the predictive validity of role-playing or the LGD.
A considerable body of literature from the field
of Personnel Psycholoqy was reviewed concerning the effec-
tiveness of various selection procedures. The following

are those findings most relevant to the present study:

1. There is considerable agreement that a careful
job analysis is the necessary first step in an effective
selection process. Review of the position and its require—
ments should result in an accurate written job description
and a detailed list of characteristics to be sought in
candidates for the job (O'Leary, 1976; Schneider, 1976;
Stanton, 1977). Not only required and desired character—
istics but also undesirable and/or disqualifying character-

istics should be included (Denerley & Plumbley, 1969).

2. The resumé appears to have little validity as

a tool for gathering information on job candidates (Gaudet

200

& Casey, 1969). Application blanks, especially when their
items are carefully validated for predictive validity, are
potentially more useful (Lopez, 1965; Blum & Naylor, 1968;

Campbell et al., 1970; Beatty & Schneier, 1977).

3. Written recommendations have been found unre—
liable as selection tools (Peres & Garcia, 1962; Browning,
1968; Rim, 1976). Recommendations should be corroborated
through personal contact with the writers (Mandell, 1958;
Lipsett, 1972; Beatty & Schneier, 1977; Miner & Miner,

1977; Stanton, 1977).

4. The selection interview is often unreliable
and invalid (Kahn & Cannell, 1957; Dunnette, 1966; Taylor,
1972; Carlson et al., 1974). Trained interviewers using
standardized interview procedures can, however, be effec—
tive (Lopez, 1965; Miner, 1965). Much of the difficulty
with interviews arises from unreliability (inconsistency
in the information gathered and in the resulting hiring
decisions). Structured interviews (those where questions
are written in advance) have proven to yield more reliable
results than unstrutured interviews (Ulrich & Trumbo,
1965; Carlson et al., 1974). When more than one person
conducts interviews for the same position, reliability
is especially low unless the interview is structured and
interviewers agree on what information is important (May-
field, 1964; Mayfield & Carlson, 1966). Interviewer

memory is not reliable unless notes are taken, preferably

201

with the use of a written interview guide (Carlson et al.,
1974). Because first impressions (even those based on
written material) can heavily influence the evaluation of
a candidate, it has been recommended that interviewers
ngt review written information on candidates before inter-
views (Webster, 1964; Miner, 1977). Systematic training
of interviewers is important in enhancing the validity

and reliability of the interviewing process (Carlson et
al., 1971; Schneider, 1976; Miner, 1977). Despite the
above difficulties, the selection interview can be done
effectively and can serve purposes other than information-
gathering. Interviews can reveal the whole candidate,
allow for detailed two-way information exchange, and
enable the employer to observe candidates' appearance

and oral communication skills.

There is some evidence that selectors may seek to
match job candidates with stereotypes of an "ideal" can-
didate (Sydiaha, 1958; Mayfield & Carlson, 1966). A can-
didate's pattern of competencies may be one aspect of this
comparison with "ideal" stereotypes. What competencies,
then, are considered "ideal" in the entry-level College
Student Personnel candidate?

Student Personnel literature concerning suggested
entry-level professional competencies was also reviewed
in Chapter II. A major source of literature on entry—

level competencies has been a series of statements by

202

professional organizations listing standards for the
training of practitioners (COSPA, 1963; ACPA, 1965;

APGA, 1965, 1967; APGA & COSPA, 1969). Comparison of
these statements reveals substantial agreement on the
value of a very wide-ranging list of competencies.

Though much of this literature concerns course content,
there has been wide recognition of the need for practical
skill application as well as specialized knowledge. It
has been agreed that interdisciplinary preparation is
needed in the acquisition of Student Personnel competen—
cies. Broad preparation is necessitated because of the
large number of functions involved in entry—level Student
Personnel positions.

In recent years, competency-based education has
come closer to the forefront in Student Personnel prepar—
ation. Training has increasingly focused on competency
outcomes rather than course titles. Developmental con-
tracts are being increasingly used in some preparation
programs.

The growth of the student development point of
View, particularly evident in work by COSPA (1974) and
in the T.H.E. Project of ACPA (Brown, 1972; ACPA, 1975;
Miller & Prince, 1976; Hanson, 1976) has placed increased
emphasis on professional competence. Competencies sug-
gested under this model focus on goal-setting, assessment,

instruction, consultation, and milieu management. Though

203

organized under a new rubric, most of these competencies

have been identified in previous Student Personnel liter-
ature. Basic skills applicable to any situation include

administrative and organizational skills, the ability to

work cooperatively, and effective interpersonal communi-

cation skills.

Minetti (1977) reviewed the above literature and
developed a list of 47 competencies suggested as important
for entry-level staff (Appendix B). Included are the
categories of counseling, human relations, and inter-
personal skills; theory and practice of administration
and management; research, testing, and measurement; his-
torical, philosophical, and social foundations of higher
education; meeting student needs; and professional purpose
and role identity. Comparison of Minetti's competency
list with those of other authors shows it to be represen-
tative of the literature on this tOpic. This competency
list, with minor alterations, formed the basis of the

instrument used in the present study.

Methodology

 

The research methods and design of the study were
presented in Chapter III. A nationwide mailed sample
survey was the method adopted for this exploratory study.
Following a review of selection literature, a questionnaire
(Appendix A) was develOped and locally pilot-tested. In

October, 1978, this questionnaire was mailed to a sample

204

of "contact persons" identified in entry-level position
listings from the 1978 ACPA, NAWDAC, and NASPA conferences.
Contact persons completed the questionnaires with refer-
ences to particular positions for which they had selected
new staff in 1978. These referent positions were clas—
sified into five types according to job function: Head
Resident/Residence Staff, Residence Hall Programming,
Campus Activities, Administrative/Generalist, and Advising/
Counseling. The latter four categories comprised 61 list-
ings, all of which were included in the sample. The Head
Resident/Residence Staff group included 111 listings; a
simple random sample of 56 listings from this group was
included in the survey.

Questionnaire items were mainly concerned with
four kinds of content: (1) descriptive information on
the respondents and on the named positions for which they
selected staff in 1978; (2) respondent attitudes toward
several selection-related issues; (3) the selection
procedures respondents used in hiring for the named
positions; and (4) the importance of specific competen-
cies as selection criteria for the named entry-level
positions.

Of the 124 questionnaires mailed, 116 were com-
pleted and returned, resulting in a 93.5% response rate.
Within the five subgroups, response rates varied from

78.6% to 98.2%. Descriptive data were compiled on all

205

items using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. A number of hypotheses were specified and
tested at the .05 level of significance by using the

chi—square statistic.

Descriptive Findings of the Study

 

Characteristics of the Respondents.--The respon-

 

dents reported having a mean of 7.3 years' experience

in staff selection, although experience ranged as high
as 30 years. Almost all respondents had acquired this
experience while working at three institutions of fewer.
Only 34.8% had sole authority to make hiring decisions
for the named entry-level positions; 56.6% shared this

authority, usually with a superior or a staff group.

Selection Ratios for the Named Entry-Level

 

Positions.--The mean number of applicants per position

 

in the respondent groups ranged from 21.8 (for Head
Resident/Residence Staff positions) to 51.0 (for Admin-
istrative/Generalist positions). About twice as many
applicants were reported for live-out positions as for
those requiring living in a residence hall. Employers
hired only 2.0 to 4.6% of the applicants, depending on

position type.

Respondent Attitudes.--Respondents generally

 

believe that an administrator's effectiveness in staff

selection can be improved by the use of "systematic and

206

objective selection procedures." About three-fourths of
the respondents believe in the value of recruiting and
interviewing at professional conferences. The reputation
of a candidate's graduate training program is generally
an important factor in judging his/her qualifications,
according to 48.3% of the respondents.

Most respondents (87.1%) see the resume as only a
preliminary indicator of some candidate qualifications;
only 11.2% believe the resumé provides "a great deal of
valid and reliable information" about a candidate.
Written references are seen as valid and reliable only
as preliminary indicators by 36.5% of the respondents.
Another 45.2% feel references are generally valid and
reliable but that references may not be valid depending
on the credibility of the writer. Almost two-thirds of
the respondents think individual references, written for
particular job applications, are usually more credible

than those from candidates' placement files.

Selection Procedures Reported in Use.—-The follow-

 

ing summarizes the procedures respondents used in hiring

for the named entry—level positions:

1. In over 96% of the cases, a review of the job
description or position requirements was made. Over 98%
of the respondents had a written job description for the
position in question. About 70% of the respondents

reported having a written specification of the

207

qualifications candidates for the named positions would
need. For 37.8% of the Head Resident/Residence Staff
positions and 65.9% of the other position types, these
specifications included only essential and desired char—
acteristics. In 13.5 and 7.3% of the cases, respectively,
only essential characteristics were included. Almost none
of the respondents reported specifying essential, desired,

undesirable, and disqualifying characteristics.

2. Relatively few of the respondents (23.6% of
those hiring for residence positions and 11.5% of the
others) had a specific application blank for the named

position.

3. Only one of the responding employers reported

using a written test in selection.

4. Over 90% of the respondents in both groups
reported making personal contact with the writers of
references for candidates under serious consideration.
About half the respondents always contacted at least one
reference for all candidates under serious consideration.
In a number of cases (58.2% for the residence group and
46.7% for the others), people not listed as references

by the candidates were sometimes contacted.

5. Some conference interviewing was conducted by
89.1% of those hiring for residence positions and by
77.0% of those hiring for other position types. Detailed

lists of questions were used by only 6.3% of the residence

208

respondents; none of the other respondents reported list—
ing questions in detail. The majority of respondents
(66.7% and 74.5%, respectively) reported that interviewers
"developed, in advance, a clear understanding of the areas
to be discussed in all interviews." Unstructured con-
ference interviews were reported by 10.4% of the residence
respondents and by 17.0% of the other respondents. About
two—thirds of the respondents indicated that more than one
person conducted conference interviews; 32.9% of the
residence respondents and 19.9% of the other respondents
had four or more different staff conducting interviews at
conferences. Despite the number of interviewers reported,
only 6.3% of the residence respondents and 2.2% of the
others had conducted detailed and/or formal interviewer
training. Forty—five and eight-tenths percent of the
residence respondents and 71.7% of the others reported
having no pre-conference training at all for interviewers.
Over 95% of the respondents in both groups indicated that
notes were taken in conjunction with conference interviews,
but only 37.5% and 20.0%, respectively, used an established
rating form. In the majority of cases, notes were taken
only EEEEE conference selection interviews. Written infor-
mation on candidates was most often reviewed by inter-
viewers either just before each interview (63.0% and 51.1%,

respectively) or well before interviews (28.3% and 31.9%).

209

Importance of Competencies as Selection Criteria.--

 

Respondents applied a five-point scale to rate the impor-
tance of each of 36 competencies as criteria for selection.
The question put to the respondents was, "In selecting

the best candidate for the position named on the question—
naire, how important was each of the competencies listed,
in your opinion?" Response choices ranged from "absolutely
essential" ("A candidate hid to have this competency to be
considered for the position") to "of no importance“ ("This
competency is unimportant in the job; it was £93 a factor
in judging candidates." Table 4.22 (pp. 174-178) fully
summarized the results of the competency ratings. Only
four competencies were rated "absolutely essential" by
majorities of respondents in both groups: "Work coopera-
tively with others," "Manifest well-developed interpersonal
relations and communications skills," "Work effectively
with a wide range of individuals," and "Display leadership
skills." Other highly rated competencies included assess-
ment of student needs and interests, effective decision—
making ability, conflict mediation, group advisement,
appreciation of professional standards and ethics, pro—
gramming abilities, and group skills.

Competencies rated relatively low in importance
included psychometric skills, statistical and research
expertise, and financial/budgeting skills. A number of
knowledge areas commonly taught in master's-level College

Student Personnel preparation programs were rated as less

210

important than the majority of competency statements.

These areas include knowledge of the social, cultural,

and philosophical foundations of higher education; theories
of personality development; Student Personnel professional
literature; and the characteristics of the American col-
lege student.

Overall, the pattern of responses indicated some
support for the importance of almost all the competencies.
Only one competency, "Administer and interpret personality
tests and measurements," was rated "of no importance" by
a majority of the respondents. The response pattern also
indicated a wide range of opinion on the importance of
all competencies. With a few exceptions at each extreme,
the ratings ranged all the way from "absolutely essential"

to "of no importance" on most of the competency items.

Conclusions of the Study

 

Results of Hypothesis Testing

 

Six major null hypotheses (four with more specific
sub-hypotheses) were specified and tested at the .05 level
of significance. Each test used the chi-square statistic
to explore possible relationships between the relevant
variables. Results of these tests are presented below.

H01:

Respondents with different selection experience do
not differ significantly in their responses to atti-
tude items on the instrument.

211

1.1‘

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
an administrator's effectiveness in the art of
staff selection cannot be significantly improved
by the use of systematic and objective selection
procedures."

1.2‘

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
staff selection can be done just as effectively
without any selection activities (i.e., recruiting
and interviewing) at professional conferences."

Hol.3:

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my opinion,
the reputation of a candidate's graduate training
program was generally an important factor in
judging his/her qualifications for the position
named above."

Hol.4:

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their attitudes
toward the resume as a selection tool.

Hol.5‘

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their attitudes
toward the written reference as a selection tool.

1.6'

 

Respondents with different selection experience
do not differ significantly in their agreement/
disagreement with the statement, "In my Opinion,
references written individually for a particular
application are usually more credible than refer-
ences which come from a candidate's placement
file."

 

 

212

It was concluded that the above hypotheses should
not be rejected, with only one exception. Respondents
with selection experience at more than one institution
(as compared with those experienced at only one school)
showed somewhat more agreement and less ambivalence in
response to the statement, "In my opinion, staff selection
can be done just as effectively without any selection
activities (i.e., recruiting and interviewing) at profes-
sional conferences." The statistical relationship shown
here led to rejection of Hol.2 in this instance. However,
well over 70% in both the "one institution" group and the
"more than one institution" group heavily endorsed the

value of conference selection activities.

Respondents from different-sized institutions do not
differ significantly in their responses to attitude
items on the instrument.

2.1'

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis-
agreement with the statement, "In my Opinion, an
administrator's effectiveness in the art of staff
selection cannot be significantly improved by the
use of systematic and objective selection pro-
cedures."

HO

2.2

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis-
agreement with the statement, "In my Opinion,
staff selection can be done just as effectively
without any selection activities (i.e., recruiting
and interviewing) at professional conferences."

213

H0203:

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis-
agreement with the statement, "In my opinion, the
reputation of a candidate's graduate training pro-
gram was generally an important factor in judging
his/her qualifications for the position named
above."

2.4‘

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their attitudes toward
the resumé as a selection tool.

2.5'

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their attitudes toward
the written reference as a selection tool.

H02.6‘

 

Respondents from different-sized institutions do
not differ significantly in their agreement/dis-
agreement with the statement, "In my Opinion,
references written individually for a particular
application are usually more credible than refer—
ences which come from a candidate's placement file."

 

In testing H02.l to H02.6’ respondents were clas-
sified into four groups representing institutions Of vary-
ing sizes (as measured by enrollment). NO significant
differences were identified in the attitudes of adminis-
trators from different-sized institutions, as measured by
these six attitude items. Consequently, these six null

hypotheses were not rejected.

214

H03:
There are no significant differences in entry-level
staff selection procedures in use at different-sized

institutions, as reported by the respondents.

HO3.1

There are no significant differences in the use of
application blanks at different-sized institutions.

HO3.2

There are no significant differences in the use of
job specifications (written descriptions Of
required/desired candidate characteristics) for
positions at different-sized institutions.

3.3‘

 

There are no significant differences in the levels
of detail included in job specifications for
positions at different-sized institutions.

Ho3o4:

There are no significant differences in procedures
for making reference checks at different-sized
institutions.

H03.5:

There are no significant differences in the pro-
cedures for conference selection interviews (degree
of interview structure, note-taking, or prior
review of candidate information) in use at dif—
ferent-sized institutions.

H03.6‘

There are no significant differences in the degree
Of advance training given conference selection
interviewers at different-sized institutions.

In chi—square tests using the same four size cate-

gories that were used for H02, Ho3 1 through H03 4 were

215

not rejected. In reference to HO3OS, no significant dif-
ferences were found between different-sized institutions
(1) on the degree of conference interview structure;

(2) on when notes were taken; or (3) on prior review of
candidate information. However, larger institutions were
significantly more likely to use an established rating

form for conference interview note-taking than were smaller
institutions. For this instance, H03.5 was rejected.
Larger institutions were also significantly more likely
than smaller ones to conduct pre-conference interviewer

training; thus H03 6 was rejected.

There are no significant differences in selection
procedures used in hiring professionals for different
types of entry—level positions (i.e., Head Resident/
Residence Staff, Residence Hall Programming, Campus
Activities, Administrative/Generalist, and Advising/
Counseling positions).

H04.l:

There are no significant differences in the use
of application blanks in selection for different
types of positions.

HO4.2

There are no significant differences in the use
of job specifications in selection for different
types of positions.

HO4.3

There are no significant differences in the levels
of detail included in job specifications for dif-
ferent types of positions.

 

216

H04.4‘

 

There are no significant differences in the pro-
cedures for making reference checks in selection
for different types Of positions.

H04.5‘

 

There are no significant differences in the pro-
cedures for conference interviews (degree of
interview structure, note-taking, or prior review
of candidate information) in selection for dif—
ferent types of positions.

Ho

4.6

 

There are no significant differences in the degree
of advance training given conference selection
interviewers concerned with different types of
positions.

None of the tests for H04“l to H04“6 produced a
chi-square value significant at the .05 level; thus, the
data failed to reject any of these six null hypotheses.
Overall, this led to the conclusion that the present
methodology could detect no significant differences in

the use of these six selection procedures in hiring for

the different position types.

H05:

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed to
the various entry-level competencies is independent
of the degree of experience in staff selection held
by the respondents.

In testing Ho chi-square contingency tables

5’

were used to compare the responses of contact persons

having relatively low and relatively high selection

217

experience (as determined by dividing at the median on
years of experience). NO significant relationship was
found between respondent experience and importance ratings
given any of the competencies. Thus, the data failed to

reject HO for all competency items.

5

H06:

The distribution of ratings of importance ascribed to

the various entry-level competencies is independent

of the type of position (i.e., Head Resident/Residence

Staff, Residence Hall Programming, Campus Activities,

Administrative/Generalist, or Advising/Counseling) for

which selection is being conducted.

When testing the ratings given each competency by
respondents hiring for each Of the five position types,
it was concluded that no significant relationships could
be identified. In six cases, this conclusion was drawn
after low expected frequencies rendered the chi-square
statistic inappropriate.
Respondents were then grouped into two categories:

(1) those hiring for Head Resident/Residence Staff posi-
tions and (2) those hiring for all other position types.
The analysis was then repeated, comparing responses on
each competency item for the two groups. It was concluded
that two competencies were seen as significantly more
important in selecting for Head Resident/Residence Staff
positions than for other positions: "Select, train,

supervise, and evaluate staff" and "Perform fair and

effective discipline of student misconduct." One

218

competency, "Evaluate programs," was seen as significantly
lggg important in selecting for Head Resident/Residence
Staff positions than for other positions. This was
accounted for by the fact that many of the nonresidence
positions had programming duties as a major focus.

With the above exceptions, HO was not rejected

6
for any competency item. In general, it was concluded
that very few significant differences could be identified
in the competencies wanted for different types of entry-
level positions. Thus, the entry-level College Student
Personnel positions studied, regardless of type, appear
to call for much the same pattern of competencies.

Evaluation of Selection Pro-
cedures in Use

 

 

Job Analysis and Specification of Candidate Char-

 

acteristics To Be Sought.--Almost all respondents had a

 

written job description and made a review of the position
in preparation for hiring, as recommended in the litera-
ture. However, only about 70% had a written specification
of the characteristics to be sought in candidates. More-
over, responses indicated that, in many of these cases,
job specifications were not detailed. The literature
suggests that a primary purpose of the job description

and specification is to identify, in detail, the factors
contributing to a good match between job and candidate so

that a valid prediction of success can be made. According

219

to the literature, not only required and desired candidate
characteristics but also undesirable and/or disqualifying
characteristics should be specified in writing. It was
concluded that job specifications including all these
types of information were not common in hiring entry-level

staff in 1978.

The Resumé and the Application Blank.--The litera-

 

ture suggests that the resume lacks validity as a selection
tool. In this study, the vast majority of respondents
indicated appropriate reservations about the validity of
the resumé. However, 11.2% indicated they felt the resumé
"provides a great deal of valid and reliable information
about candidates' qualifications." The latter Opinion is
not supported by the literature.

Less than one—fourth of the employers used spe—
cific application blanks for the named entry-level
positions. Thus, it appears that most selectors in this
group are omitting a potentially valuable selection tool.
It must be noted, however, that the most effective use of
the application blank requires that employees be rated on
some performance criterion and that application blank
items be validated for their ability to differentiate
candidates who later prove successful on such criteria.
Miner and Miner (1977) have provided a simple model for

such validation of items for weighted application blanks.

220

Tests.-—It was concluded that, with one exception,
written tests were not used in selection for the named
entry-level positions. Student Personnel research on the
validity of tests in predicting job success has focused
on paraprofessionals and has generally not been encourag-
ing. Thus, little support for increased testing in select-
ing entry-level professionals was indicated by this study.
However, the Leaderless Group Discussion and role-playing
techniques could prove effective if used and validated as

selection tools.

The Written Reference and Reference Checks.--

 

Respondents were appropriately skeptical about the validity
and reliability of written references. Apparently many
employers put great faith in references provided by col—
leagues they know but are well aware that references
written by others may not be valid and reliable. The vast
majority of respondents frequently made personal contact
with the writers of references, a procedure strongly sup—
ported in the literature. In general, it appears that the
responding Student Personnel administrators made good use
of the reference and the reference check.

Although the reference check appears to be an
effective technique, employers and references should be
cautioned that potential liability exists in this area.
Though a legal analysis of this point would be beyond the

scope of the present study, employers and references

221

should maintain strict professional ethics in conducting
reference checks and should be aware of potential lia—

bility inherent in the procedure.

The Conference Selection Interview.—-Se1ection

 

interviewing at professional conferences was a common
practice in hiring for the entry—level Student Personnel
positions included in this study. It must be remembered,
however, that all employers included in the study were
ones who listed positions with conference placement ser—
vices. Since interpersonal skills were shown to be vital
as selection criteria for the named entry-level positions,
the interview is an appropriate selection tool.

Results of this study revealed that conference
selection interviews were not as highly structured as
recommended in the literature. Less than one-fourth of
the respondents wrote questions in advance or used a
written interview guide. Moreover, since it was common
for more than one person to conduct selection interviews
for the same position, reliability is undoubtedly a
serious problem with this procedure.

Almost all respondents reported taking some notes
in conjunction with conference selection interviews; this
procedure undoubtedly helped with interviewer memory.

The study on memory by Carlson et a1. (1974) suggests
that note-taking during interviews is a valuable aid to

memory. Yet the majority of the respondents in the present

222

study took notes only after their interviews. In addition,
only a minority reported using an established rating form.
These observations further support the conclusion that
reliability may have been lacking in the reported pro-
cedures for conference selection interviews.

Very few of the respondents conducted detailed
and/or formal training to prepare staff to conduct con-
ference interviews, despite the fact that several dif-
ferent staff were Often involved in conference interview-
ing. Many employers reported having no interviewer train-
ing at all. According to the literature reviewed in
Chapter II, such training is highly desirable and can
increase the validity of interview results.

Finally, the majority Of respondents say they
reviewed written information on candidates just prior to
interviews. The literature suggests that this procedure
may lead to biases which restrict the interviewer's
attention and limit the information considered during
the interview itself. Although it seems logical, the
procedure of reading about candidates before conference
interviews is probably not a valid selection practice.
Importance of Various Competencies as

Selection Criteria for Entry-Level
Positions

 

 

 

On the basis of this study, it was concluded that
the respondents support the value of almost all the com—

petencies suggested by Minetti (1977). Only one

223

competency, "Administer and interpret personality tests

and measurements,‘ was rated of no importance" by a
majority of the respondents. Five additional competen—
cies were rated either "of minor importance" or "of no
importance" by a majority of respondents: "Understand
the principles of statistical analysis," "Conduct inde—
pendent research," "Recognize and analyze political pro-
cesses in higher education," "Interpret research as
reported in professional literature," and "Understand
the financing of higher education." The remaining 30
competencies were seen by a majority Of respondents as
being at least "Moderately important." Thus, with a few
exceptions, Student Personnel selectors looking for entry-
level staff valued the same competencies named in the
literature.

As noted above, some of the knowledge areas typi-
cally taught in master's-level Student Personnel prepar-
ation programs were rated somewhat lower than the majority
of competency statements. This finding is probably less
important than the demonstrated overall support for a
wide range of competencies (most of which require formal
academic training). Moreover, it must be remembered that
a relevant master's degree was a specific candidate
requirement (or, in a few cases, a desire) expressed by

all employers included in this study. In addition,

respondents found it particularly important that

224

candidates "Appreciate and internalize professional stan-
dards and ethics." Consequently, it was concluded that
this study adds support to the value of professional
graduate-level training for entry-level College Student
Personnel workers.

Overall, it appears that employers are seeking
entry-level staff with basic personality traits and
general abilities which will enable them to function
in immediate and practical ways. Highly specific skills
and knowledge were rated as somewhat less important than
general abilities (particularly competencies in inter—
personal communication, leadership, decision—making, and
working cooperatively with a wide range of people).

A few specific skill areas were, however, demon-
strated as particularly important entry-level selection
criteria: (1) competency in assessing student needs and
interests; (2) competency in mediating conflict between
individuals and groups; (3) competencies in group advise-
ment and in recognition of group dynamics; and (4) pro-
gramming abilities. In almost all cases, these competen-
cies were rated "absolutely essential" or "very important"
by over 75% of the respondents. Thus, develOpment of com-
petence in these areas should be a significant concern to
all of those involved in professional preparation.

Minetti (1977) concluded that all but two of his

competency statements ("Appreciate the historical and

225

philosophical underpinnings of higher education" and
"Understand the principles of statistical analysis") were
seen as best acquired through bggh the formal academic
process and the paid assistantship. Both of the compe-
tencies named as exceptions were relatively low-rated in
the present study. Moreover, the four highest rated com-
petencies in the present study, as well as all four of
those named in the preceding paragraph, Were seen by the
majority of Minetti's respondents as ones which should be
acquired predominantly through assistantship experiences.
Thus, strong support was demonstrated in the present
study for competencies which are probably acquired at
least partially through paid assistantship experience.
This finding offers further endorsement for Minetti's
conclusion that the paid assistantship is an important
component of professional preparation in College Student
Personnel. Furthermore, Minetti's belief in the importance
of integrating academic experiences and faculty with
assistantship experiences and supervisors is again under-

scored through the above conclusions.

Recommendations for Practice

 

As a result of the above findings and conclusions,

the following recommendations are offered:

1. There is a great deal of available and useful
knowledge concerning effective staff selection practice.

Those involved in the selection of College Student Personnel

226

staff should become familiar with this information and
should use it to construct more effective selection pro-

grams.

2. In order to match the best candidate with a
particular position, it is necessary to first specify,
in detail, the characteristics an ideal candidate would
possess. Employers should consider devoting more atten-
tion to this process and should write detailed job descrip—

tions and specifications.

3. The application blank, though not widely used
in entry-level selection, has interesting potential as a
selection tool. Selectors should consider developing
weighted application blanks whose items are validated for

prediction of relevant success criteria.

4. Entry-level College Student Personnel candi—
dates should carefully choose those persons they list as
references; however, they should expect that other former
colleagues or employers may be contacted by selectors.
Since vague recommendations are not particularly valuable,
candidates should give their references specific facts and
achievements to be used in written recommendations. Such
facts are particularly positive if they illustrate such
things as the candidate's interpersonal communication
skills, ability to work COOperatively, leadership quali-

ties, and decision-making abilities. Candidates should

227

consider having recommendations written individually when
applying for positions in which they are especially

interested.

5. The objectives of selection interviews should
be carefully defined by employers. The semistructured or
unstructured interview may be needed to assess a candi—
date's communication skills and explore personality in a
detailed, two-way exchange. However, those interviews
designed primarily to gather candidate information for
screening purposes should be more highly structured than
is commonly the case. For this type of interview, it is
recommended that employers develop written interview
guides containing suggested questions to be asked of all
candidates. This is particularly needed where more than
one person is to conduct interviews; otherwise, different
information may be sought by different interviewers and

the results may vary.

6. To increase the reliability of selection
interviews, it is recommended that interviewers use an
established candidate rating form and take some notes
during interviews. If this is impossible, notes and
written evaluations should be completed immediately

following interviews.

7. When more than one staff person is to be
involved in selection, the employer should consider

establishing a training program to cover interview

228

techniques and the realistic use of written candidate
information. Before or during such training, all involved
staff should reach a clear consensus on the qualities to
be sought in candidates and on the methods of evaluating

those qualities.

8. The literature suggests that it may be desir—
able for interviewers 39; to review written information
on candidates prior to selection interviews. It may be
effective to have one staff member screen written infor-
mation and arrange interviews to be carried out by another

staff member.

9. The competencies found important in this study
deserve attention from both Student Personnel educators
and their graduate students. If master's degree programs
are to prepare marketable professionals, they must con-
sider the need to develop those competencies wanted by
employers. Since many of the competencies most wanted
by employers are experiential in nature (i.e., communi—
cation skills and ability to work cooperatively with a
wide range of individuals), those concerned with Student
Personnel preparation should seek to emphasize and enrich

the experiential elements of such training.

10. Minetti (1977) found that many of those com-
petencies rated most important in the present study were
developed to a significant degree through assistantship

experiences. Thus, the present study further underscores

 

229

Minetti's recommendation that assistantships should be an
integral part of master's-level preparation for careers
in College Student Personnel. It also adds force to his
recommendation that educators and assistantship super-
visors should collaborate to enrich the assistantship

and to integrate it with academic training.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

This study was successful in exploring and describ—
ing a few aspects of entry-level staff selection in College
Student Personnel. There has been a lack of study in this
area within the field. As a result of the literature
reviewed in Chapter II and the findings of this study, a
number of questions were raised which point to the need

for further investigation.

1. Effort is needed to more fully define the com-
petencies found valuable in this study. Methods of teach-
ing the most important competencies should be develOped,
tested, and incorporated into professional preparation

programs.

2. In asking employers about the importance of
the 36 competencies as selection criteria, the respondents
were permitted to assume that these competencies can be
accurately measured. However, more research is needed to
validate this assumption and to more carefully specify the
ways in which Student Personnel selectors can measure the

competence Of job candidates.

230

3. The present methodology explored employer

ratings of the importance of individual competency state-

 

ments, rather than the relative importance ascribed to the

 

competencies. It would be desirable to find out whether,
given the chance to volunteer and rank the competencies
desired in candidates, employers would give the same
responses. There may be other competencies, not included
in the present study, which employers find important in

selection.

4. This study explored only the selection pro-
cedures used for entry-level Student Personnel profes-
sionals. Selection practices at other levels should also

be explored.

5. This study suggested more criticisms of the
conference selection interview than of any other selection
procedure. For this reason, in-depth study of the con-
ference selection interview is recommended. Interviews

should be observed, recorded, and thoroughly analyzed.

6. Selection interviews on employers' campuses
were not examined in the present study. It would be
desirable to gather more information on the procedures

used in on-campus interviews.

7. Research is needed to ascertain the effects Of
Affirmative Action guidelines on hiring procedures and

related employer attitudes in College Student Personnel.

231

8. Studies outside the Student Personnel field
have examined the reliability of written references.
Such studies should be replicated to determine whether
references in Student Personnel suffer from the same lack

of reliability found in the other studies.

9. Studies are needed to test the predictive
validity of various selection methods in College Student
Personnel. Such studies could determine, for example,
whether innovative selection procedures identify candi—
dates who later prove more successful than staff chosen

through more traditional methods.

Inferences and Speculations

 

Judging from the comments of the respondents and
from the Student Personnel literature on selection, it
would seem that very little innovation may be occurring
in the area of entry-level selection. Respondents were
asked to briefly describe any selection procedures they
find particularly useful; it could be significant that
72.4% of the respondents left this item blank. Many of
the answers that were given concerned selection techniques
that are probably very common (for example, interviewing
in relaxed informal settings and making reference checks
on the telephone). The literature reviewed seems to sug—
gest concern that selection procedures be efficient and
humane; much less concern for the effectiveness (or pre-

dictive validity) of selection techniques was evident in

 

 

 

232

the literature. Student Personnel administrators may see
staff selection as a perennial and highly refined function
which does not need innovation or further improvement.

Yet the results of this study suggest otherwise in some
areas.

In several areas, questionnaire items lacked suf—
ficient detail to preclude the possibility that respon-
dents' answers portrayed selection practices in an arti-
ficially favorable light. Although virtually all respon—
dents used a written job description and reviewed it before
hiring, these findings reveal nothing about the quality
of the job description or the thoroughness of the review.
The majority of respondents indicated that before inter-
viewing at conferences, interviewers "developed a clear
understanding" of what questions should be asked. It is
quite possible that in some cases this process of "develop-
ing understandings" may have been cursory at best.
Finally, many of the respondents indicated that "a brief,
informal training program" was completed by their selec-
tion interviewers. Since there is no further detail, it
is quite possible that, in some cases, such "training"
involved only a short, unstructured discussion just before
interviews began. Thus, the findings in these three areas
should be interpreted with caution; in these instances,
the lack of further detail should be considered a limi-

tation of this study.

233

One premise of this study has been that a "scien-
tific" approach can make entry—level staff selection more
effective. The conclusions indicate that, in several
areas, procedural improvements are needed. Yet no proof
was found to indicate that selection is, at best, solely
a structured and Objective process. The use of procedures
having established validity and reliability can reduce
uncertainty in making predictions of candidate success.
However, in selecting staff for the multifaceted roles
inherent in professional Student Personnel Work, a sig-
nificant judgment factor always remains. To this extent,
staff selection in the field is undoubtedly an art as well

as a science.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

APPENDIX A

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

THE STAFF SELECTION PROCESS IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL, 1978

The items in this questionnaire relate to some of the criteria and procedures used in selecting full-time profession-
al staff in Student Personnel. Administrators listed as “contact persons" in this year's ACPA, NAWDAC and
NASPA job listings are completing this survey. Please answer the questions below with reference to your selection,
in 1978, of a candidate for the position of :

 

1. How many full-time positions with this title were available between January 1 and Sep-
tember 30, 1978?

 

2. Total number of people who applied for all position(s) you had available with this title
in 1978:

 

3. Number of years you have personally been involved in staff selection for at least one full-
time professional Student Personnel position (the named title or any other):

 

4. Number of different institutions at which you have been involved in selection of profession-
al Student Personnel staff:

 

5. Which statement best describes your role in.se|ection for the named position in 1978?
(check one)

[ ] I had sole authority to make the final decision on who would be hired. (Go to item 7)
[ ] i shared authority, with one or more others, to make the hiring decision.

[ ] i made decisions on which candidates should be screened out and/or which should
receive on-campus (or "finalist") interviews, but did not have major authority over
the final hiring decision.

[ ] I participated in selection activities but did not make decisions for screening, inter-
views or hiring.
[ ] Other

 

6. What is the title of the person (or name of the group) who made the final hiring decision?

 

For the next three items, please indicate your personal agreement or disagreement with the statements shown.

7. In my opinion, an administrator's effectiveness in the art of staff selection cannot be signifi-
cantly improved by the use of systematic and objective selection procedures.
[ ] Strongly agree [ ] Disagree
[ ] Neither agree nor disagree
[' ] Agree [ ] Strongly disagree

8. In my opinion, staff selection can be done just as effectively without any selection activities
he recruiting and interviewing) at professional conferences.
[ ] Strongly agree [ ] Disagree
[ ] Neither agree nor disagree
[ ] Agree [ ] Strongly disagree

9. in my opinion, the reputation of a candidate's graduate training program was generally
an important factor in judging his/her qualifications for the position named above.
[ ] Strongly agree [ ] Disagree
[ ] Neither agree nor disagree
[ ] Agree [ ] Strongly disagree

235

The following competencies have been suggested as important to Student Personnel staff in positions like the one
named above. In selecting the best candidate for that position, how important were each of the competencies
listed, in your opinion?

 

Please circle the rating you feel best describes the importance of each competency.
Definitions:

1 = Absolutely Essential: A candidate Ml to have this competency to be considered.

2 = Very Important: This competency is used often, and/or is important, in the referenced
job; a candidate without it was at a disadvantage in selection.

3 = Moderately Important: This competency would be used occasionally, and/or is desir-
able, in the job; the competency helped in differentiating between candidates in many
cases.

4 = 0f Minor Importance: This competency might be used infrequently in the job; it was
only a minor factor in selection in some cases.

5 = Of No Importance: This competency is unimportant in the job; it was n_o_ta factor in
judging candidates.

 

 

 

 

The candidate should have the ability to :

10. Cite and apply theories of personality development. 1 2 3 4 5
1 1. Mediate conflicts between individuals and groups. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Recognize and evaluate group dynamics. . 1 2 3 4 5
13. Manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and communications skills. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Advise groups. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Display competence in individual and group counseling. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Formulate and monitor a budget. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Select, train, supervise and evaluate staff. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Engage in systematic planning within the department or unit. 1 2 3 4 5
19. Evaluate programs. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Formulate and interpret policy. 1 2 3 4 5
21. Recognize legal implications; understand state and federal legislation

affecting the administration of Student personnel and education programs. 1 2 3 4 5
22. Manage physical resources and facilities. 1 2 3 4 5
23. Distinguish between theory and practice. 1 2 3 4 5
24. Engage in effective decision-making. 1 2 3 4 5
25. Display leadership skills. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Conduct independent research. 1 2 3 4 5
27. Understand the principles of statistical analysis. 1 2 3 4 5
28. Interpret research as reported in professional literature. 1 2 3 4 5
29. Administer and interpret personality tests and measurements. 1 2 3 4 5
30. Articulate the social, cultural and philosophical foundations of higher

education. 1 2 3 4 5
31. Recognize and analyze political processes in higher education. 1 2 3 4 5
32. Understand the financing of higher education. 1 2 3 4 5
33. Recognize and interpret the special needs of ethnic and racial minorities. 1 2 3 4 5
34. Articulate the characteristics of the American college student. 1 2 3 4 5

236

35. Represent student concerns to other campus populations. 1 2 3 4 5
36. Interpret the concerns, goals, and problems of the other campus 1 2 3 4 5
populations to students.
37. Work effectively with a wide range of individuals. 1 2 3 4 5
38. Assess student needs and interests. 1 2 3 4 5
39. Perform fair and effective discipline of student misconduct. 1 2 3 4 5
40. Work cooperatively with others. 1 2 3 4 5
41. Meet student developmental needs through co-curricular programs and
. . . 1 2 3 4 5
activmes.
42. Appreciate and understand the specialized functions of Student Personnel
1 2 5
Work.
43. Appreciate and internalize professional standards and ethics. 1 2 3 4 5

44. Articulate and interpret the goals of Student Personnel Work to the wider
population (on and off campus).

45. Display familiarity with the Student Personnel professional literature,
as well as the current issues and trends in the field. 1 2 3 4 5

The remaining questions relate to selection procedures; again, please answer in reference to the position named on
the first page.

46. Was there a specific application blank for this position?

 

[ ] Yes (Would you please enclose a copy when returning this questionnaire?)
[ ] No
47. Were any tests or psychometric instruments used in selection for this position?
[ ] Yes i Ti t/e lsl .' i
[ ] No

48. Is there a written job description for the named position?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

49. In preparation for hiring, was there a review of the job description, or the duties and/or requirements
of the named position?
[ ] Yes [ ] No

50. Is there a written description (either in a job description or elsewhere) of the characteristics/com-
petencies an incumbent of this position would need?

 

 

[ ] Yes . If Yes: Which of these are included? (Check all that app/y} (
[ ] Essential (required) characteristics/competencies j
[ ] No [ ] Desired characteristics/competencies I

[ ] Undesirable characteristics/competencies
[ ] Disqualifying characteristics

51. Which of these statements best describes your personal attitude toward the resume’ as a selection tool?
(Check one)

[ ] The resume' provides a great deal of valid and reliable information about candidates' qualifications.

[ ] The. resume' is valid only in giving preliminary indications about some of the qualifications of
candidates.

[ ] The resume’ is generally unreliable and invalid, permitting only gross discriminations concerning
candidates' qualifications.

I ’ 1 Other
52. Which of these statements best describes your personal attitude toward written references as a selection

tool? (Check one)

[ ] References provide a great deal of valid and reliable information about a candidate.

[ ] References are valid/reliable only in giving preliminary indications about some candidate
information.

[ ] References generally are valid/reliable, but may not be, depending on the writer.

[ ] References generally are not valid/reliable, but may be, depending on the writer.
[ ] Other

 

 

 

237

53. in my opinion, references written individually for a particular application are usually more credible
than references which come from a candidate's placement file.

i]
l]

D'
Strongly agree [ ] Neither agree nor disagree [ ] Isagree

Agree [ ] Strongly disagree

54. For those candidates under serious consideration for the named position, did you (or some member of
your staff) contact reference(s) personally by phone or some other means?

i l
[ l
[ ]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, only references listed by If Yes: How often was at least one reference contacted?
the candidate were contacted. ’ [ ) Always

Yes, in some case(s), people not [ ] In the majority of cases

listed as references were contacted. [ ] In a minority of cases

No

If no interviews were conducted at professional conference(s) for the position named on the first page, go to item 61.

55. To what extent were conference interviews for the named position structured? (Check one)

[
l ]
l l

l]
[l

A detailed written list of questions was used to guide each interview.

A written guide suggesting some areas for discussion (though not detailed) was used.

Though no written guide was used, interviewer(s) developed, in advance, a clear understanding

of the areas to be discussed in all interviews.

No specific understanding of the areas to be covered were necessary; interviews were unstructured.
Other

 

56. How many different staff members conducted at least one conference selection interview in 1978 for
the named position title?

57. Was any specific training done to prepare interviewer(s) for conducting conference selection interviews

for the named position?

i l
[ l
l ]

No
Yes, a brief, informal training program was completed by the interviewer(s).
Yes, a fairly detailed and/or formal training program was completed.

58. Were notes taken in conjunction with conference selection interviews for the named position?

[ ]

 

 

Yes 4% If Yes: When were notes taken? (Check either or both)
[ ] During interview
No (Go to item 60) [ ] After interview

 

59. Were notes taken on an established rating form?

[I
I]

Yes ( Would you please enclose a copy when returning this questionnaire?)
No

60. In general, when did conference interviewer(s) first review any written information (such as the resume,’
reference(s), correspondence, or possibly an application blank) on the candidates they interviewed?
(Check one)

[ ]
l l
l l
l l
[ 1

Well before conference interviews, in the majority of cases

Just before conference interviews, in the majority of cases

During conference interviews, in the majority of cases

After conference interviews, in the majority of cases

Written information was not reviewed by interviewer(s), in the majority of cases.

61. Do you use any selection techniques you feel are particular/y useful to you? If so, would you briefly
describe them?

 

 

 

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.

If you have comments, they may be written on a separate sheet. If you would like a summary of the results of
this study, please check here I

Please return, in the envelope provided, to: D. David Ostroth, Assistant to the Director, Resident Hall Programs,
338 Student Service Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

 

APPENDIX B

COMPETENCY LIST BY MINETTI (1977)

APPENDIX B

COMPETENCY LIST BY MINETTI (1977)

COMPETENCIES AND AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY FOR
ENTRY LEVEL POSITIONS:

Counseling, Human Relations, and Interpersonal Skills

1
2

3
4
S

6
7

cite and interpret theories of personality develop-
ment

counsel and advise students involved in career

choice and career development

mediate conflicts between individuals and groups
recognize and evaluate group dynamics

manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and
communications skills

advise groups

display competence in individual and group counseling

Theory and Practice of Administration and Management

 

8

9
10
ll
12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20

formulate and monitor a budget

administer salaries

select and evaluate staff

train.and supervise staff

engage in systematic planning

evaluate programs

formulate and interpret policy

recognize legal implications, understand state and
federal legislation affecting the administration of
student personnel and education programs
appreciate the computer as a management tool
manage physical resources and facilities
distinguish between theory and practice

engage in effective decision-making

display leadership skills

Research, Testing, and Measurement

 

21
22
23

24
25

conduct independent research

understand the principles of statistical analysis
interpret research as reported in professional
literature

interpret personality tests and measurements
administer personality tests and measurements

238

 

239

Historical, Philosophical, and Social Foundations

26
27
28

29

articulate the social and cultural foundations of
higher education

appreciate the historical and philosophical under-
pinnings of higher education

recognize and analyze political processes in higher
educational organizations

understand the financing of higher education

Meeting Student Needs

 

30
31

32
33
34
35
36
37

38
39

40
41

tolerate and appreciate differing life styles
recognize and interpret the special needs of ethnic
and racial minorities

articulate the characteristics of the American
college student

represent student concerns to other campus popu-
lations

interpret the concerns, goals, problems of the

other campus populations to students

work effectively with a wide range of individuals
assess student needs and interests

perform fair and effective discipline of student
misconduct

work cooperatively with others

meet student needs through co-curricular programs
and activities

identify the developmental stages of college students
use strategies and purposeful programs to facilitate
student develOpment

Professional Purpose and Role Identity

 

42

43

44

45

46
47

appreciate and understand the specialized functions
of student personnel work

appreciate and internalize professional standards
and ethics

articulate and interpret the goals of student per-
sonnel work to the wider population (on and off
campus)

cite and describe issues and trends in student
personnel work

display familiarity with the professional literature
distinguish between and use the resources of the
professional organizations

 

 

APPENDIX C

THE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING

October 10, l978

APPENDIX C

THE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

The enclosed questionnaire is part of a survey of procedures and criteria used to
select and hire professional staff in College Student Personnel. ACPA, NAWDAC
and NASPA have provided the researcher with position listings from their 1978
placement services for use in this study. A nationwide sample of administrators
named in those listings as "contact persons" will be completing the instrument.
The study will develop information on the methods now in use in staff selection,
and will identify the competencies considered most important in candidates for
particular positions.

Employers like yourself, as well as candidates and Student Personnel educators,
can benefit from receiving new information about staff selection practices.
Because of your recent experience in recruiting, your observations about the
selection process will be invaluable in developing this information for our
profession. Will you take a few minutes now, or in the next few days, to complete
the enclosed questionnaire?

In field testing, administrators reported that this short instrument took only
about 10 minutes to complete. A stamped envelope is provided for your ease in
returning the response. If you wish, I will send you a detailed summary of the
data generated by the study--just indicate your request for this in the space
provided on the questionnaire.

Your participation is vital if this study is to succeed. Be assured that the
information requested is for summation only and that strict confidentiality of
your response will be maintained.

Thank you very much for your important help with this project.

Sincerely,

@W

D. David Ostroth
Assistant to the Director
Residence Hall Programs

240

 

APPENDIX D

THE FOLLOWUP LETTER

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING

October 27, 1978

APPENDIX D

THE FOLLOWUP LETTER

About two weeks ago I sent you a questionnaire concerning staff selection
in Student Personnel. As yet I have not received your reply. On initial
inspection, the results so far appear most interesting. However, unless
more colleagues respond, the study cannot reach its potential for validity.

I hOpe to disseminate the results of this study so that employers like your-
self may know some of the nationwide norms in staff selection practices. In
addition, information on the candidate competencies sought by employers will
be helpful to faculty and graduate students working in Student Personnel

preparation programs.

Ybu can contribute valuable information to this studyh-and.your response is
badly needed if the study is to be completed. May I ask you to return the
questionnaire by November 6?

A new copy of the questionnaire is enclosed in case you may have mislaid the
first one. Again, I will be most happy to share a fairly detailed summary
of the results (not just the customary short abstract) with you if you wish.

If you have already returned the first questionnaire, please disregard this
letter and accept my thanks for participating in the study.

s:ncerei2yours,

D. David Ostroth
Assistant to the Director
Residence Hall Programs

241

 

APPENDIX E

POSITION TITLES FOR LISTINGS

INCLUDED IN THE POPULATION

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

POSITION TITLES FOR LISTINGS
INCLUDED IN THE POPULATION

Head Resident/Residence Staff Positions (n=lll)

 

Residence Hall Director

Resident Director

Head Resident/Head Resident Advisor
Hall Director and Assistant Dean of Students
Residence Hall Administrator/Counselor
Residence Hall Coordinator

Residence Life Coordinator

Hall/House Manager

Dormitory Director

Student Affairs Coordinator

Assistant Director of Housing

Miscellaneous Hall Director Titles
Resident Advisor
Graduate Resident Advisor

Other Residence Staff Titles

Residence Hall Programming Positions (n=l4)

 

Residence Hall Coordinator/Activities Director

Activity Coordinator/Men's Residence Director

Coordinator for Residence Hall Activities and Resident
Director

Residence Hall Advisor for Student Development and
Programming

Men's Halls Coordinator/Director of Student Activities

Assistant Coordinator of Student Activities and Area
Coordinator

Assistant Director of Campus Programs - Resident Counselor

Director of Residence Education (for a particular
residence hall)

Coordinator of Minority Affairs/Residence Life Coordinator

Residence Life Coordinator

Program Coordinator (live-in)

Student Activities Coordinator, TWU Houston Center

Director of Student Activities

Assistant Coordinator for Collegiate Programs

242

Number

[—4

H

...:

F‘F‘F‘P‘F‘P‘H

243

Campus Activities Positions (n=23)

 

Coordinator of Student Activities

Program Advisor

Assistant Director of Student Activities
Director of Student Activities

Coordinator of Campus Programs

Coordinator of Campus Activities

Coordinator of Student Development Programs
Coordinator of Student Group Activities
Assistant Director for Special Programs
Assistant Director - University Center

Student Activities Assistant

Student Life Assistant

Assistant Dean of Students for Activities
Assistant Dean of Students — Panhellenic Advisor
Student Activities Advisor/Night Manager

Program Coordinator - Student Involvement Center

Administrative/Generalist Positions (n=25)

 

Assistant Dean of Students

Assistant Dean of Women

Area Coordinator/Director

Assistant Dean for Student Affairs and Residence Hall
Director

Assistant Dean for Student Development (men)

Assistant Director of Student Life

Counselor/Assistant to the Dean of Students

Assistant Dean of Men

Assistant to the Dean of Students and Director, Black
Student Services

College Living Coordinator

Director of Women's Residence Halls

Assistant Dean of Students/Director of Residence Life

Assistant Director, Office of Residential and Judicial
Affairs

Assistant Director of Housing/Activities

Assistant Director of Housing

Assistant to the Director, Division of Housing

Assistant Director of Arts and Science Placement

Assistant Director of Placement Services

Assistant Director of Career Planning and Placement

Director of Special Services

Assistant Director of Admissions

Number

t—Jt—JHHt—ar—‘HHb—JHHHHNb-b

F‘F’Hldfd RJRJw

P'F‘H‘H

F‘P‘F‘F‘F‘H‘F‘H‘H

 

244

Advising/Counseling Positions (n=6)

Counselor Upward Bound - Special Services

Admissions Counselor

Student Development Specialist

Academic Advisor

Deputy Director of Special Programs for Educational
Development

Resident Counselor

Number

F‘F‘F‘H

}-‘

 

 

APPENDIX F

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION,
"DO YOU USE ANY SELECTION TECHNIQUES YOU FEEL ARE

PARTICULARLY USEFUL TO YOU? IF SO, WOULD

 

YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THEM?"

 

APPENDIX F

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION,
"DO YOU USE ANY SELECTION TECHNIQUES YOU FEEL ARE

PARTICULARLY USEFUL TO YOU? IF SO, WOULD

 

YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THEM?"

Comments in response to this question have been grouped under topical
headings (underlined) and are quoted directly.

Use of Groups and Other Staff in the Selection Process

 

Individual and group interviews by students, faculty, administrators.
The combination of student leaders and staff to screen candidates.
One-on-one and group (small) discussions are essential.

Interview with students; interview with Search Committee composed of
students (3) faculty (2) administrators (2).

Interviews with RA's in the residence halls involved.

We utilize a Search and Screen Committee (faculty, students, and staff)
and screen all applicants, recommend those to be invited to campus,
interview those applicants, and recommend to me those I should consider
hiring.

I do utilize several other people to help screen applicant materials,
then pool our perceptions.

Using other staff members in the selection process.

Use of the Telephone for Interviews and Reference Checks

 

A selection team with diverse backgrounds and input. Calling 2 or 3
references on candidates before making any offers.

Personal phone contacts with graduate school faculty and previous
employers was most helpful. The WATS line is invaluable for me.

We use a student, faculty, staff interview and selection committee
composed of persons who will also be a support group to new employees.
Works well to educate faculty on job responsibilities. Gets student
support early.

245

246

1. First phone call--try to discover most satisfying achievements to
see if match with type of work required.

2. Screening committee conducted lS-minute phone calls with top 12 to
screen 3.

3. Done on phone with microphone. Worked well.

-Phone contacts with references.
-Telephone interviews prior to selection of candidates for on-campus

interviews.

Interviewing in a Relaxed Atmosphere

 

Personal phone calls to references very helpful. Informal setting
with a candidate also very helpful--as opposed to purely formal
environment (at college - in office)--helps me to learn real person.

Find that if I am particularly "taken" with a candidate, a second
interview in a more relaxed setting gives greater insight as to
practical work situations.

I feel a good talk over lunch or some other place away from the office
is very helpful. I do question a resume that makes the candidate

look perfect.

Information Dissemination to Candidates

 

Providing an information session where all candidates meet together.

When we ask a person to interview with us, we give them a folder
about (our institution) and ask them to read it before the interview.

Clarification of conference interviews--conference interviews used as
a means of disseminating information about position, obtaining general
information about potential applicants--all in-depth interviews on
campus.

Use of Personal Referrals and Known References

 

Personal referrals.

I depend strongly on references that I personally knew and had confi-
dence in their judgment.

Topics for Discussion in Interviews; Types of Information Sought

 

I look for leadership, self—initiative, good writing skills, maturity,
etc. in resumés and letters of recommendation.

We spend much time interacting about differences between the large
university/small college and the large town/small town.

Personal judgments of how well the applicant will work with students,
faculty, administrators, and staff on my campus and how well the
applicant will adjust to my campus and community.

247

Questions related to interests, hobbies, and long-range plans.

Interested in determining skill levels candidate has developed. Discuss
how developed and then used. Use interview techniques that enable
candidates to present self comfortably and effectively.

Miscellaneous

 

Simply having a clear understanding of the talents we are looking for
before going helps us review resumés efficiently so that more time
can be devoted to interviewing viable candidates.

The individual interview is most useful. Has 2:1 weight compared to
references or resume.

At conferences and the like we conduct a followup interview with two
interviewers if possible (a team) when a candidate appears strong.
On campus a candidate faces the usual gauntlet of 6-lO professional
people and sometimes as many as 20 students.

I took pictures (Polaroid) of some of the candidates at conferences
(with their permission, of course) so that I could remember the
people better.

Coming to the conferences prepared with form letters to respond to
candidates' inquiries.

Selection procedures and forms utilized for campus interviews were
more useful than conference procedures.

Objective screening standards for review of resumes and for interviews.
(Note: no elaboration on these standards was given by the author of
this comment.)

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. P., & McCord, C. G. Personal and situational
factors in the recruitment interview. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1970, g3, 337-385.

 

 

American College Personnel Association. A student develop-
ment model for student affairs in tomorrow's
higher education. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1975, léx 334-341.

 

 

American Personnel and Guidance Association. The role and
preparation of student personnel workers in insti-
tutions of higher learning. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1967, g, 62-65.

 

 

Anderson, C. W. The relation between speaking times and
decision in the employment interview. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1960, fig, 267-268.

 

 

Anthony, W. P., & Nicholson, E. A. Management of human
resources. Columbus, Ohio: Grid, Inc., 1977.

 

 

Armstrong, M. R., Campbell, T. J., & Ostroth, D. D. A
survey of the employment situation in college and
university student personnel. NASPA Journal,
1978, l2, 51-58.

 

Atkinson, D. R., Williams, T. D., & Garb, E. The Personal
Orientation Inventory as a predictor of resident
assistant effectiveness. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1973, lg, 326-332.

 

 

Babbie, E. R. Survey research methods. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth, 1973.

 

Banta, T. Selecting student orientation assistants: A
comparison of approaches. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1969, lg, 240-243.

 

 

248

 

 

Banta,

249

T. W., & McCormick, J. E. Using the leaderless
group discussion technique for the selection of
residence hall counselors. Journal of the National
Association for Women Deans and Counselors, 1969,
Q3 (Fall), 30-33.

 

 

Bass, B. M. An analysis of the leaderless group discus-

Beatty,

sion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1949, 33,
527-533.

 

R. W., & Schneier, C. E. Personnel administration:
An experiential/skill—building approach. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1977.

 

 

Bennett, W. E. Manager selection, education, and training.

Biggs,

 

New York: McGraw—Hill, 1959.

D. A. Selecting residence counselors--job viewpoints
and interpersonal attitudes. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1971, l2, 111-115.

 

 

Blakeney, R. N., & MacNaughton, J. F. Effects of temporal

placement of unfavorable information on decision
making during the selection interview. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1971, §§, 138-142.

 

Blum, M. L., & Naylor, J. C. Industrial psychology. New

Bodden,

 

York: Harper & Row, 1968.

J. L., & Walsh, W. B. Increasing the effectiveness
of the selection of residence counselors. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 1968, 9, 193—194.

 

Bolster, B. F., & Springbett, B. M. The reaction of inter-

viewers to favorable and unfavorable information.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, fig, 97-103.

 

Brady, M. V. Student counselor selection. Personnel and

Briner,

Brown,

Guidance Journal, 1955, 33, 289-292.

C. B. Identification and definition of the cri—
teria relevant to the selection of public school
administrative personnel. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Stanford University, 1968.

 

 

 

R. D. Student development in tomorrow's higher
education—-A return to the academy. Student Per-
sonnel Series No. 16. Washington, D.C.: American
College Personnel Association, 1972.

 

 

 

 

250

Browning, R. C. Validity of reference ratings from pre—
vious employers. Personnel Psychology, 1968, ll,
389—393.

 

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E. III, &
Weick, K. E., Jr. Managerial behavior, perfor—
mance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw—Hill,
1970.

 

 

Caplow, T., & McGee, R. J. The academic marketplace.
New York: Basic Books, 1958.

 

Carlson, R. E. Effects of applicant sample on ratings of
valid information in an employment setting.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 53, 217—222.

 

Carlson, R. E. Selection interview decisions: The effect
of interviewer experience, relative quota situ-
ation, and applicant sample on interviewer deci-
sions. Personnel Psychology, 1967, lg, 259-280.

 

Carlson, R. E. The relative influence of appearance and
factual written information on an interviewer's
final rating. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1967, El, 461—468.

 

Carlson, R. E. Selection interview decisions: The effect
of mode of applicant presentation on some outcome
measures. Personnel Psychology, 1968, ll, 193-207.

 

Carlson, R. E., Thayer, P. W., Mayfield, E. C., & Peterson,
A. Improvements in the selection interview.
Personnel Journal, 1971, 5Q, 268—275; 317.

 

Carlson, R. E., Thayer, P. W., Mayfield, E. C., & Peterson,
A. Research on the selection interview. In
E. A. Fleishman and A. R. Bass (Eds.), Studies in
personnel and industrial psycholggy. Homewood,

 

 

111.: The Dorsey Press, 1974.

Check, J. F. Improving the reliability of recommendations.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1978, l9,
370-371.

Cochran, W. G. Some methods for strengthening the common
chi-square tests. Biometrics, 1954, lg, 417-451.

Coleman, C. J., Siegel, S. R., & Sateja, J. J., Jr. Who
wants what from the interview. Journal of College
Placement, 1977(2), ll, 53-56.

 

251

Commission on Professional Development, Council of Stu-
dent Personnel Associations in Higher Education,
and Interdivisional Committee, American Personnel
and Guidance Association. Guidelines for graduate
programs in the preparation of student personnel
workers in higher education. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1969, 41, 493-498.

Commission on Professional Development, Council of Student
Personnel Associations in Higher Education. Stu-
dent development services in higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1974, l2,
74-78.

 

Correnti, R. J., & Tuttle, C. E. An apprenticeship pro—
gram for resident assistants. NASPA Journal,
1972, lg, 132—137.

Corson, J. J. The governance of colleges and universities.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

 

Crookston, B. B. An organizational model for student
development. NASPA Journal, 1972, l9, 3—13.

Dailey, C. A. The effects of premature conclusion upon
the acquisition of understanding of a person.
Journal of Psychology, 1952, ll, 133—152.

 

Daniels, H. W., & Otis, J. L. A method of analyzing
employment interviews. Personnel Psyghology,
1950, l, 425-455.

 

Delworth, U., Sherwood, G., & Casaburri, N. Student para—
professionals: A working model for higher edu—
gation. Student Personnel Monograph Series No. 17.
Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel
Association, 1974.

 

 

Denerley, R. A., & Plumbley, P. R. Recruitment and selec-
tion in a full—employment economy. London:
Institute of Personnel Management, 1969.

 

 

Dessler, G. Management fundamentals: A framework.
Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing Co., 1977.

 

Dewey, M. E. Systems philosophy as professional prepar—
ation. In G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspectives on the
preparation of student affairs professionals.
Student Personnel Series No. 22. Washington,
D.C.: American College Personnel Association,
1977.

 

 

 

252

Domeier, P. E. A study to examine the training of student
affairs administrators for specified competency
tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1977.

 

 

 

Downs, C. W. What does the selection interview accomplish?
Personnel Administration, 1968, ll, 8—14.

 

Dunnette, M. D. Personnel selection and placement. Bel-
mont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1966.

 

Ericson, R. W. Recruitment: Some unanswered questions.
Personnel Journal, 1974, §;, 136-140.

 

Escott, S. B. Anatomy of a placement cotillion. NASPA
Journal, 1976, lg, 40-52.

Escott, S. B. Placement services 1974: A report and
analysis. NASPA Journal, 1974, ll, 84-89.

 

Etzioni, A. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1964.

 

Everhart, R. B. A neophyte reflects on the annual meeting.
The Journal of Higher Education, 1973, 33, 633-643.

 

Ferrari, M. R. National study of student personnel man-
power planning--1972. NASPA Journal, 1972, lg,
91-100.

 

Fleishman, E. A., & Bass, A. R. Studies in personnel and
industrial psychology. Homewood, I11.: The Dorsey
Press, 1974.

 

 

Garfield, N. J., Holland, 5., & Humphrey, P. Selecting
residence hall assistants: A multifaceted approach.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1978, lg, 573.

 

Gaudet, F. J., & Casey, T. F. How much can you tell from
a resumé? Personnel, 1959, lg, 62—65.

 

Ghiselli, E. E. The validity of a personnel interview.
Personnel Psychology, 1966, lg, 389-394.

 

Glueck, W. F. Personnel: A diagnostic approach. Dallas,
Texas: Business Publications, Inc., 1978.

 

Goheen, H. W., & Mosel, J. N. Validity of Employment
Recommendation Questionnaire: II. Comparison
with field investigations. Personnel Psychology,
1959, ll, 300-308.

 

 

253

Graff, R. W., & Bradshaw, H. E. Relationship of a measure
of self—actualization to dormitory resident assis-
tant effectiveness. Journal of Counseling Psy—
chology, 1970, ll, 502—505.

 

Greenleaf, E. A. Preparation of student personnel staff
to meet flexibility and diversity in higher edu—
cation. In G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspectives on
the preparation of student affairs professionals.
Student Personnel Series No. 22. Washington, D.C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1977.

 

Greenleaf, E. A. Who should educate the college student
personnel worker and to what end? Journal of the
National Association of Student Personnel Adminis-
trators, 1968, g, 31-32.

 

Greer, R. M., Blaesser, W. W., Herron, R. D., & Horle,
R. F. College student personnel graduate place—
ment. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1978(a), lg, 342-348.

 

Greer, R. M., Blaesser, W. W., Herron, R. D., & Horle,
R. F. College student personnel graduate place—
ment task force report. Unpublished manuscript,
American College Personnel Association, Commission
XII, 1978(b). (Available from Dr. Richard M.
Greer, Assistant Professor, Western Kentucky
University, Bowling Green, KY 42101.)

 

 

Hadley, W. M. The selection of school principals.
American School Board Journal, 1952(Ju1y), 125, 25.

 

Haire, M. Psychology in management. New York: McGraw-

 

 

Hill, 1956.
Hall, D. T. Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades,
Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1976.

Hall, R. M., & McIntyre, K. E. The student personnel
program. In R. F. Campbell & R. T. Gregg (Eds.),
Administrative behavior in education. New York:
Harper & Bros., 1957.

 

Hanson, G. Tentative taxonomy of student development
staff skills and competencies. Unpublished manu—
script, American College Personnel Association,
1976. (Available from Gary Hanson, Assistant
Dean of Students, U. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.)

 

 

254

Harpel, R. L. Planning, budgeting, and evaluation in
student affairs programs: A manual for adminis-
trators. NASPA Journal, 1976, lg, i-xx (special
insert).

 

Harvey, L. J. Administration by objectives in student
personnel programs. Journal of College Student

 

 

Hester, L. H. Differential percgptions of factors impor-
tant in the selection of student personnel admin—
istrators in midwestern universities. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1971.

 

 

 

Hicks, H. G., & Gullett, C. R. Modern business management.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

 

Holbrook, R. L. Student volunteers as helpers in resi—
dence halls. Journal of College Student Person—
nel, 1972, ll, 559-561.

 

Hopkins, L. B. Personnel procedures in education. Edu—
cational Record, Supplement No. 3, 1926, 66—71.

 

Hoyt, D. P., & Rhatigan, J. J. Professional preparation
of junior and senior college student personnel
administrators. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
1968, 31, 263-270.

 

Humphries, J. W. Student personnel professionals: Is
there a future? Educational Record, 1977, gg,
59-65.

 

Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. The dynamics of interview-
ing. New York: Wiley, 1957.

 

Keating, E., Paterson, D. G., & Stone, C. H. Validity of
work histories obtained by the interview. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1950, g3, 6-11.

 

Knock, G. H. (Ed.), Pgrspectives on the preparation of
student affairs professionals. Student Personnel
Series No. 22. Washington, D.C.: American Col-
lege Personnel Association, 1977.

 

 

Koontz, H., & O'Donnell, C. Principles of management
(4th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.

 

Korman, A. K. The prediction of managerial performance:
A review. Personnel Psychology, 1968, ll, 295-322.

 

 

255

Kuh, G. D., Greenlee, F., & Lardy, B. A. A profile of
graduate students in college student personnel.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1978, lg,
531-536.

 

Lipsett, L. Selecting personnel without tests. Personnel
Journal, 1972, gl, 648—654.

Lopez, F. M., Jr. Personnel interviewing. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1965.

 

Mandell, M. M. Checking references: How to get the facts.
Supervisopy Management, 1958, g(3), 10-17.

 

Matson, J. E. The development and care of community-
junior college student personnel specialists.
In G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspectives on the prepar—
ation of student affairs professionals. Student
Personnel Series No. 22. Washington, D.C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1977.

 

 

Mayfield, E. C. The selection interview--a reevaluation
of published research. Personnel Psychology,
1964, ll, 239-260.

 

Mayfield, E. C., & Carlson, R. E. Selection interview
decisions: First results from a long-term research
project. Personnel Psychology, 1966, lg, 41—53.

 

McKay, Q. G. Red flags missed-—wrong man hired. In
H. J. Chruden & A. W. Sherman, Jr. (Eds.), Read—
ings in personnel management. Cincinnati:
South—Western Publishing Co., 1972.

 

McMurry, R. N. Validating the patterned interview. Per-
sonnel, 1947, g;, 263—272.

Meabon, D. L., Bailey, W. R., & Whitten, C. H. The compe—
tent student activities administrators: A model
for training. Journal of College Student Person—
pel, 1975, lg, 100—116.

 

Miller, H. G. Selection procedures for physical education
personnel in state teacher collegel. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1959.

 

Miller, T. K., & Prince, J. S. The future of student
affairs. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1976.

 

 

256

Miner, J. B., & Miner, M. G. Personnel and industrial
relations: A managerial approach (3rd ed.). New
York: Macmillan, 1977.

 

 

Miner, J. B. The selection interview. In W. C. Hamner
& F. L. Schmidt (Eds.), Contemporary problems in
personnel (Rev. ed.). Chicago: St. Clair Press,
1977.

 

 

Minetti, R. H. Ag analytical description of the relation-
ship between the academic training and assistant-
ship experiences of master's deggee programs in
student personnel administration. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1977.

 

 

 

 

Minium, E. W. Statistical reasoning in psychology and
education. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970.

 

 

Morgan, J. D., Smith, M. J., & Zirkle, K. E. A systematic
selection process: Efficiency and effectiveness
in selecting residence hall staff. The Journal
of College and University Student Housing, 1974,
4, 23.

 

 

Morton, L. J. The CPI: Significance as a resident assis-
tant selection aid. Journal of College and Uni-
versity Student Housipg, 1975-76, g, 16—21.

 

 

Mosel, J. N., & Goheen, H. W. The Employment Recommen-

 

dation Questionnaire: III. Validity of different
types of references. Personnel Psychology, 1959,
lg, 469-477.

Mosel, J. N., & Goheen, H. W. The validity of the Employ-
ment Recommendation Questionnaire in personnel
selection. Personnel Psychology, 1958, ll, 481-
490.

 

Moser, C. A., & Kalton, G. Survey methods in social
investigation. New York: Basic Books, 1972.

 

 

Mullozzi, A., Jr., & Spees, E. R. Factors in selecting
residence hall fellows. Journal of the National
Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 1971,
lg, 185-190.

 

 

Murphy, R. 0., & Ortenzi, A. Use of standardized measure-
ments in the selection of residence hall staff.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1966, 1,
360-363.

 

 

257

Nair, D. A., & Sonders, O. L. Sociodrama in the selection
and training of male student residence hall
advisors. NASPA Journal, 1969, 1, 81-85.

Newton, F. B., & Hellenga, G. Assessment of learning and
process objectives in a student personnel training
program. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1974, lg, 492—497.

 

Newton, F. B., & Richardson, R. L. Expected entry—level
competencies of student personnel workers.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1976, ll,
426—430.

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K.,
& Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the social
sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw—Hill, 1975.

 

O'Banion, T. Program proposal for preparing college stu—
dent personnel workers. Journal of College Stu-
dent Personnel, 1969, lg, 249—253.

 

O'Leary, L. R. Interviewing for the decisionmaker.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1976.

 

Ostroth, D. D. Master's—level preparation for student
personnel work. Journal of College Student Per-
sonnel, 1975, lg, 319-322.

 

Packwood, W. College student personnel graduate placement.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1976, ll,
22—27.

 

Peres, S. H., & Garcia, J. R. Validity and dimensions of
descriptive adjectives used in reference letters
for engineering applicants. Personnel Psychology,
1962, lg, 279-286.

 

Peterson, W. D. What the doctor prescribed: A process—
outcome approach to student personnel education.
In G. H. Knock (Ed.), Perspectives on the prepar-
ation of student affairs professionals. Student
Personnel Series No. 22. Washington, D.C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1977.

 

 

Podolsky, A., & Smith, C. R. (Eds.). Education directory,
colleges and universities, 1977-78. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics,
1978.

 

 

Rassi, J. L. Criteria used in selection of district office
administrative personnel. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Arizona State University, 1975.

 

 

258

Riker, H. C. Learning by doing. In G. H. Knock (Ed.),
Perspectives on the preparation of student affairs
professionals. Student Personnel Series No. 22.
Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel
Association, 1977.

 

Rim, Y. How reliable are letters of recommendation?
Journal of Higher Education, 1976, 31, 437-45.

 

Robinson, D. W. Analysis of three statements relative to
the preparation of college student personnel
workers. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1966, 1, 254—256.

 

Rowe, P. M. Individual differences in selection decisions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, g1, 304-307.

 

Schneider, B. Staffing organizations. Santa Monica,
Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1976.

 

Schroeder, C. C., & Willis, B. S. An attempt to use a
measure of self-actualization in the selection
of resident assistants. The Journal of College
and University Student Housipg, 1973, g(January),

 

 

30-32.
Schroeder, P., & Dowse, E. Selection, function, and
assessment of residence hall counselors. Per-

sonnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, g1, 151-156.

 

Sheeder, W. B. Role playing as a method of selecting
dormitory counselors. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1963, g, 154—158.

 

Sheffield, J. H. Methods employed in selecting the chief
administrative officer of a school district.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1951.

 

 

Shelton, J. L., & Mathis, H. V. Assertiveness as a pre—
dictor of resident assistant effectiveness.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1976, ll,
368—370.

 

Silverman, R. J. The student personnel worker on the
boundary. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1971, ll, 3-6.

 

Sims, 0. S., & Kozoll, C. E. A case for management by
objectives for student development services.
NASPA Journal, 1974, ll, 44-50.

 

 

259

Sorrells, D. J. Feasible approaches to professional stu-
dent personnel development and practice. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1972, ll, 309-312.

 

 

Soskin, W. E. Influence of information on bias in social
perception. Journal of Personality, 1953, g;,
118-127.

 

Springbett, B. M. Series effects in the employment inter-
view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill
University, 1954.

 

Stanton, E. 8. Successful personnel recruiting and selec-
tion. New York: AMACOM (A division of American
Management Associations), 1977.

 

 

Studer, J. D., & Heath, R. P. Conference placement
activity: Observations and recommendations.
NASPA Journal, 1974, ll, 80-83.

 

Svoren, D. S. Significant areas of behavior resulting
from the interaction of chief student personnel
officers and chief executive officers on three
tasks in Michigan colleges and universities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1977. ‘

 

 

 

 

Sydiaha, D. The relation between actuarial and descrip-
tive methods in_personnel appraisal. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, McGill University, 1958.

 

 

Symonds, P. M. Research on the interview process. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 1939, lg, 346-353.

 

Taylor, V. R. A hard look at the selection interview.
In H. J. Chruden & A. W. Sherman, Jr. (Eds.),
Readings in personnel management. Cincinnati:
South-Western Publishing Co., 1972.

 

Tibbits, 8. Student staff selectors: Peer evaluations
may be best. NASPA Journal, 1977, lg, 65-68.

 

Trandem, V. L. Personnel selection procedures in rural
public school districts of central California.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1974.

 

 

Trueblood, D. L. The educational preparation of the col-
lege student personnel worker of the future. In
G. J. Klopf (Ed.), College student personnel work
in the years ahead. Student Personnel Series
No. 7. Washington, D.C.: American Personnel and
Guidance Association, 1966.

 

 

260

Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. The selection interview since
1949. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, gl, 100-116.

 

Verplank, W. S. The control of the content of conver-
sation: reinforcement of statements of opinion.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955,
ll, 668-676.

 

Wachowiak, D., & Bauer, G. Use of the Myers—Briggs Type
Indicator for the selection and evaluation of
residence hall advisors. Journal of College and
University Student Housing, 1977, g(Winter), 34-37.

 

 

Wagner, R. The employment interview: A critical review.
Personnel Psychology, 1949, g, 17-46.

 

Wallenfeldt, E. C., & Bigelow, G. S. Status of the intern—
ship in student personnel studies. Journal of the
National Association for Women Deans, Administra—
tors, and Counselors, 1971, lg, 180-184.

 

 

 

Wanous, J. P. Tell it like it is at realistic job pre—
views. Personnel, 1975, g3, 50-60.

 

Warwick, D. P., & Lininger, C. A. The sample survey:
Theory and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1975.

 

 

Webster, E. C. Decision making in the employment inter-
view. Montreal: The Eagle Publishing Co., 1964.

 

Weiss, D. J., & Dawis, R. V. An objective validation of
factual interview data. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 1960, gg, 381-385.

 

Wexley, K. N., Yukl, G. A., Kovacs, S. Z., & Sanders, R. E.
Importance of contrast effects in employment
interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972,
lg, 45-48.

 

Williamson, E. G. Professional preparation of student
personnel workers. School and Society, 1958, gg,
3-5.

 

Williamson, E. G. Student personnel services in colleges
and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

 

Wotruba, R. T. Can residence hall staff be selected
scientifically? NASPA Journal, 1969, 1, 107—111.

 

261

Wotruba, R. T., & Crawley, W. J. A sociometric question-
naire as a guide to select resident assistants.
Paper read at the national conference of the
American Personnel and Guidance Association,
Dallas, Texas, 1967.

Wright, 0. Summary of research on the selection interview
since 1964. Personnel Psychology, 1969, gg,
391-413.

 

Wright, P. The harassed decision maker: Time pressures,
distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1974, lg, 555-561.

 

Wyrick, T. J., & Mitchell, K. N. Relationship between
resident assistants' empathy and warmth and their
effectiveness. Journal of College Student Per-
sonnel, 1971, ll, 36-40.

 

Yates, J. M. Questionnaire develOped for a doctoral
study, Memphis State University (Mimeographed
and undated).

Yonge, K. A. The value of the interview: An orientation
and a pilot study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1956, gg, 25-31.

 

 

 

 

III3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII3IIIIIIIIIIIII3IIIIII3IIIIIIIIIIIIIII3IIIIIIIII