Work sample or structured interview? What each one shows a hiring team
A structured interview and a work sample answer different questions. An interview shows how an applicant describes what they would do. A work sample shows what they do with a piece of work in front of them. Neither replaces the other, and Calavion is built around the second.
What the applicant does
In a structured interview, every applicant is asked the same prepared questions and answers in words. In a work sample, every applicant is given the same piece of work and acts on it: reads records, decides, writes, and leaves things done or open.
What the reviewer sees
| Structured interview | Work sample | |
|---|---|---|
| Main evidence | What the applicant says | What the applicant did |
| Where the situation comes from | The interviewer’s questions | A piece of real or realistic work |
| Reviewer reads | Answers, usually against a rubric | A record of actions, messages and open items |
| Effort for the employer | Writing questions and a rubric; interviewer time per applicant | Choosing and preparing the work; reading each record |
| Effort for the applicant | Time in the interview | Time working the piece |
What each can show
An interview can surface motivation, communication style and how someone reasons aloud. It cannot show what they do when records conflict and a rule limits what they may say. A work sample can show that, and it cannot show everything an interview does. A person’s reasons are visible only where the exercise asked for them.
Why structure matters in both
A meta-analysis of interview studies found that the degree of structure was a major factor in how well interviews predicted job performance (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994). A meta-analysis of work-sample studies reports a moderate relationship with job performance (Roth, Bobko & McFarland, 2005). A 2022 re-estimate of many selection methods reports lower validity than earlier figures, because earlier corrections for restriction of range overcorrected (Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens, 2022). See what research says about seeing applicants perform real work for the sources and numbers.
Using them together
Some teams use a work sample to give the interview something specific to discuss. A moment in the record is something both sides can look at, which is the approach in how to debrief a practical hiring task and how to discuss applicant work without reducing it to a score.
What this comparison does not establish
It does not show that a work sample predicts job performance better than an interview, and it does not show that Calavion’s exercises do. Calavion does not give applicants an overall score, generate an ordered shortlist, or recommend whom to hire. The employer orders its shortlist; the software checks that order against approved criteria and asks for a reason where it conflicts. See Evidence and status.
Sources
- Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.184
- Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. Personnel Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00714.x
- Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/apl0000994