A quasi‐experimental investigation of differences between face‐to‐face and videoconference interviews in an actual selection process

Markus Langer*, Andrew Demetriou, Alexandros Arvanitidis, Stephane Vanderveken, Annemarie M. F. Hiemstra

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


Videoconference interviews are now integral to many selection processes. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings suggest that videoconference interviews may lead to different interview performance ratings in comparison to Face-to-Face (FTF) interviews. This has led to the question of the comparability of the psychometric properties of videoconferences and FTF interviews. However, evidence from actual selection processes stems from the beginning of the century, and recent findings predominantly stem from simulated interview contexts. We present insights from an actual selection process within a large European organization where we had the unique opportunity for a quasi-experimental investigation of differences between videoconference and FTF interviews. Initially, the organization conducted FTF interviews, and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the interviews were conducted via videoconference. We examine mean differences in applicant performance ratings and evidence for response format-related validity differences. There were only small, non-significant mean differences and no evidence for response format related validity differences. We discuss possible causes for discrepancies in our findings compared to previous research. Furthermore, we conclude that downstream consequences of differences between FTF and videoconference interviews may be lower than previously expected. We end with a call for research on the interaction between technology-design and selection-tool-design features.
Original languageEnglish
JournalApplied Psychology
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 1 Jul 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Applied Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Association of Applied Psychology.

Cite this