Face-to-face vs. remote digital settings in job assessment interviews: A multilevel hyperscanning protocol for the investigation of interpersonal attunement.

The digitalization process for organizations, which was inevitably accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, raises relevant challenges for Human Resource Management (HRM) because every technological implementation has a certain impact on human beings. Between many organizational HRM practices, recruitment and assessment interviews represent a significant moment where a social interaction provides the context for evaluating candidates' skills. It is therefore relevant to investigate how different interaction frames and relational conditions affect such task, with a specific focus on the differences between face-to-face (FTF) and remote computer-mediated (RCM) interaction settings. In particular, the possibility of qualifying and quantifying the mechanisms shaping the efficiency of interaction in the recruiter-candidate dyad-i.e. interpersonal attunement-is potentially insightful. We here present a neuroscientific protocol aimed at elucidating the impact of FTF vs. RCM modalities on social dynamics within assessment interviews. Specifically, the hyperscanning approach, understood as the concurrent recording and integrated analysis of behavioural-physiological responses of interacting agents, will be used to evaluate recruiter-candidate dyads while they are involved in either FTF or RCM conditions. Specifically, the protocol has been designed to collect self-report, oculometric, autonomic (electrodermal activity, heart rate, heart rate variability), and neurophysiological (electroencephalography) metrics from both inter-agents to explore the perceived quality of the interaction, automatic visual-attentional patterns of inter-agents, as well as their cognitive workload and emotional engagement. The proposed protocol will provide a theoretical evidence-based framework to assess possible differences between FTF vs. RMC settings in complex social interactions, with a specific focus on job interviews.

Perceptions and lessons from web-based interviews for the reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship application cycle.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experience and perceptions of reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship applicants and program directors (PDs) regarding the current and future use of web-based interviews (WBIs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nationwide cohort. PATIENT(S): Reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship applicants and PDs participating in the 2020 application cycle. INTERVENTION(S): Anonymous survey sent to applicants and PDs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Descriptive study evaluating the experience and satisfaction of applicants and PDs with WBIs. RESULT(S): Forty-six percent of applicants and eligible PDs responded to our survey. Most applicants and PDs responded that WBIs were adequate for conveying a sense of a program's strengths, faculty, diversity, clinical training, and research opportunities, but less than half responded that WBIs were adequate in providing a sense of the program's clinical site and facilities. After WBIs, both applicants (73%) and PDs (86%) were able to rank with confidence. The cost of WBIs was significantly lower for both applicants (median: $100) and programs (median: $100) than the costs previously reported for in-person interviews. The applicants interviewed at more programs than they would have if the interviews were on-site, and Zoom was the highest rated platform used. Most applicants and PDs responded that WBIs were an adequate substitute, and that they should continue after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Furthermore, most of the PDs were planning to continue to use WBIs in some capacity. CONCLUSION(S): Both applicants and PDs had favorable experiences with and perceptions of WBIs, and most endorse the continued use of this interview modality. The findings of this study can help guide and optimize future WBI practices.

Preparing for the interviewing process during Coronavirus disease-19 pandemic: Virtual interviewing experiences of applicants and interviewers, a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has forced upon all academic institutions to conduct virtual interviewing (VI) instead of face-to-face interviewing (FTFI) this interviewing cycle. The purpose of this systematic review was to understand the process of VI, its effectiveness as an alternative to FTFI, and the experiences of applicants and institutions with VI. We also share best practice strategies for applicants and institutions in VI preparation. METHOD: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and CINAHL databases were searched through May 2020. Articles in English evaluating the effectiveness of VI were included, without applying any date limits. Two reviewers selected articles and extracted data. RESULTS: Of the 934 articles screened, 22 articles underwent full-text article analysis to include 15 studies. There were 4 studies that reported the use of VI as a screening tool. 11 studies completely replaced FTFI with VI. Most applicants could appropriately convey themselves through VI. Most applicants and interviewing programs expressed reservations about VI's use as an alternative to FTFI. CONCLUSION: There is dearth of evidence supporting the efficacy of VI. There is an opportunity for potential research at multi-institutional level to gain better understanding of the efficacy of VI. The knowledge obtained from this systematic review has the potential of helping applicants and institutions in preparing for VI process. Additionally, authors propose supportive strategies to help prepare applicants and institutions for VI.

Virtual Interviews May Fall Short for Pediatric Surgery Fellowships: Lessons Learned From COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, many Pediatric Surgery Fellowship programs were forced to convert their normal in-person interviews into virtual interviews. This study sought to determine the perceived value of virtual interviews for Pediatric Surgery Fellowship. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to the applicants and faculty at a university-affiliated, free-standing children's hospital with a Pediatric Surgery fellowship program that conducted one of three interview days using a virtual format. RESULTS: All applicants who responded to the survey had at least one interview that was converted to a virtual interview. Faculty (75%) and applicants (87.5%) preferred in-person interviews over virtual interviews; most applicants (57%) did not feel they got to know the program as well with the virtual format. Applicants and faculty felt that virtual interviews could potentially be used as a screening tool in the future (7/10 Likert) but did not recommend they be used as a complete replacement for in-person interviews (3.5-5/10 Likert). Applicants were more likely than faculty to report that interview type influenced their final rank list (5 versus 3/10 Likert). CONCLUSIONS: Faculty and applicants preferred in-person interviews and did not recommend that virtual interviews replace in-person interviews. As the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues, more virtual interviews will be necessary, and innovations may be necessary to ensure an optimal interview process. TYPE OF STUDY: Survey. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Using online technologies to improve diversity and inclusion in cognitive interviews with young people.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the feasibility of using multiple technologies to recruit and conduct cognitive interviews among young people across the United States to test items measuring sexual and reproductive empowerment. We sought to understand whether these methods could achieve a diverse sample of participants. With more researchers turning to approaches that maintain social distancing in the context of COVID-19, it has become more pressing to refine these remote research methods. METHODS: We used several online sites to recruit for and conduct cognitive testing of survey items. To recruit potential participants we advertised the study on the free online bulletin board, Craigslist, and the free online social network, Reddit. Interested participants completed an online Qualtrics screening form. To maximize diversity, we purposefully selected individuals to invite for participation. We used the video meeting platform, Zoom, to conduct the cognitive interviews. The interviewer opened a document with the items to be tested, shared the screen with the participant, and gave them control of the mouse and keyboard. After the participant self-administered the survey, the interviewer asked about interpretation and comprehension. After completion of the interviews we sent participants a follow-up survey about their impressions of the research methods and technologies used. We describe the processes, the advantages and disadvantages, and offer recommendations for researchers. RESULTS: We recruited and interviewed 30 young people from a range of regions, gender identities, sexual orientations, ages, education, and experiences with sexual activity. These methods allowed us to recruit a purposefully selected diverse sample in terms of race/ethnicity and region. It also may have offered potential participants a feeling of safety and anonymity leading to greater participation from gay, lesbian, and transgender people who would not have agreed to participate in-person. Conducting the interviews using video chat may also have facilitated the inclusion of individuals who would not volunteer for in-person meetings. Disadvantages of video interviewing included participant challenges to finding a private space for the interview and problems with electronic devices. CONCLUSIONS: Online technologies can be used to achieve a diverse sample of research participants, contributing to research findings that better respond to young people's unique identities and situations.