MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1574303614 · doi:10.18438/b85w3d

A List of Best Practices That May Improve the Use of Telephone Interviews During the Recruitment Process

2009· article· en· W1574303614 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Herron, Lotta Haglund

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésInterviewTelephone interviewTelephone numberTelephone surveyProfessional associationMedical educationPsychologyLibrary scienceSociologyPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessAdvertisingComputer scienceSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Review of: Engel, Debra, and Sarah Robbins. "Telephone Interviewing Practices within Academic Libraries." Journal of Academic Librarianship 35.2 (2009): 143-51. Objective – To investigate the use of telephone interviews in academic libraries and identify best practices when conducting telephone interviews. Design – Survey and open-ended questions. Setting – Academic libraries in the United States. Subjects – Academic institutional members of the Association of Research Libraries. Methods – A fifteen-item survey (Appendix A, 150) concerning telephone interviewing practice was sent to 112 institutional members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The survey contained multiple choice-type questions as well as open-ended questions. Main Results – The response rate was 66% (74 of 112 research libraries; 56 public institutions and 17 private). Of the respondents, 90% used telephone interviews to screen applicants for professional positions (ranging from occasionally to always) and only 10% never used telephone interviews. The main reason for holding telephone interviews was to “screen candidates in order to narrow the pool of applicants who will be invited for in-person interviews” (146). Other reasons given included minimizing expenses involved in interviewing out-of-town candidates (39% respondents), shortening the length of time to complete the search process (27%) and meeting library or campus hiring requirements (3%). On average, the majority of libraries (51%) hired between 2-4 professional positions each year. For each open professional position, the number of candidates telephone-interviewed varied from less than 3 to 9 depending on library and position. Interviews typically lasted between 16 and 45 minutes (77% respondents) with all the search committee members (staff involved in the recruitment process) being present (75%) and taking turns to ask questions to the candidates (90%). Questions were most often the same for all candidates applying for a particular position (91%) and candidates were nearly always allowed in return to ask questions of the committee (96%). In answer to the open-ended question, “In your opinion, what best creates a collegial and effective environment for conducting telephone interviews?”, the dominating responses included: all search committee members being present and participating actively, using a script and taking notes, introducing all interview participants, and giving candidates adequate notification and documentation. The majority of respondents “would not change anything about their institution’s current (telephone interview) practice” (147). Some thought that “training and/or a need for consistency in procedure for all interviews conducted” (147) would be relevant changes in practice. The results of the survey were compared to the findings in the library, personnel management and human resources literature. Conclusion – From the survey and responses to open-ended questions, a number of best practices when conducting telephone interviews emerged (148–150): 1. Properly train the search committee (e.g., in knowing about the position, organization and protocols for conducting interviews properly) 2. Involve the search committee throughout the recruitment process 3. Help the interviewee be prepared (e.g., by sending institutional information packages) 4. Maintain and use suitable technology (e.g., by choosing suitable conferencing facilities with the interviewee situation in mind) 5. Put the candidate at ease (e.g., by explaining who will be present, how long the interview will last and how many questions there will be) 6. Provide introductions (e.g., both in the beginning of the interview and even before individual questions) 7. Listen and take notes during the interview 8. Discuss the interviews immediately afterwards Engel and Robbins suggest that further research could include looking into job candidate and search committee experiences of the telephone interviewing procedure.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,350
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,427
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,650
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,801

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,3500,427
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0050,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0150,016
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,004
Communication savante0,0070,010
Science ouverte0,0090,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0260,036

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,129
Tête enseignante GPT0,367
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
DomaineMéthodes
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetLibrary Science and Information LiteracyTravaux en français237 207