pre research interview

Protect your data

This site uses cookies and related technologies for site operation, and analytics as described in our Privacy Policy . You may choose to consent to our use of these technologies, reject non-essential technologies, or further manage your preferences.

• The Pre-Interview Research...

The Pre-Interview Research Checklist

5 min read · Updated on October 12, 2022

Looking for creative ways to research a prospective employer beyond checking out the website? Let us help.

Everyone knows that candidates are supposed to research a company before heading into the interview. However, what exactly does that mean? Is looking up the company's website enough, and if not, how much more should you do?

What amount of research is appropriate and expected isn't just an idle question; candidates are often applying to more than one company. Combine multiple applications with full-time work at the current employer and it's clear that time is limited. How can you structure your research to yield maximum value and give you the edge you need — without spending hours online?

Begin with the company basics

The company website is a great place to start. Keep in mind that, much like your own resume and cover letter, a corporate website presents a professionally-curated image. You will find awards, carefully-worded brand messaging, feedback from happy customers, and other strategically-developed materials. That is not a negative thing, but it helps to understand why you shouldn't check off the “research” box after this step is completed.

If you are interviewing at a public company, find and read its most recent 10K Annual Report (you will find it under the “Investor” section on the company website, as well as on the  SEC website ). Annual reports may not sound like exciting reading, but they can deliver valuable information about the company's strategy, competitors, performance, risks associated with the business, and much more. Those who are short on time (or who find that reading the entire report cover to cover puts them to sleep) should focus their attention on management discussion and market segment sections.  

If you are interviewing at a startup,  Crunchbase will provide similar information about funding rounds, recent hires, company news, etc.

Next, look at social media

Most companies these days have a social media presence.  LinkedIn should be your first stop . Look up the company profile, as well as the profiles of key executives. You may also want to look for the head of the department you would be reporting to, as well as the person you will be interviewing with. If the corporate or individual pages include links to published articles, you can get a glimpse into “hot button” issues for the company. Take note, as these make excellent ideas for interview questions.

Other social media websites, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and messaging sites like Telegram , may offer different angles on the company and the people who work there. What do they choose to post about? How do they interact with customers? Do you see incessant advertising? Is the content reflective of thought leadership? Be sure to take notes so that you can easily refresh your memory prior to the interview.  

Run an internet search

A quick online search will produce a list of press releases, articles that mention the company, interviews with executives, and much more. If you are interested in a specific company and have some lead time before the interview, you may consider creating a news alert for the company name, as well as the names of key executives. When new materials that meet your search criteria are published, you will automatically get an email with the link.

Check company reviews online

Glassdoor.com has both positive and negative feedback from current and past employees for thousands of companies. Think of it as a virtual water cooler and gossip room. Reading Glassdoor reviews and comments can be insightful, entertaining, and thought-provoking. On that note, remember that Glassdoor allows its contributors to remain anonymous. Most users are honest, but virtually everything you read on Glassdoor is self-reported, subjective, and hard to verify. Look for patterns without focusing on any one experience and maintain a measure of professional skepticism no matter what you read.

On that note, you may get more reliable feedback by reaching out to the company's vendors and customers. This may not apply in every industry, but if you are able to connect with real people who interact with the company you are interested in, you can get a valuable look behind the curtain.

Don't neglect human research

Social media and internet research will only get you so far. Successful candidates find that LinkedIn and other virtual connections are most powerful when used as a stepping stone to real conversations. Look for professionals who have worked in the company and are open to speaking with you. Come prepared with questions, use their time wisely, and remember to send a thank-you note after the conversation — no matter how brief.

Your checklist for acing the pre-interview research

As you plan your deep-dive into the company website, LinkedIn, and other sites, remember that this research phase of the job-search process isn't just a fact-collecting assignment. Research should solidify your decision to pursue the opportunity — or give you warning that this position isn't right for you.

Look for patterns in everything. Based on the track record of individuals in leadership positions, what skills and experiences do the company value? What can you deduce about its culture? In a perfect world, the research you do should fuel your excitement about the company and energize you for the interview!

You've done your research, now make sure you can answer the questions. Learn more about our interview-coaching services .

Recommended Reading:

Interview Deal-Breakers That Could Cost You the Job

How to Prepare for a Software Engineering Job Interview

Struggling with Interview Anxiety? Here's How to Overcome It

Related Articles:

Snowplow Parents Interview Tips to Set Children Up for Success

The 8 Best Questions to Ask in an Informational Interview

Interviewing for a Job While Pregnant: What You Should Know

Need a prep talk?

Learn how to crush your interview with confidence.

Share this article:

Questions? We can help.

Our team is standing by, happy to help answer any questions or address any concerns you may have. Just send us your info and we’ll be right in touch. Or, contact us directly:

1-800-803-6018

[email protected]

Thank you! We will be in touch shortly.

In the next 10 minutes, I’m going to show you exactly how to research a company for your job interview.

You want to go into the interview feeling ready and confident, and you don’t want to embarrass yourself.

That’s what good pre-interview research can do for you.

But what’s the fastest and easiest way to get enough information about a company to avoid interview mistakes and make a great first impression? And what exactly should you be researching?

Keep reading for everything you need to know…

How to Research a Company for a Job Interview

1. research the company website.

Go to the business’ website and find out about what products or services they provide. What do they sell and how do they make money? Why might the company’s clients choose them?

Learn anything you can about the company culture , too. Click buttons like “About Us” or “Meet Our Team” when you’re on the company website.

Then visit their “Careers” section to see what jobs are posted in general. Make sure you’re familiar with the job description and get a feel for the other jobs they’re hiring for.

Finally, see if the company has a mission statement. Knowing the company’s mission will help you understand what they care most about, so that you can show these traits in the job interview.

This is the longest step in the process of researching a company, but it’ll give you a ton of information you can use in your answers, and knowing more about them will help you explain why you wanted to apply for the job .

2. Search Google News for Recent Company Developments

This is a relatively short step, but still important for how to research a company before your interview.

As you conduct company research, go to Google News to read some recent developments and press releases, so you can get a sense of what the company is working on.

Find a piece of good news, a recent change, acquisition or new project, or anything else you can find about the company online.

You’ll notice more info available for large companies, but you may still find valuable news articles and stories for smaller companies, too.

Your goal in this research, for each of your target companies, is to find one action they took recently that you can ask about in the interview.

For example, you’d ask, “I read you recently did ___, can you tell me more about that?”

They’ll be impressed that you know the latest news about them.

Most job seekers are asking boring, generic questions in the interview (like, “What is your company’s mission?”)

So if you can ask a question about a recent news story, it’s going to set you apart.

Here are 27 more unique questions job seekers can ask in the interview.

That brings me to one other piece of job search and career advice: Never ask a question that could be answered on the company’s website.

3. Review the Company’s Social Media Accounts

Next, research the company’s Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social profiles to see recent news you might have missed on Google News in step 2. You might see pictures of employee outings too, etc. You’ll get a great sense of the company culture and the type of people who work there.

This will give you more fuel and ideas for questions you can ask in the interview too.

For example, you could ask, “I saw on Facebook you recently had a company charity event. Can you tell me about what else the company does to facilitate team-building and/or charitable giving in the community? It’s great that those are a part of your company’s values. That’s something I’m looking for in an employer.”

You can also look for the company on YouTube. Do a quick search and see if they have a channel.

More and more companies are sharing video content, so this is a worthwhile step in terms of how to research a company very thoroughly before you talk to them.

You might also see their office in a video which will make you more comfortable when you arrive for an interview. You’ll feel like you’ve been there before.

4. Competitor Research

If you really want to impress the company with how much you researched them before the interview, head over to similarweb.com , type the company name or website into the search bar, and then find the button that says “similar sites”.

Click it and you’ll see companies that are similar to the company you’re interviewing at. Try to find a few key differences and similarities, so you can show you understand the whole marketplace and industry, not just the company you’re interviewing with.

If you do this, most hiring managers will be VERY impressed.

If you’re interviewing in a new industry this becomes even more important. But it’s a great step for anyone who wants to research a company before a job interview.

5. Research Employees on LinkedIn

Search on LinkedIn to find employees of the company. Better yet, find people in the same type of group or role that you’re interviewing for. What type of background do they have? You might spot a trend for the type of person a company likes to hire.

This research will help you understand what the company looks for in the hiring process, so that you’ll be better prepared for questions they throw at you in the interview.

LinkedIn isn’t just a great job search resource , it’s also a powerful research tool. If you don’t already have an account that’s active and up-to-date, you should definitely make one. If you’re not convinced, here are 5 reasons you should use LinkedIn .

6. Research the Hiring Manager

Next, use LinkedIn to research the hiring manager’s background.

How long have they been with the company?

What’s their educational background?

What previous jobs have they worked to get to the point they’re at?

This is a great way to prepare to pass your interview . You might even see something you have in common with the hiring manager, such as a sport you played in college.

And if not, you’ll still know more about them than most candidates going in for the interview. So it’ll be easier to bond and build rapport, or talk about topics that they’re familiar with.

7. Industry Research

Next, if you’re attending a job interview in an unfamiliar industry, you should go beyond researching the company and also dig into the industry overall.

Browse social media accounts of other businesses in the industry, read a few trade publications online, see what types of jobs are posted in this industry, and more.

What types of products and services does the industry provide in general?

What are some of the latest developments happening?

What are some common types of jobs in the industry?

You can look at industry news in Google, check company social media accounts, and more to gather this information.

8. Research the Company’s Job Interview Process

There are a variety of websites that allow job seekers to write about their job search experience and which interview questions they faced. So I recommend searching Google for terms like “<Company Name> interview questions” and “<Company Name> interview process.”

You won’t find information about this for every employer, but you should find some hints about the interview process for most large employers, which can be a big aid in your job search.

Then, you’ll know how to better prepare for your job interview to show you’re a fit for the company’s culture and role.

9. Read Employee Reviews

Next, consider visiting a site like Glassdoor.com to read reviews from current and past employees.

This may give you more hints about how the company operates, which will help you prepare great interview answers.

You’ll also gain valuable information to help you decide if you do or don’t want to work for this company!

You may spot a red flag or two that you’d like to ask about in the interview.

You wouldn’t have found this on a casual visit to the company’s website. So reading reviews from real employees will give you a better understanding of what your life will be like if you accept their job.

Those are the best steps you can take for pre-interview company research. I recommend doing everything above if you have time.

10. Additional Research for Public Companies

If a company is publicly traded, it must release an annual report, quarterly financial statements, and more.

You can see their stock price, read recent stock news, and more.

For public companies, you’ll often see an “investor relations” button when you visit the company website (usually in the site footer).

You can also search for the company name on a website like Google Finance to read about their financial health and explore recent financial data and statements.

This doesn’t need to be an in-depth, time-consuming step when researching a company, but it’s worth noting whether they’re publicly traded or not, and how the company’s stock is doing.

Final Step: Review Your Company Research

Now you know what to research about a company before the interview.

As a final step, make sure you can answer these questions about a company:

• Who is the CEO ?
• When/why was the company founded?
• Does the company have one or multiple locations? And where are they headquartered?
• How does the company make money? What do they sell and who is their typical customer?
• Why do their customers choose them?
• How are they different from their competitors?
• How would you describe the company culture?
• Does the company have a mission statement or a reason why they were founded?
• What do you know about the hiring manager’s background? How long have they been with the company?

Use that as a checklist to make sure you’ve researched the company enough before your interview.

Now that you know how to research a company before a job interview, you’re going to be able to make a better impression on recruiters and hiring managers, and turn more interviews into job offers !

About the Author

Read more articles by Biron Clark

2 thoughts on “How to Research a Company for an Interview: 10 Steps”

This was VERY resourceful. Thanks so much for the helpful tips.

Great list. Thank you!

Comments are closed.

How to conduct qualitative interviews (tips and best practices)

Last updated

18 May 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

However, conducting qualitative interviews can be challenging, even for seasoned researchers. Poorly conducted interviews can lead to inaccurate or incomplete data, significantly compromising the validity and reliability of your research findings.

When planning to conduct qualitative interviews, you must adequately prepare yourself to get the most out of your data. Fortunately, there are specific tips and best practices that can help you conduct qualitative interviews effectively.

• What is a qualitative interview?

A qualitative interview is a research technique used to gather in-depth information about people's experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions. Unlike a structured questionnaire or survey, a qualitative interview is a flexible, conversational approach that allows the interviewer to delve into the interviewee's responses and explore their insights and experiences.

In a qualitative interview, the researcher typically develops a set of open-ended questions that provide a framework for the conversation. However, the interviewer can also adapt to the interviewee's responses and ask follow-up questions to understand their experiences and views better.

• How to conduct interviews in qualitative research

Conducting interviews involves a well-planned and deliberate process to collect accurate and valid data. 

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to conduct interviews in qualitative research, broken down into three stages:

1. Before the interview

The first step in conducting a qualitative interview is determining your research question . This will help you identify the type of participants you need to recruit . Once you have your research question, you can start recruiting participants by identifying potential candidates and contacting them to gauge their interest in participating in the study. 

After that, it's time to develop your interview questions. These should be open-ended questions that will elicit detailed responses from participants. You'll also need to get consent from the participants, ideally in writing, to ensure that they understand the purpose of the study and their rights as participants. Finally, choose a comfortable and private location to conduct the interview and prepare the interview guide.

2. During the interview

Start by introducing yourself and explaining the purpose of the study. Establish a rapport by putting the participants at ease and making them feel comfortable. Use the interview guide to ask the questions, but be flexible and ask follow-up questions to gain more insight into the participants' responses. 

Take notes during the interview, and ask permission to record the interview for transcription purposes. Be mindful of the time, and cover all the questions in the interview guide.

3. After the interview

Once the interview is over, transcribe the interview if you recorded it. If you took notes, review and organize them to make sure you capture all the important information. Then, analyze the data you collected by identifying common themes and patterns. Use the findings to answer your research question. 

Finally, debrief with the participants to thank them for their time, provide feedback on the study, and answer any questions they may have.

• What kinds of questions should you ask in a qualitative interview?

Qualitative interviews involve asking questions that encourage participants to share their experiences, opinions, and perspectives on a particular topic. These questions are designed to elicit detailed and nuanced responses rather than simple yes or no answers.

Effective questions in a qualitative interview are generally open-ended and non-leading. They avoid presuppositions or assumptions about the participant's experience and allow them to share their views in their own words. 

In customer research , you might ask questions such as:

What motivated you to choose our product/service over our competitors?

How did you first learn about our product/service?

Can you walk me through your experience with our product/service?

What improvements or changes would you suggest for our product/service?

Have you recommended our product/service to others, and if so, why?

The key is to ask questions relevant to the research topic and allow participants to share their experiences meaningfully and informally. 

• How to determine the right qualitative interview participants

Choosing the right participants for a qualitative interview is a crucial step in ensuring the success and validity of the research . You need to consider several factors to determine the right participants for a qualitative interview. These may include:

Relevant experiences : Participants should have experiences related to the research topic that can provide valuable insights.

Diversity : Aim to include diverse participants to ensure the study's findings are representative and inclusive.

Access : Identify participants who are accessible and willing to participate in the study.

Informed consent : Participants should be fully informed about the study's purpose, methods, and potential risks and benefits and be allowed to provide informed consent.

You can use various recruitment methods, such as posting ads in relevant forums, contacting community organizations or social media groups, or using purposive sampling to identify participants who meet specific criteria.

• How to make qualitative interview subjects comfortable

Making participants comfortable during a qualitative interview is essential to obtain rich, detailed data. Participants are more likely to share their experiences openly when they feel at ease and not judged. 

Here are some ways to make interview subjects comfortable:

Explain the purpose of the study

Start the interview by explaining the research topic and its importance. The goal is to give participants a sense of what to expect.

Create a comfortable environment

Conduct the interview in a quiet, private space where the participant feels comfortable. Turn off any unnecessary electronics that can create distractions. Ensure your equipment works well ahead of time. Arrive at the interview on time. If you conduct a remote interview, turn on your camera and mute all notetakers and observers.

Build rapport

Greet the participant warmly and introduce yourself. Show interest in their responses and thank them for their time.

Use open-ended questions

Ask questions that encourage participants to elaborate on their thoughts and experiences.

Listen attentively

Resist the urge to multitask . Pay attention to the participant's responses, nod your head, or make supportive comments to show you’re interested in their answers. Avoid interrupting them.

Avoid judgment

Show respect and don't judge the participant's views or experiences. Allow the participant to speak freely without feeling judged or ridiculed.

Offer breaks

If needed, offer breaks during the interview, especially if the topic is sensitive or emotional.

Creating a comfortable environment and establishing rapport with the participant fosters an atmosphere of trust and encourages open communication. This helps participants feel at ease and willing to share their experiences.

• How to analyze a qualitative interview

Analyzing a qualitative interview involves a systematic process of examining the data collected to identify patterns, themes, and meanings that emerge from the responses. 

Here are some steps on how to analyze a qualitative interview:

1. Transcription

The first step is transcribing the interview into text format to have a written record of the conversation. This step is essential to ensure that you can refer back to the interview data and identify the important aspects of the interview.

2. Data reduction

Once you’ve transcribed the interview, read through it to identify key themes, patterns, and phrases emerging from the data. This process involves reducing the data into more manageable pieces you can easily analyze.

The next step is to code the data by labeling sections of the text with descriptive words or phrases that reflect the data's content. Coding helps identify key themes and patterns from the interview data.

4. Categorization

After coding, you should group the codes into categories based on their similarities. This process helps to identify overarching themes or sub-themes that emerge from the data.

5. Interpretation

You should then interpret the themes and sub-themes by identifying relationships, contradictions, and meanings that emerge from the data. Interpretation involves analyzing the themes in the context of the research question .

6. Comparison

The next step is comparing the data across participants or groups to identify similarities and differences. This step helps to ensure that the findings aren’t just specific to one participant but can be generalized to the wider population.

7. Triangulation

To ensure the findings are valid and reliable, you should use triangulation by comparing the findings with other sources, such as observations or interview data.

8. Synthesis

The final step is synthesizing the findings by summarizing the key themes and presenting them clearly and concisely. This step involves writing a report that presents the findings in a way that is easy to understand, using quotes and examples from the interview data to illustrate the themes.

• Tips for transcribing a qualitative interview

Transcribing a qualitative interview is a crucial step in the research process. It involves converting the audio or video recording of the interview into written text. 

Here are some tips for transcribing a qualitative interview:

Use transcription software

Transcription software can save time and increase accuracy by automatically transcribing audio or video recordings.

Listen carefully

When manually transcribing, listen carefully to the recording to ensure clarity. Pause and rewind the recording as necessary.

Use appropriate formatting

Use a consistent format for transcribing, such as marking pauses, overlaps, and interruptions. Indicate non-verbal cues such as laughter, sighs, or changes in tone.

Edit for clarity

Edit the transcription to ensure clarity and readability. Use standard grammar and punctuation, correct misspellings, and remove filler words like "um" and "ah."

Proofread and edit

Verify the accuracy of the transcription by listening to the recording again and reviewing the notes taken during the interview.

Use timestamps

Add timestamps to the transcription to reference specific interview sections.

Transcribing a qualitative interview can be time-consuming, but it’s essential to ensure the accuracy of the data collected. Following these tips can produce high-quality transcriptions useful for analysis and reporting.

• Why are interview techniques in qualitative research effective?

Unlike quantitative research methods, which rely on numerical data, qualitative research seeks to understand the richness and complexity of human experiences and perspectives. 

Interview techniques involve asking open-ended questions that allow participants to express their views and share their stories in their own words. This approach can help researchers to uncover unexpected or surprising insights that may not have been discovered through other research methods.

Interview techniques also allow researchers to establish rapport with participants, creating a comfortable and safe space for them to share their experiences. This can lead to a deeper level of trust and candor, leading to more honest and authentic responses.

• What are the weaknesses of qualitative interviews?

Qualitative interviews are an excellent research approach when used properly, but they have their drawbacks. 

The weaknesses of qualitative interviews include the following:

Subjectivity and personal biases

Qualitative interviews rely on the researcher's interpretation of the interviewee's responses. The researcher's biases or preconceptions can affect how the questions are framed and how the responses are interpreted, which can influence results.

Small sample size

The sample size in qualitative interviews is often small, which can limit the generalizability of the results to the larger population.

Data quality

The quality of data collected during interviews can be affected by various factors, such as the interviewee's mood, the setting of the interview, and the interviewer's skills and experience.

Socially desirable responses

Interviewees may provide responses that they believe are socially acceptable rather than truthful or genuine.

Conducting qualitative interviews can be expensive, especially if the researcher must travel to different locations to conduct the interviews.

Time-consuming

The data analysis process can be time-consuming and labor-intensive, as researchers need to transcribe and analyze the data manually.

Despite these weaknesses, qualitative interviews remain a valuable research tool . You can take steps to mitigate the impact of these weaknesses by incorporating the perspectives of other researchers or participants in the analysis process, using multiple data sources , and critically analyzing your biases and assumptions.

Mastering the art of qualitative interviews is an essential skill for businesses looking to gain deep insights into their customers' needs , preferences, and behaviors. By following the tips and best practices outlined in this article, you can conduct interviews that provide you with rich data that you can use to make informed decisions about your products, services, and marketing strategies. 

Remember that effective communication, active listening, and proper analysis are critical components of successful qualitative interviews. By incorporating these practices into your customer research, you can gain a competitive edge and build stronger customer relationships.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 17 January 2024

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Research Interviews: An effective and insightful way of data collection

Research interviews play a pivotal role in collecting data for various academic, scientific, and professional endeavors. They provide researchers with an opportunity to delve deep into the thoughts, experiences, and perspectives of an individual, thus enabling a comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena. It is important for researchers to design an effective and insightful method of data collection on a particular topic. A research interview is typically a two-person meeting conducted to collect information on a certain topic. It is a qualitative data collection method to gain primary information.

The three key features of a research interview are as follows:

Table of Contents

The Significance of Research Interviews in Gathering Primary Data

The role of research interviews in gathering first-hand information is invaluable. Additionally, they allow researchers to interact directly with participants, enabling them to collect unfiltered primary data.

1. Subjective Experience

Research interviews facilitate in-depth exploration of a research topic. Thus, by engaging in one-to-one conversation with participants, researchers can delve into the nuances and complexities of their experiences, perspectives, and opinions. This allows comprehensive understanding of the research subject that may not be possible through other methods. Also, research interviews offer the unique advantage of capturing subjective experiences through personal narratives. Moreover, participants can express their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, which add depth to the findings.

2. Personal Insights

Research interviews offer an opportunity for participants to share their views and opinions on the objective they are being interviewed for. Furthermore, participants can express their thoughts and experiences, providing rich qualitative data . Consequently, these personal narratives add a human element to the research, thus enhancing the understanding of the topic from the participants’ perspectives. Research interviews offer the opportunity to uncover unanticipated insights or emerging themes. Additionally, open-ended questions and active listening can help the researchers to identify new perspectives, ideas, or patterns that may not have been initially considered. As a result, these factors can lead to new avenues for exploration.

3. Clarification and Validation

Researchers can clarify participants’ responses and validate their understanding during an interview. This ensures accurate data collection and interpretation. Additionally, researchers can probe deeper into participants’ statements and seek clarification on any ambiguity in the information.

4. Contextual Information

Research interviews allow researchers to gather contextual information that offers a comprehensive understanding of the research topic. Additionally, participants can provide insights into the social, cultural, or environmental factors that shape their experiences, behaviors, and beliefs. This contextual information helps researchers place the data in a broader context and facilitates a more nuanced analysis.

5. Non-verbal Cues

In addition to verbal responses, research interviews allow researchers to observe non-verbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. Additionally, non-verbal cues can convey information, such as emotions, attitudes, or levels of comfort. Furthermore, integrating non-verbal cues with verbal responses provides a more holistic understanding of participants’ experiences and enriches the data collection process.

Research interviews offer several advantages, making them a reliable tool for collecting information. However, choosing the right type of research interview is essential for collecting useful data.

Types of Research Interviews

There are several types of research interviews that researchers can use based on their research goals , the nature of their study, and the data they aim to collect. Here are some common types of research interviews:

1. Structured Interviews

• Structured interviews are standardized and follow a fixed format.
• Therefore, these interviews have a pre-determined set of questions.
• All the participants are asked the same set of questions in the same order.
• Therefore, this type of interview facilitates standardization and allows easy comparison and quantitative analysis of responses.
• As a result, structured interviews are used in surveys or studies which aims for a high level of standardization and comparability.

2. Semi-structured Interviews

• Semi-structured interviews offer a flexible framework by combining pre-determined questions.
• So, this gives an opportunity for follow-up questions and open-ended discussions.
• Researchers have a list of core questions but can adapt the interview depending on the participant’s responses.
• Consequently, this allows for in-depth exploration while maintaining some level of consistency across interviews.
• As a result, semi-structured interviews are widely used in qualitative research, where content-rich data is desired.

3. Unstructured Interviews

• Unstructured interviews provide the greatest flexibility and freedom in the interview process.
• This type do not have a pre-determined set of questions.
• Thus, the conversation flows naturally based on the participant’s responses and the researcher’s interests.
• Moreover, this type of interview allows for open-ended exploration and encourages participants to share their experiences, thoughts, and perspectives freely.
• Unstructured interviews useful to explore new or complex research topics, with limited preconceived questions.

4. Group Interviews (Focus Groups)

• Group interviews involve multiple participants who engage in a facilitated discussion on a specific topic.
• This format allows the interaction and exchange of ideas among participants, generating a group dynamic.
• Therefore, group interviews are beneficial for capturing diverse perspectives, and generating collective insights.
• They are often used in market research, social sciences, or studies demanding shared experiences.

5. Narrative Interviews

• Narrative interviews focus on eliciting participants’ personal stories, views, experiences, and narratives. Researchers aim to look into the individual’s life journey.
• As a result, this type of interview allows participants to construct and share their own narratives, providing rich qualitative data.
• Qualitative research, oral history, or studies focusing on individual experiences and identities uses narrative interviews.

6. Ethnographic Interviews

• Ethnographic interviews are conducted within the context of ethnographic research, where researchers immerse themselves in a specific social or cultural setting.
• These interviews aim to understand participants’ experiences, beliefs, and practices within their cultural context, thereby understanding diversity in different ethnic groups.
• Furthermore, ethnographic interviews involve building rapport, observing the participants’ daily lives, and engaging in conversations that capture the nuances of the culture under study.

It must be noted that these interview types are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, researchers often employ a combination of approaches to gather the most comprehensive data for their research. The choice of interview type depends on the research objectives and the nature of the research topic.

Steps of Conducting a Research Interview

Research interviews offer several benefits, and thus careful planning and execution of the entire process are important to gather in-depth information from the participants. While conducting an interview, it is essential to know the necessary steps to follow for ensuring success. The steps to conduct a research interview are as follows:

• Identify the objectives and understand the goals
• Select an appropriate interview format
• Organize the necessary materials for the interview
• Understand the questions to be addressed
• Analyze the demographics of interviewees
• Select the interviewees
• Design the interview questions to gather sufficient information
• Schedule the interview
• Explain the purpose of the interview
• Analyze the interviewee based on his/her responses

Considerations for Research Interviews

Since the flexible nature of research interviews makes them an invaluable tool for data collection, researchers must consider certain factors to make the process effective. They should avoid bias and preconceived notion against the participants. Furthermore, researchers must comply with ethical considerations and respect the cultural differences between them and the participants. Also, they should ensure careful tailoring of the questions to avoid making them offensive or derogatory. The interviewers must respect the privacy of the participants and ensure the confidentiality of their details.

By ensuring due diligence of these considerations associated with research interviews, researchers can maximize the validity and reliability of the collected data, leading to robust and meaningful research outcomes.

Have you ever conducted a research interview? What was your experience? What factors did you consider when conducting a research interview? Share it with researchers worldwide by submitting your thought piece on Enago Academy’s Open Blogging Platform .

Frequently Asked Questions

• Identify the objectives of the interview • State and explain the purpose of the interview • Select an appropriate interview format • Organize the necessary materials for the Interview • Check the demographics of the participants • Select the Interviewees or the participants • Prepare the list of questions to gather maximum useful data from the participants • Schedule the Interview • Analyze the participant based on his/ her Responses

Interviews are important in research as it helps to gather elaborative first-hand information. It helps to draw conclusions from the non-verbal views and personal experiences. It reduces the ambiguity of data through detailed discussions.

The advantages of research interviews are: • It offers first-hand information • Offers detailed assessment which can result in elaborate conclusions • It is easy to conduct • Provides non-verbal cues The disadvantages of research interviews are: • There is a risk of personal bias • It can be time consuming • The outcomes might be unpredictable

The difference between structured and unstructured interview are: • Structured interviews have well-structured questions in a pre-determined order; while unstructured interviews are flexible and do not have a pre-planned set of questions. • Structured interview is more detailed; while unstructured interviews are exploratory in nature. • Structured interview is easier to replicate as compared to unstructured interview.

Focus groups is a group of multiple participants engaging in a facilitated discussion on a specific topic. This format allows for interaction and exchange of ideas among participants.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Publishing Research
• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

• Industry News
• Trending Now

Breaking Barriers: Sony and Nature unveil “Women in Technology Award”

Sony Group Corporation and the prestigious scientific journal Nature have collaborated to launch the inaugural…

Achieving Research Excellence: Checklist for good research practices

Academia is built on the foundation of trustworthy and high-quality research, supported by the pillars…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Science under Surveillance: Journals adopt advanced AI to uncover image manipulation

Journals are increasingly turning to cutting-edge AI tools to uncover deceitful images published in manuscripts.…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Demystifying the Role of Confounding Variables in Research

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• Learn How to Use the Library
• Providers & Employees
• Research Help
• All Research Guides

Conducting Research Interviews

The interviewer mindset, quick tips for preparing, developing questions.

• Conducting the Interview
• Applying & Using the Interview

While the research interview is a one-on-one interaction, it's not a normal conversation. As the interviewer, it's expected that you:

• Are knowledgeable on the topic of the interview (this may require some background research)
• Are able to structure and guide the interview to keep it relevant but flexible
• Are able to remember and interpret the information gained in the interview
• Are sensitive to the interviewee's position and their rights
• Do preliminary research on the topic and the interviewee so that you enter the interview with an understanding of what will be discussed.
• Reflect on your goals. What should the interview accomplish? What is important to have recorded in the interview, and why is it important? How can you make the process easy for the interviewee?
• Create a list of topics and questions to explore during the interview. This should not be a strict checklist or a script; rather, it should function as a guide to ensure that you cover all of the content and that the interview stays focused.
• Create an open line of dialog with your interviewee before the interview so that you are comfortable with each other. This can involve going over the process, offering to answer any of their questions, verifying your time and place for the interview, etc.
• Choose and thoroughly familiarize yourself with your recording equipment to minimize any potential issues that may arise during the actual interview.
• Choose an interview space that is relaxed, comfortable, and quiet. You are having a conversation with your interviewee, not an interrogation.
• If you have never interviewed before, feel free to practice for the interview with friends, family, or peers. This will make sure you are prepared for the real thing.

Characteristics of good interview questions

• Open-ended and elicit a long response from the interviewee (can't be answered yes/no or with one word)
• Focus on the experience of the interviewee
• Don't lead the interviewee toward a particular response
• Address a single issue/point (i.e. don't ask multi-part questions)

Writing interview questions

Harvard's Department of Sociology provides some steps to help guide you in the process of writing interview questions (see the link to the guide below).

• Write down the larger research questions of the study. Outline the broad areas of knowledge that are relevant to answering these questions.
• Develop questions within each of these major areas, shaping them to fit particular kinds of respondents. The goal here is to tap into their experiences and expertise.
• Adjust the language of the interview according to the respondent (child, professional, etc.).
• Take care to word questions so that respondents are motivated to answer as completely and honestly as possible.
• Ask “how” questions rather than “why” questions to get stories of process rather than acceptable “accounts” of behavior. “How did you come to join this group . . .?”
• Develop probes that will elicit more detailed and elaborate responses to key questions. The more detail, the better!
• Begin the interview with a “warm-up” question—something that the respondent can answer easily and at some length (though not too long). It doesn’t have to pertain directly to what you are trying to find out (although it might), but this initial rapport-building will put you more at ease with one another and thus will make the rest of the interview flow more smoothly.
• Think about the logical flow of the interview. What topics should come first? What follows more or less “naturally”? This may take some adjustment after several interviews.
• Difficult or potentially embarrassing questions should be asked toward the end of the interview, when rapport has been established.
• The last question should provide some closure for the interview, and leave the respondent feeling empowered, listened to, or otherwise glad that they talked to you.
• Strategies for Qualitative Interviews This handy guide from Harvard's Department of Sociology provides guidance on getting into the interviewer mindset as well as developing and writing interview questions.

Depending on the nature of your assignment or research, you may or may not need to record and transcribe the interview. Review the pros and cons to determine whether recording and transcribing will be worthwhile for you.

• Helps you to recall more details of the interview
• Helps you to thoroughly examine the interview
• It allows other researchers to interpret and reuse the data in new ways
• May be off-putting to interviewees or make them feel pressured
• Transcribing is a time-consuming process; even using a transcription software requires a detailed review of the text

"Strategies for Qualitative Interviews" (n.d.) Harvard. See link above..

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Conducting the Interview >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 8:55 AM
• URL: https://aultman.libguides.com/interviews

Aultman Health Sciences Library

Aultman Education Center, C2-230, 2600 Sixth St SW, Canton, OH 44710  |  330-363-5000   |  [email protected]

• Career Center
• Location Location
• Contact Contact
• Offices and Divisions
• Student Services
• Prep for Interviews

Pre-Interview Research

It is essential that you understand the history and company culture of your potential employer before you even arrive at your interview. Take the extra steps to learn what goes beyond that, like company successes, services and competitors. A well-researched job candidate always makes a good impression. 

Arrive Prepared

The Internet is an invaluable tool for learning about an organization. Also, try talking with contacts inside the organization and researching key players.

The Career Center’s Resource Room contains an employer information section to assist students with employer research. 

VIDEO: Seven Tips to Researching Companies

You'll feel more confident during the interview process and stand out from other candidates with our helpful tips for gathering background information.

Challenge the conventional. Create the exceptional. No Limits.

Soft Skills

6 minute read

8 Essential Things to Do Before Your Next Job Interview

Andrew Fennell

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Email

Job interviews can be intense and nerve-wracking, but they’re an essential hoop to jump through before you can get the job you really want. 

It’s very reasonable to be apprehensive or to doubt yourself. People’s most significant interview fears usually center around turning up late, wardrobe malfunctions, saying the wrong thing, or drawing a blank at a crucial moment. 

But this pre-interview checklist will keep you organized, on time, and ready for pretty much any question they can throw at you! 

1. Thoroughly research the company and role

Even the best candidates look underprepared if they can’t answer some basic questions about the company. 

Thankfully, a quick look over the company’s website and social media channels should tell you when the company was established and why, what they do, who their customers and clients are, and what the company culture is like.  

It’s also helpful to reread the job description, so you’ll be ready for any questions about the specific role’s duties and responsibilities. 

Want to learn more?

Take your soft skills to the next level with our comprehensive (and free) ebook!

2. Prepare for some typical interview questions

Interviewers like to ask questions that get to the bottom of your strengths and weaknesses. Typical questions will focus on how you deal with stress, work with other people, your biggest successes and failures, and even what kind of animal you’d be!

If you’re worried about drawing a blank, consider your answers to  commonly asked interview questions  now. That way, you’ll be able to answer concisely and intelligently in the moment.

3. Prepare some relevant questions

The end of the interview is usually your time to fill in any blanks and show the interviewer how interested you are in the role. 

Having no questions to ask can make you look disengaged, so it’s essential to have at least one in your back pocket. Two or three is even better. 

Questions focused on the nature of the job, the team you’ll be working in, and the employers’ expectations will always go down well. Any decent hiring manager will be happy to answer them.

4. Reread your CV and cover letter

You’ve been invited to interview based on the strength of your application, so the interviewer is likely to have questions about it. You should be able to talk about anything on your  CV  or  cover letter  if asked, including previous job roles, any significant achievements , and core  skills . 

5. Print off an up-to-date copy of your CV

Most interviewers will have your details in front of them. But just in case they haven’t had time to print one-off, bring a few physical copies of your  CV  along with you. They’ll appreciate your organization!

Check out these free Word resume templates to help you land the interview.

6. Plan the journey

Rushing is a very stressful way to start and arriving late can rule you out of the running instantly. Make sure you know how you’re getting there and how long it’s going to take. It’s always best to arrive slightly early for a job interview, so give yourself a bit of extra time in case there’s a delay, or you get lost. 

If you’re using public transport, check the schedule in advance. If you’re driving, check for nearby parking on Google Maps and make sure you have enough change to pay. A parking ticket would ruin even the best job interview!

7. Decide what to wear and make sure it’s ironed!

What you wear to your interview will help the employer form an opinion, whether that’s good or bad! Choose your outfit and iron it the day before. Otherwise, you’ll be rushing around comparing different shoes and shirt colors when you should already be on your way there.

Smart casual is usually the best choice for businesses with a casual dress code. Turning up in a suit can make you seem out of place. However, traditional suits and smart workwear are essential for formal professions like law, accounting, and finance. 

Your company research can help you to gauge this, but if you’re unsure, just ask the employer or recruiter in advance.

8. Take a deep breath!

Focus on practicalities on the day of the interview. Eat and drink something about an hour or 30 minutes before, so you’re not distracted by an empty stomach. While you’re waiting to be seen, take some deep breaths and try to keep your mind clear and positive. When they call your name, you’ll be able to walk in feeling  confident  and ready to impress! 

The more prepared and relaxed you are, the more likely you are to avoid mistakes and get a good result. If you feel anxious, give your pre-interview checklist a final once over so you know that you’ve done the best you can to be prepared. Interviews aren’t an exact science, though. Even if you narrowly miss out on the next job, you’ll have more experience and confidence for the next interview. 

Over to you

Interviewing for a new job can be intimidating. Knowing that you’ve prepared thoroughly can take the edge off. Using a pre-interview checklist is a great way to ensure you have all your bases covered. 

If you’re looking for ways to up the ante, consider brushing up on your public speaking, body language, or leadership skills with our  soft skills  courses before your interview.

Check out our other helpful resources for specific industries. They’re no crystal ball, but we like to think they’re the next best thing:

11 Key Graphic Design Interview Questions and Answers

The Top 7 Project Management Interview Questions and Answers

20 Most Helpful CSS Interview Questions and Answers

6 Most Helpful Soft Skills Interview Questions and Answers

13 Most Helpful HTML Interview Questions & Answers

Startup Interview Questions: 8 Things Founders Will Ask You

How to Nail The “Tell me about yourself” Interview Question

Prepare for your dream job!

Start learning for free and ace that interview!

Loved this? Subscribe, and join 452,208 others.

Get our latest content before everyone else. Unsubscribe whenever.

Andrew Fennell is the founder of CV writing advice website StandOut CV – he is a former recruitment consultant. He contributes career advice to websites like Business Insider, The Guardian, and FastCompany.

Recommended

How to Hire the Right Candidate for the Right Job

When using the right strategies, hiring the right job candidate can be seamless and effective.

7 Essential Skills To Help Startups Meet New Challenges

Startups and SMEs face specific challenges that threaten their survival. Make sure your business' growth doesn't lead to its downfall with these 7 tips.

The Future of Sales Careers: How Training, Methods, and Software are Changing

The nature of sales has evolved due to automation, specialization, and changing consumer expectations. This guide explores how such changes are reshaping sales careers.

© 2024 GoSkills Ltd. Skills for career advancement

• Library Search
• View Library Account

Oral History Toolkit

• Oral History Toolkit Introduction

Background Research

Interview equipment, developing interview questions, legal and ethical considerations.

• Stage 2: The Interview
• Stage 3: Post-Interview

Preparing for an oral history interview is perhaps the most important step in the oral history process. Once you have decided upon a topic or event in history, you will need to locate a narrator (also called the interviewee) whose experiences are relevant to your topic. Quality research can create rapport with the narrator and hone interview questions that inspire storytelling. You should read both primary and secondary sources related to the era, topic, or theme of your interview.

According to the Oral History Association, "Oral history interviews seek an in-depth account of personal experience and reflections, with sufficient time allowed for the narrators to give their story the fullness they desire. The content of oral history interviews is grounded in reflections on the past as opposed to commentary on purely contemporary events" ( Oral History Association ).

Preparing for an oral history interview typically involves the following components, which are explained in more detail in the sections below:

• Background research of both the narrator and the event or topic
• Reserve or obtain interview equipment
• Develop a set of questions to guide or frame the interview
• Consider the legal and ethical implications of the oral history project

To be prepared for the interview, conduct careful research that is both subject-focused and that contextualizes your narrator within the circumstances of the event or time period you are studying. To begin with you will need to know what you are trying to learn. Come up with a concise sentence or two that summarizes your project and that will help you explain to potential narrators what you hope to accomplish. 

Doing background research requires considering information that already exists on your research topic. For example, if you wanted to learn more about a politician, you might want to consider campaign literature (including pins, brochures, posters, and so on); political documents; and perhaps other biographies or interviews that already exist. Likewise, if your focus is on a particular event or time period in history, you will want to consult newspaper accounts, perhaps economic data, any records pertaining to the event you are studying. As another example, if you are using oral history to collect and preserve your family history, you may want to draw from scrapbooks, photographs, family heirlooms, diaries, etc.

Many primary sources and archived interviews are available at  The Claremont Colleges Library . See the "Resources" tab on the navigation menu for links to the oral history collections at the Honnold/Mudd Special Collections and links to the oral history archives of The Claremont Colleges Digital Library.

Questions that can help you prepare for your interview may include:

• Why am I interviewing this person?
• What do I hope to learn?
• What events or topics do I want to document?
• How will I use the interview data to illustrate a point or further my argument?

An important step in the interview process is a non-recorded pre-interview meeting. This step occurs after you have found an appropriate narrator who has agreed to work with you. The purpose of the non-recorded pre-interview meeting is to establish report and to learn as much as you can before the formal interview. Talking informally with your narrator can help you decide what questions to ask during the interview and provides the narrator with important information about the interview purpose and process. This pre-interview meeting can be done over the phone or email, but in person is best. Things you will want to let your interviewee know before the interview might include:

• The purpose of the interview
• How you will use the interview data
• Approximate length of interview and where you will meet (this is a good time to schedule the interview)
• Where the interview and accompanying materials will be stored and who will have access to these records.

Renting Equipment: If you are using equipment from your in department or institution, be sure to reserve it early enough to use it twice: once to become familiar with the equipment, and then for the interview itself. Equipment rental tends to be for a very short period (1 day or a certain number of hours) and the equipment will be in great demand if you are doing your oral history project as a class assignment.

Choosing the appropriate equipment for your purpose and budget is also an important part of preparing for your interview. Considerations should not only include your purposes, but also the long-range issues of access and preservation.

Basic Equipment Checklist:

• digital recorder
• 1 or 2 external microphones
• A minimum of 4GB storage device

Digital Recorders : The Claremont Colleges Library requires that audio recordings be recorded in .WAV file format with a minimum quality of 44.1khz 16 bit (CD quality) . The better the quality, the better the recording will be for archival purposes. Thus, in considering the recording equipment you can rent, use, or purchase, be sure the recorder will be durable and reliable. It is possible to use your computer or mobile device, but you want to ensure that recordings are of sufficient quality and format. 

Note : If you are thinking about using a video recording device, you may want to refer to Oral History in the Digital Age (see the "Ask Doug" resource).

External Microphones : Good microphones are necessary for clear sound. Lapel microphones are ideal as they can eliminate much of the  background noises. You may wish to have one for your interviewee and one for yourself, or you may wish to use one microphone positioned evenly between you both during the interview. Even if you use your computer or mobile device, you will want to use an external mic.

Minimum of 4GB Storage : Recording at the highest quality settings of your recorder will take up more file space, so be sure to have enough storage. As an example, 4GB of storage will hold approximately 2 - 6 hours of interview depending on your quality settings. Create multiple back-up copies and store them in different locations (i.e. cloud storage, a thumb drive, and your computer hard drive).

►  Be sure to familiarize yourself with your equipment before the interview!

There are a number of excellent resources to aid you in developing your questions, some of which are posted on the "Resources" page of this guide. Briefly, you will want to develop two types of questions: those that obtain factual information about your narrator/interviewee, and questions that will assist your narrator/interviewee in remembering particular events or circumstances.

Biographical Data : Although you likely obtained much of the biographical information about your narrator/interviewee during the pre-interview meeting, it is standard practice to ask some of these questions at the beginning so that your narrator/interviewee can get comfortable with the interview process and equipment. Remember to be sensitive to your narrator's needs; some people are not comfortable disclosing age or other personal information.

► You may be interested in the Narrator/Interviewer Fact Form and/or a more detailed Life Story Form.

Open Questions : As the interview progresses your questions may become more concrete and may address more sensitive information. These typically include open questions—meaning that the questions cannot be answered by simply yes or no, or other finite response. Open questions probe for information and seek to trigger stories and memories from your narrator/interviewee.  Examples include the typical journalistic what, where, when, who, and how. But they will also include  phrases such as:

Questions are not meant to be followed rigidly; they are a jumping off point for your narrator's stories and memories. Part of the value of Oral Histories is that stories often wander off topic to memories we would not have known to ask about and that greatly enrich the overall project.

Note: Objects and photographs can also help to trigger memories, so invite your narrator/interviewee to bring any materials that might help them to explain or describe events. Your narrator/interviewee may even wish to donate such materials to be part of the oral history archive established for your project.

Beginning in 2018, the federal guidelines for Institutional Review Boards (IRB) updated "scholarly and journalistic pursuits" as no longer needing IRB approval. The tab for "IRB" listed on the navigation menu provides links and policy overviews. It is a good idea to become familiar with campus and departmental policies. Other legal and ethical considerations may involve a number of aspects of your project, including:

• meeting locations
• personal boundaries
• emotional reactions
• anonymity requests
• dissemination and access

Location : Meeting locations   should be safe and comfortable for both parties. You may be able to reserve a conference or other room at your institution or your interviewee may wish to interview at his or her home. Wherever you meet, it's a good idea to be sure someone else knows your location.

Boundaries : Respecting narrator rights and boundaries means understanding that your interviewee may choose to withhold information, may change his or her mind about the interview or even allowing dissemination after they have agreed to do so. You will need to be prepared to honor any requests your narrator makes, including asking to remain anonymous . Remeber to honor these requests in the transcript and write-up of the interview as well. 

Emotion : It is not unusual for you or the narrator to be emotionally moved by the interviewee's stories and memories. If appropriate, temporarily stop the recording and allow your interviewee to regain composure. Perhaps your narrator will want a change of subject. Check in with your narrator and ensure that he or she is comfortable continuing with the interview at that time. You may need to reschedule.

Dissemination and Access: Because one of the primary objectives of oral history is making the information available to the public, you will want discuss this aspect of the project with your interviewee beforehand, and again during the interview. The narrator retains all rights to their interviews until and unless they transfer those rights. You may wish to offer your narrator an opportunity to discuss your transcript and/or project draft and they may wish to receive a copy of your final project. 

• << Previous: Oral History Toolkit Introduction
• Next: Stage 2: The Interview >>
• : Dec 19, 2023 4:10 PM
• URL: https://libguides.libraries.claremont.edu/ohtoolkit

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Basic Clin Pharm
• v.5(4); September 2014-November 2014

Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation

Shazia jamshed.

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan Campus, Pahang, Malaysia

Buckley and Chiang define research methodology as “a strategy or architectural design by which the researcher maps out an approach to problem-finding or problem-solving.”[ 1 ] According to Crotty, research methodology is a comprehensive strategy ‘that silhouettes our choice and use of specific methods relating them to the anticipated outcomes,[ 2 ] but the choice of research methodology is based upon the type and features of the research problem.[ 3 ] According to Johnson et al . mixed method research is “a class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, theories and or language into a single study.[ 4 ] In order to have diverse opinions and views, qualitative findings need to be supplemented with quantitative results.[ 5 ] Therefore, these research methodologies are considered to be complementary to each other rather than incompatible to each other.[ 6 ]

Qualitative research methodology is considered to be suitable when the researcher or the investigator either investigates new field of study or intends to ascertain and theorize prominent issues.[ 6 , 7 ] There are many qualitative methods which are developed to have an in depth and extensive understanding of the issues by means of their textual interpretation and the most common types are interviewing and observation.[ 7 ]

Interviewing

This is the most common format of data collection in qualitative research. According to Oakley, qualitative interview is a type of framework in which the practices and standards be not only recorded, but also achieved, challenged and as well as reinforced.[ 8 ] As no research interview lacks structure[ 9 ] most of the qualitative research interviews are either semi-structured, lightly structured or in-depth.[ 9 ] Unstructured interviews are generally suggested in conducting long-term field work and allow respondents to let them express in their own ways and pace, with minimal hold on respondents’ responses.[ 10 ]

Pioneers of ethnography developed the use of unstructured interviews with local key informants that is., by collecting the data through observation and record field notes as well as to involve themselves with study participants. To be precise, unstructured interview resembles a conversation more than an interview and is always thought to be a “controlled conversation,” which is skewed towards the interests of the interviewer.[ 11 ] Non-directive interviews, form of unstructured interviews are aimed to gather in-depth information and usually do not have pre-planned set of questions.[ 11 ] Another type of the unstructured interview is the focused interview in which the interviewer is well aware of the respondent and in times of deviating away from the main issue the interviewer generally refocuses the respondent towards key subject.[ 11 ] Another type of the unstructured interview is an informal, conversational interview, based on unplanned set of questions that are generated instantaneously during the interview.[ 11 ]

In contrast, semi-structured interviews are those in-depth interviews where the respondents have to answer preset open-ended questions and thus are widely employed by different healthcare professionals in their research. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews are utilized extensively as interviewing format possibly with an individual or sometimes even with a group.[ 6 ] These types of interviews are conducted once only, with an individual or with a group and generally cover the duration of 30 min to more than an hour.[ 12 ] Semi-structured interviews are based on semi-structured interview guide, which is a schematic presentation of questions or topics and need to be explored by the interviewer.[ 12 ] To achieve optimum use of interview time, interview guides serve the useful purpose of exploring many respondents more systematically and comprehensively as well as to keep the interview focused on the desired line of action.[ 12 ] The questions in the interview guide comprise of the core question and many associated questions related to the central question, which in turn, improve further through pilot testing of the interview guide.[ 7 ] In order to have the interview data captured more effectively, recording of the interviews is considered an appropriate choice but sometimes a matter of controversy among the researcher and the respondent. Hand written notes during the interview are relatively unreliable, and the researcher might miss some key points. The recording of the interview makes it easier for the researcher to focus on the interview content and the verbal prompts and thus enables the transcriptionist to generate “verbatim transcript” of the interview.

Similarly, in focus groups, invited groups of people are interviewed in a discussion setting in the presence of the session moderator and generally these discussions last for 90 min.[ 7 ] Like every research technique having its own merits and demerits, group discussions have some intrinsic worth of expressing the opinions openly by the participants. On the contrary in these types of discussion settings, limited issues can be focused, and this may lead to the generation of fewer initiatives and suggestions about research topic.

Observation

Observation is a type of qualitative research method which not only included participant's observation, but also covered ethnography and research work in the field. In the observational research design, multiple study sites are involved. Observational data can be integrated as auxiliary or confirmatory research.[ 11 ]

Research can be visualized and perceived as painstaking methodical efforts to examine, investigate as well as restructure the realities, theories and applications. Research methods reflect the approach to tackling the research problem. Depending upon the need, research method could be either an amalgam of both qualitative and quantitative or qualitative or quantitative independently. By adopting qualitative methodology, a prospective researcher is going to fine-tune the pre-conceived notions as well as extrapolate the thought process, analyzing and estimating the issues from an in-depth perspective. This could be carried out by one-to-one interviews or as issue-directed discussions. Observational methods are, sometimes, supplemental means for corroborating research findings.

The qualitative pretest interview for questionnaire development: outline of programme and practice

• Open access
• Published: 06 May 2021
• Volume 56 , pages 823–842, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Christina Buschle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1848-7254 1 ,
• Herwig Reiter   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4577-3376 2 &
• Arne Bethmann   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7649-0371 3  

25k Accesses

23 Citations

Explore all metrics

Good survey research depends on asking the right questions; it is the only way to ensure that the information collected from respondents is suitable for providing good answers to our research questions. The article discusses and advocates a comprehensive consideration of qualitative-interpretive methodology in open forms of pretesting for the evaluation of draft survey questionnaires. We outline an approach we call Qualitative Pretest Interview (QPI) . It transfers the idea of negotiated common understanding in everyday communication to the clarification of meaning in draft survey questions and similar stimuli. The QPI involves ascribing interview partners the role of co-experts in this process and employing methodically integrated communication strategies. This paper focusses on how QPIs are conducted. Using an example interview, we illustrate how the particular way of qualitative pretest interviewing aims at a dialogic clarification of meaning in order to reach intersubjective understanding between participant and interviewer. In the process, we gain detailed insights into how and why a certain questionnaire might not work as intended, and ideally how this might be alleviated. QPIs pursue similar goals as Cognitive Interviews but rely more systematically on qualitative-interpretive methodology.

Similar content being viewed by others

Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Questionnaire Design

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Surveys require researchers to have a precise idea of the theoretical constructs they want to investigate and of their presumed connectedness. Furthermore, it is necessary to measure these constructs validly by means of a questionnaire. In other words, good survey research depends on asking the right questions; it is the only way to ensure that the information collected from respondents is suitable for providing good answers to our research questions. In this article, we will essentially deal with a specific issue of valid measurement: How can we formulate questions in such a way that they are understood adequately and produce answers that we can consider valid? The paper is intended as a contribution to a pragmatic-professional consideration and integration of qualitative-interpretive perspectives in the preparation of standardised surveys.

Based on the works of Tourangeau and colleagues on “Cognitive Aspects of Survey methodology” (CASM), in-depth evaluation of questionnaires is often structured along the lines of the “Response Process Model” (Tourangeau et al. 1984 , 2000 ). It describes the respondents’ way of processing and answering questions as a four-step procedure: comprehension of the intended meaning; retrieval of an answer from memory; judging the answer e.g. whether memory is complete; and formulating a response that fits the format of the question. Each of these steps poses its own potential source of measurement error, e.g. lack of comprehension, problems remembering an answer, or socially desirable answering. There is by now extensive literature providing suggestions on how to alleviate these problems when designing standardised questionnaires (e.g., Bradburn et al. 2004 ; Faulbaum et al. 2009 ; Groves et al. 2009 ; Gobo and Mauceri 2014 ; Porst 2014 ; Schnell 2012 ; Wolf et al. 2016 ).

Since the challenges faced in designing a questionnaire and the resulting potential sources of measurement error depend to a large degree on the particular study at hand, general recommendations are not sufficient to ensure high quality. It is therefore advisable to make extensive use of pretest-procedures to evaluate and improve questionnaires before the main fieldwork (cf. e.g., Bradburn et al. 2004 ; Schnell 2012 ). Some common approaches include the inspection of non-response patterns or unexpected distributions across response categories quantitatively, or the use of even more complex approaches like the testing of psychometric properties.

While these techniques help to identify problematic questions, it is often more useful to employ open forms of pretesting in order to get a deeper understanding of how and why certain questions might not work as originally intended. These open forms of pretesting are particularly relevant as soon as a general concept of the questionnaire, regarding e.g. topics and concepts, has been decided upon and the next step consists in developing and refining individual questions. Already in the 1940s there was a debate about the potential of open forms of interaction between interviewer and respondent for providing more valid answers to research questions (Beatty 1995 ). Today, standardised procedures dominate primary data collection due to efficiency issues and concerns about interviewer bias. At the same time, the use of open techniques and the benefits of reactivity for the validation of survey questionnaires are largely undisputed. Since the 1980s cognitive techniques have been an important part of the process of developing, testing, reviewing, and evaluating standardised questionnaires and individual survey questions. With their origin in the tradition of cognitive psychology (Ericsson and Simon 1980 ) they help identify, together with participants, problems with the questionnaire and correct them if necessary.

Over the last decades, Cognitive Interviewing (CI) as developed by Gordon Willis (e.g., Willis 2005 , 2015 ) has emerged as the main approach to conducting in-depth evaluations of survey questionnaires. The original challenge of the design of the CI consisted in reducing response and measurement errors by “identifying and correcting problems with survey questions” through, as (Beatty and Willis 2007 , p. 287) define the CI in practical terms, “the administration of draft survey questions while collecting additional verbal information about the survey responses, which is used to evaluate the quality of the response or to help determine whether the question is generating the information that its author intends.” Over the past 30 years the CI has been elaborated continuously as a method and refined into what has become one of the most effective tools for improving survey research.

The starting point of our contribution to advancing this very effort is the observation of a somewhat ambiguous relationship of the CI to qualitative-interpretive research (Bethmann et al. 2019 ; Buschle et al. 2020 ). Over the course of the past decades its authors and advocates moved the CI ever closer to the purposes and sphere of qualitative research—from the mere proposition that cognitive interviewing is “designed to help researchers understand how respondents interpret questions” (Beatty 1995 , p. 1052) to the more recent textbook about the analysis of CIs published in the Series in Understanding Qualitative Research of Oxford University Press (Willis 2015 ). The textbook—“in seeking a theory of method to apply to the cognitive interview as an alternative to cognitive theory” (ibid., p. 29)—suggests rudimentary links to qualitative research theory. This is an important step in the ongoing development of the CI that is corroborated by other contributions (Miller 2014 ; Collins 2015 ). Yet this ‘qualification’ of the CI is done ex post, for the origin of the method as a practical solution to reducing measurement error is rooted in debates about cognitive approaches in psychology and survey research in the 1980s (e.g., Willis et al. 1991 ; Willis 2005 , chapter 3). At the current point in its development a few decades later the CI appears as a methodological hybrid, at least in conceptual terms: “cognitive interviewing can be viewed as either a psychological procedure, or as a special case of qualitative interviewing” (Willis 2015 , p. 16).

Against this background, we take sides and advocate the more comprehensive consideration of qualitative-interpretive aspects characterising the process of exchanging meaning in interview encounters. Our starting point is the notion of intersubjective understanding as the conceptual pillar of interpretive interview research. While we do not contest the practical objectives addressed with CI-techniques our initial formulation of the underlying challenge is, in contrast, rather conceptual. Our point of departure is social-scientific and sociological. Thus, our argument and conclusions arrive at labelling the method in a way that does not reproduce traditions and connotations associated with the term ‘cognitive’. We propose to call it Qualitative Pretest Interview (QPI), a genuinely qualitative technique of interviewing for the purpose of improving survey questions and their delivery.

To put it more succinctly, there are large and obvious overlaps between the CI and the QPI methodology, namely employing a “think-aloud” approach and encouraging interview partners to say everything that comes to their minds when reading the question. Furthermore, both approaches underline, that the aim of the pretest interview is not to collect data to answer a substantive research question, but rather that the interviewer and the participant work together to identify sources of difficulty and vagueness in survey items. That being said, there are a few important distinctions between the proposed QPI and the traditional CI. Firstly, the QPI emphasizes the participant more explicitly as an equal partner in the discussion, resulting in specific interviewing techniques, e.g. a more extensive briefing sequence to establish this work relation. It also has a stronger focus on discussing the question’s intended meaning, including a more thorough deliberation of potential improvements to the questions already vis-à-vis the participant. These results can then be used as a qualified input for further discussion of revisions to the survey instrument among the researchers.

Compared to the above definition of the CI our conceptual rather than practical starting point is reflected in our development of the working definition of the QPI. It is provided in the following chapter 2 together with an outline of the methodological programme of the QPI and its key communication strategies. Chapter 3 illustrates and synthesises the practical implementation of these programmatic aspects of the QPI based on a concrete example from pretesting an add-on questionnaire to the German sub-study of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE, http://share-eric.eu ). In addition to exemplifying the joint production of understanding with regard to one particular item, we discuss the important steps of briefing and debriefing interview partners for the particular challenge of participating in a QPI. The conclusion reviews the argument and connects it to survey methodological practice.

2 Outline of the methodological background and programme of the QPI

The QPI has its roots in methodology debates that provide particular perspectives on the issue of producing mutual understanding in research encounters. They informed the development of our approach to pretest interviewing and are discussed in the following.

2.1 Indexical expressions and intersubjective understanding

Already more than four decades ago, Kohli ( 1978 ) contributed a fundamental discussion of differences and similarities between unstructured and standardised interviews. He argues that situativity, interactivity and reactivity characterise both open and closed interview techniques. The validity of all kinds of interview data crucially depends on the equal understanding of the meaning communicated in questions and answers, pre-formulated or not, by all participants—i.e. at least researchers, interviewers, and respondents. In the direction of standardised procedures, Kohli ( 1978 , p. 9; own translation) finally writes: “Communication always means intersubjective understanding (albeit to varying degrees).” According to their origin in the French term ‘entrevue’ interviews are arranged encounters for verbal exchange and understanding based on mutual expectations (see also Kvale and Brinkmann 2009 , pp. 1–2). Participants in all types of interviews face the challenge of understanding inevitably vague and ‘indexical expressions’ that, according to Garfinkel ( 1984 /1967), are constitutive of human communication and mutual understanding (Schutz 1967 /1932). Following Garfinkel’s ethnomethodological approach, expressions are potentially ambiguous references to meanings that are best understood in their context of origin. Thus, intersubjective understanding ( Fremdverstehen ) of meaning requires the consideration of these origins and contexts of expressions.

The various approaches in the social sciences subscribe to different ways of dealing with this vagueness and indexicality described by Garfinkel (Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr 2008 , pp. 28–31). Qualitative-interpretive approaches recognise that expressions ( within everyday frames of interpretation ) always refer to everyday meanings that are specific for the very context of their articulation. Accordingly, social scientists can only reconstruct these meanings ( within scientific-theoretical frames of interpretation ) in a valid and appropriate way if some of the original context of expression is preserved during data collection. Ideally, the very context that is unfolded by the participants themselves constitutes the background against which expressions are interpreted, for this is the context, in which these expressions originally ‘made sense’. On the contrary, and in line with its very own programme, standardised research tries to predefine the context of collecting responses and to eliminate the risks (and chances) of achieving an embedded understanding of expressions and ‘answers’. It claims to neutralise the indexicality of expressions (i.e. their potentially unclear reference) by attempting to standardise the semantic content. In practice, standardisation should ensure that all participants within an artificial-scientific context (i.e. the standardised situation, procedure, and contents of data collection) understand formulations of questions and answers in the same way (ibid.).

2.2 Fabricated versus negotiated common understanding

Standardised survey interviewing must rely on fabricated common understanding for the sake of measurement throughout the whole chain of participants involved in meaning making and taking like, for instance, in secondary analysis (Suchman and Jordan 1990 ). Qualitative interviews, on the other hand, generate what could be called negotiated common understanding . They do not attempt to bypass the requirement of intersubjective understanding by artificially neutralising indexicality or by re-contextualising expressions in a scientific perspective. Rather, qualitative-interpretive approaches suggest various strategies to capture expressions within context, thus preserving their indexical quality. In other words, in qualitative-interpretive approaches, the inevitable process of intersubjective understanding is “methodically controlled in so far as the difference between the frames of interpretation of the researchers and those of the researched is systematically accounted for” (cf. Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr 2008 , p. 31, own translation).

The qualitative interview is one of those methods that provide the opportunity to clarify the meaning of indexical expressions together with our research subjects. It can be characterised as “a fundamentally asymmetrical form of communication, which, however, is always co-produced and maintained by both participants, because, for example, during the interview situation both cannot help but find out what the other 'actually wants' (what his actual interests are, how he sees the situation, how he assesses his counterpart, etc.)” (Honer et al. 2006 , p. 95f, emphases in the original, own translation). Despite this asymmetry—i.e. it is initiated (and usually compensated for) by the researcher with certain knowledge interests—the qualitative interview is not a role-playing game where one person asks questions and the other provides answers. As discussed above, in order to achieve intersubjective understanding as qualitative researchers we need to decipher the relation between indexical expressions and their original context. The genuine advantage of qualitative interviews consists in the fact that we have the chance do that under the guidance of our interview partners.

The goal of generating negotiated common understanding requires both participants to meet each other as partners in an encounter where researchers consider interviewees as experts with specific knowledge that is otherwise not accessible. This knowledge can be substantial. Alternatively, and of importance for our discussion of pretest interviews, it can be semantic in the sense that it clarifies the links between utterances and their context of origin. This helps us to comprehend how the respondent’s expressions and intended implications should be understood (i.e. how he or she wants it to be interpreted) in the context of what has been said—in contrast to how it could be understood in terms of possible interpretations researchers can come up with. Footnote 1 In order for both participants to be able to contribute equally to the challenge of handling potentially ambiguous expressions the research event of the qualitative interview needs to revert to the taken-for-granted rules of everyday communication. Deviations from these familiar and unquestioned rules, which are necessary due to the specific nature and dynamic of research encounters in general and pretest interviews in particular, require explanation that is delivered in the frame of extensive briefing at the beginning of the conversation.

2.3 Towards a definition of the QPI

The programme and practice of the QPI follows elaborate methods of qualitative interviewing that translate these requirements of intersubjective understanding into principles and techniques for research communication. Within the diverse landscape of qualitative interviewing methods originating in the particular German methodology discourse in the tradition of intersubjective understanding ( Fremdverstehen ; Schutz 1967 /1932; Cicourel 1964 ), the Problem-centred Interview (PCI) stands out in that it programmatically promotes active understanding (in addition to active listening). The PCI (Witzel 1982 ; Witzel and Reiter 2012 ; Reiter and Witzel 2019 ) conceptualises the situation of data collection explicitly as a research encounter for the discursive-dialogical clarification of (implied) meanings. Researchers and respondents exchange views in everyday language on topics (‘problems’) that interest the former scientifically and the latter from a practical perspective (Witzel and Reiter 2012 ). In view of the ambiguity and indexicality of expressions, the PCI proposes to make good use of the distinct interpretive competence of the interview partners. They are not just respondents providing information that is collected and later analysed. The PCI recognises their participation, presence, and readiness to clarify meaning and involves interview partners as temporary research assistants in the co-construction of interpretations and comprehension.

The QPI inherits these aspects of the PCI’s programme of joint production of understanding. It is a method of pretest interviewing for quality improvement of questionnaires by conceptualising the clarification of comprehension as a social process of negotiating meaning through intersubjective understanding. It involves interview partners as co-experts for this process in a dialogic clarification, in everyday language, of manifest and implied meanings and understanding of formulations and expressions used in draft survey questions and other standardised stimuli.

2.4 Communication strategies—active listening and active understanding

The QPI adopts from the PCI the idea of applying two sets of methodologically integrated communication strategies of general and specific exploration for collecting information and for directly negotiating implied meaning (Bethmann et al. 2019 ; Buschle et al. 2020 ; Witzel and Reiter 2012 ; Reiter and Witzel 2019 ). Together they constitute an integrated portfolio of techniques that allow the interviewer, depending on the course of the conversation, to change back and forth between active listening and active understanding. A first set of communication strategies of general exploration are dedicated to generating self-perpetuating accounts; the respondent’s point of view should be able to unfold gradually and mainly inductively. In terms of methodology and in line with the above discussion, these communication strategies of general exploration pursue the goal of eliciting contextualised expressions—i.e. expressions that are best interpreted from within their context of origin. For example, in addition to having each survey question first read out by the interview partner this set of strategies combines open and ad-hoc questions with comparative probing and repeated prompts and invitations to specify what was said (see next chapter). The interviewer’s attention is occupied mostly with active listening and making up his or her mind about what is being said. Analytically, these communication strategies of general exploration follow exactly the purpose of providing the ‘material’ basis for the subsequent specific exploration and stepwise reduction of the ambiguity of communication that Garfinkel ( 1984 /1967, p. 41) calls “the occasionality of expressions, the specific vagueness of references.”

The second set of communication strategies of specific exploration introduce a deductive moment into the conversation by identifying interconnections between statements, by clarifying possible misunderstandings and pre-interpretations, and by validating attributions of meaning. In this way, the conversation becomes much more dialogic. The stronger involvement of the interviewers reflects their effort to engage in active understanding of what is being said and of establishing intersubjective understanding. Comprehension questions are used to clarify evasive and hidden answers in an unobtrusive manner. Mirroring is a prime strategy for achieving communicative validation of ideas and hypotheses about possible improvements of formulations that emerge during the conversation. Thereby, interviewers summarise and rephrase statements of the participants, and in this way put their re-contextualised interpretations of what has been said up for discussion.

Experienced interviewers pursue the QPI’s goal of intersubjective understanding by deliberately combining these communication strategies. The flow of the QPI dialogue is then characterised by shifting back and forth between the two reference systems of the interviewer (i.e. research) and the interview partner (i.e. everyday world). It is the task of the interviewer to make sure that this shift is performed by both parties. Experience in previous studies shows that interview partners appreciate these dialogical elements (Witzel and Reiter 2012 ). They feel taken seriously by the active negotiation, appropriation, and critical consideration of their contributions as research participants. With the appropriate briefing interview partners will not be irritated even by confrontations (e.g. with contradictions) that go beyond mere clarification or when interviewers doubt, question or even reject their suggested amendments. The purpose of confrontations and critical discussions of contradictory aspects is solely the joint identification of the appropriate, comprehensible and, in this sense, valid wording of questions and answers. And that is a step that can have features of a struggle beyond negotiation. Yet once this purpose is explicated and its necessity ratified by the interview partners, they should be able to understand that opposition and even conflict over interpretations and suggestions are productive and benefit clarification. Interviewers need to be trained and equipped with the required qualifications and communication skills (e.g., Roulston et al. 2003 ; Kvale 2007 ; Mann 2016 ). They need to be prepared to deal with alternative perspectives, insinuations of meaning and provocations in a way that a confrontational situation, despite its asymmetrical orientation, does not resemble an interrogation. This includes the appropriate briefing of the participants, the creation and maintenance of a trusting atmosphere, and the careful and flexible handling of the dynamics of difficult communication situations.

3 Practical aspects of the QPI

The following chapter is dedicated to practical examples of conducting QPIs. They illustrate how the interplay of the programmatic aspects of QPI methodology (c.f. chapter 2) translates into practice. In this paper our focus is on the three key steps of (1) briefing the interview partner before or at the beginning of the conversation, (2) the use of communication strategies, and (3) the final step of debriefing and concluding the research encounter. The commonalities and differences between the QPI and the CI mentioned in the introduction become apparent here.

The following examples were collected in the frame of a university seminar at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich/Germany in the winter semester 2019/2020. All excerpts are taken from the same interview and were translated into English by the authors. The aim of the seminar was to discuss different techniques of pretesting in the context of questionnaire development. The course introduced students to the procedure and to different communication techniques. One of their tasks was to conduct QPIs to test an already developed paper and pencil drop-off questionnaire, Footnote 2 which was part of the German sub-study in Wave 8 of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE, http://share-eric.eu ) investigating the problem of income non-response. The students had detailed information about the background and development of the questionnaire and the task was to test it in its entirety. The questionnaire consists of seven printed pages (incl. instructions on the first two pages) and 31 items with separate instructions. A block of nine items, which were irrelevant in terms of contents for this step, was excluded; thus, altogether 22 items had to be tested.

In general, the length of QPIs varies because they are always unique encounters resulting from the confrontation of two individuals and their priorities and perspectives. There is no default requirement to discuss all aspects of the questionnaire in equal detail, and the process may be faster in case the wording or contents of some items do not require clarification. Nevertheless, researchers can obviously also decide in advance, that certain items need to be tested more thoroughly than others.

3.1 Briefing and opening the conversation

Like any conversation, QPIs are ideally embedded within a pleasant social situation based on trust. However, as a research encounter they are different from everyday conversations in many ways (due to the required recording alone). Some of the special features of the QPI need to be introduced accordingly in the frame of a separate briefing before the interview, and the opening of the conversation follows certain conventions (incl. the compliance with interview norms such as a proper welcome and expressing thanks for participation, etc.).

Researchers need to explain what the interview is about and how it will proceed. Some of the information included in the cover letter for the recruitment are repeated orally, like project description (background, purpose and utilisation of the interview), and research-ethical aspects (e.g. voluntary participation, data protection, declaration of consent). In addition, some conversational instructions should be included (e.g. the possibility of interrupting the interview etc.) and open questions clarified. Furthermore, some basics regarding situation, duration, participation, recording etc. need to be addressed. All these preparatory steps set the stage for the research conversation. In the case of the QPI they also clarify the goal of the interview and establish the interview partners as co-experts for achieving this goal and to underline their key role in improving draft survey questions and exploring and struggling for alternative formulations. This process can vary in terms of length as it depends on both participants. In the case of our example, it took about four minutes.

3.1.1 Goal of the QPI

First of all, it is important to familiarise the interview partner with the peculiarities of this encounter. As described above, the QPI is a discursive exchange based on a working relationship at eye level. It follows rules of engagement that are different from those suggested by the question–answer scheme that may usually be associated with a (survey) ‘interview’. The common goal of the pretest situation is the improvement of a draft survey question or similar stimuli. We need to emphasise that the QPI is not about collecting and analysing answers to the substantive survey questions that could possibly be provided to certain questions. To put it differently: we are not interested in what answer participants give to the survey question, but rather why they answer the way they do. Even if interviewees do actually provide answers to the questions, they are not analysed in terms of substance. The purpose of the exchange is the mutual clarification of the meaning of the contents (e.g. items) and of formal aspects (e.g. design) of the draft survey questionnaire (including cover letter, instructions, formulations, response categories and scales etc.). The following excerpt illustrates how the interviewer (I) introduces purpose and procedure to the interview partner (IP) in the context of briefing Footnote 3 :

I: The whole thing that we are having here now is not a classical interview, that you may know from television, or that you may have done yourself at some point, that is, I ask questions and you answer. Instead, you can imagine this as a conversation between the two of us [IP: Ok.] . Because in a nutshell it's not about you answering these questions from the questionnaire and I sit and nod, but it's really about us looking at this sheet together, step by step, page by page, question by question, and so on... [Interview 1, 00:21-00:51]

3.1.2 Interview partners as co-experts

Another purpose of the briefing is to underline that it is a joint process and that both participants are working together on an unfinished document. This includes asking critical questions on both sides, discussing and arguing, and making suggestions for improvement:

...and I depend on your support, that means, first I would like you to say everything that you notice, [IP: Uhm.] to talk about everything that comes to your mind when you read each of the questions, when you look at the individual pages. And I depend on that, that’s why I say support, uhm, that you are welcome to put your finger on it and say: ‘The term is not clear to me now.’ [IP: Ok.] ... [Interview 1, 00:52-01:20]

The QPI constitutes an unusual situation for both participants. The briefing provides an opportunity for creating a space for close collaboration with a previously unknown person and for talking freely about substantial issues as well as problematic formulations. On the one side, researchers need to put aside their research knowledge and distance themselves from the ambition of having constructed a somehow ‘perfect’ questionnaire. They must dismiss the idea of non-reactivity and need to be aware of the weak spots of the draft questionnaire and disclose them. Interview partners, on the other side, need to realise that they are in a position of temporary research assistance. Their interpretive competence is equally important in this situation, and it is essentially their contribution that will advance the improvement of the questionnaire. This clarification of roles and status are key to a productive QPI and should therefore be done very thoughtfully and depending on the circumstances. These aspects are illustrated in the following excerpt that continues where the previous one ended:

I: ... background is that we are quite aware of the fact that we sometimes have such a ‘researcher speak’, which is perhaps not at all used in everyday life in this way. IP: Ok, am I everyday speak or am I researcher speak? I: Uhm, for me it is important that you just tell me how you understand it. IP: Ok, so how I understand it now. I: Exactly. And that we just look at it together, maybe even ‘How could we formulate something differently?’ [IP: Uhm.] Because we are currently in the middle of the development phase with this drop-off questionnaire, so we are in the middle of it, we still have the chance to adjust some things, ask questions differently or maybe use different terms [IP: Ok.] ... [Interview 1, 01:20-02:04]

3.1.3 General exploration and thinking aloud

The briefing should pay particular attention to the introduction of the communication strategy of thinking aloud that is also used in forms of cognitive interviewing (Bethmann et al. 2019 ; Buschle et al. 2020 ). Footnote 4 The QPI exploits the idea of thinking aloud that is used as a strategy of general exploration at the beginning of the review of each item. The discussion of each draft question starts by handing over to the interview partners as co-experts. They are invited to articulate what comes to mind while the interviewer assumes the role of the active listener that develops ideas for follow-up probing. Thinking aloud may not be an obvious thing to do for interview partners. Freely articulating one’s flow of thoughts can be unusual and exhausting and needs some preparation and introduction. For instance, in this example the interviewer adds: “What makes this situation so special is the fact that I am actually encouraging you to express everything that comes to your mind.” Our experiences indicate that the best way of getting used to this form of exchange and of handling the interview partners’ possible uncertainties consists in trying it out together— “This is not as simple as that. [IP: laughs.] And it means that we will still practise it together now. [IP: Uhm, good.] ”.

3.1.4 Anticipation of unusual interventions

The briefing should also indicate how the interviewer intends to participate in the conversation, which part he or she will play, and what kind of interventions can be expected—e.g. “I will interrupt you from time to time to follow up on things.” Addressing spontaneous interruptions and inquiries in the frame of briefings is particularly important due to their significance for the goal of clarification. Interruptions create pauses and produce space for reflection; they may even take the form of confrontations and (polite!) controversies when contradictions need explanation. As part of the briefing, objections and confrontations are introduced as forms of constructive irritation and invitations to join the struggle for clarification. They demonstrate that in this unusual encounter called QPI it is socially desirable not to settle for easy compromises but to be ready, if necessary, to contest and dispute each other’s proposals. Both parties are welcome to do that. With the proper briefing, the QPI can be a method of negotiating controversial aspects as long as the conversation remains at the factual level. Productive interruptions and ad-hoc questions also have the positive side-effect of demonstrating that this kind of conversation breaks with the question–answer-scheme of conventional interviews. In this respect QPIs resemble dialogic everyday conversations where the thoughts, contributions, questions, doubts etc. of two participants are more closely intertwined than in conventional research communication.

The following section illustrates the practical steps of general and specific exploration in QPIs as well as the interviewer’s shift between active listening and active understanding.

3.2 Communication in QPIs—an example

The following segment is taken from the same interview quoted in the previous section. The interview has a total length of about 50 min. The example refers to item 11 on page 4 of the questionnaire. The item is part of a set of items dealing with the question of how respondents handle their own privacy protection. 30 min and 55 s into the interview, the general exploration of item 11 starts with the interviewee first reading the question out loud and expressing any thoughts that come to his mind.

3.2.1 Reading the item out loud & thinking aloud

This first step of reading out loud is the same for every item.

IP: How concerned are your relatives, friends or your partner that you provide too much personal information (.) to people you don’t know very well? (.) So, now I don't know what it is that relatives, friends or partners should be worried about. (.) Is it simply about my, are they worried that I make my own information available to others that I use smartphones. That’s how I understand that. [I: Yes.] Or, uh, is it about (.) that they (.) are concerned that the information I have about the relatives. (.) So, [I: Ah.] yes. [Interview 1, 30:55–31:43]

After reading out the item the interview partner follows the instruction of thinking aloud and immediately expresses his confusion about its precise meaning. The short pause within indicates that it is related to the term ‘information’. He leans towards one interpretation but offers a second one that is also conceivable. His uninterrupted thoughts conclude with a Coda ( “(.) So, yes.” ). This is when the interviewer realises that there is a problem in the formulation ( “Ah.” ). It is her turn to take over and she shifts from active listening to a dialogue of active understanding.

3.2.2 Stepwise clarification and active understanding

In the following interview excerpt, the researcher first responds to the interviewee’s thinking aloud with an explicit affirmative statement ( “totally exciting” ). While this is unusual in qualitative interviews because it might introduce bias towards social desirability (in terms of contents), it serves here as a strong motivational intervention. This is followed by the disclosure of the intention behind the question ( “To explain what we had in mind…” ) initiating a stepwise dialogical process of clarifying understanding at eye level by using different communication strategies.

I: That is totally exciting. To explain what we had in mind: that too much of your own, of course personal information from you, so to speak, that you report what you do and that then your relatives, friends or so, that they are worried that you pass on information. IP: From myself? I: Exactly. But of course, this is also a point that they might be worried that, uh, [IP: Yes.] by you passing on information… IP: that something about them will also come out. I: That also something about them, that also something about them would be found out. OK. That means, when we now say that we are actually interested in your information [IP: Uhm.] , that is, that friends are concerned about you [IP: Uhm.] , would it be possible for us to say: “How concerned are your relatives, friends or your partner that too much personal information about you, even more so, own personal information (.) or (.) personal information about oneself…” IP: Yes, about oneself, that would be so with me (..) personal information about oneself. I: About oneself? IP: About oneself, exactly. I: Exactly, so that we specify this once again. That would be one possibility [IP: Yes, totally.] , so that you would know what we want? [IP: Totally, totally.] Yes, ok. IP: And that's what it's about, isn't it? I: Yes exactly, that would be the point. [Interview 1, 31:44–32:58]

The interviewer’s disclosure of the intended purpose of the questionnaire item is a first substantial contribution that actively initiates the process of clarifying meaning. It provides the interview partner with the opportunity to understand and agree with the interviewer’s proposal ( “From myself?” ). By paraphrasing and mirroring the interview partner’s second interpretation ( “…they might be worried that … by you passing on information…” ) the interviewer both acknowledges it and asks him to confirm that she got it right. This kind of response of the researcher inviting validation is a step of active understanding. The interview partner confirms the researcher’s statement and even completes her sentence ( “… that something about them will also come out” ). In turn, she repeats it in similar words and concludes this first part of negotiating agreement ( “OK” ).

3.2.3 Negotiating indexicality and joint adjustment of the wording

Once common ground is established, they can move on to the next step of working together on an adjustment of the wording of the item. The interviewer’s suggestion ( “personal information about oneself” ) is accepted and verbally ratified repeatedly by the interview partner; he can “totally” agree that such a specification would help to reduce the ambiguity of the original wording. This segment illustrates the significance of listening to each other: the full appreciation of the perspective of the interviewer, and at times its redundant confirmation (like in this example), is equally important for building consensus. This capability of the two interlocutors to agree on an interpretation is crucial for the next part of the sequence:

IP: Yes, and then it's just that, it's such a mishmash, then I would just say "rather not like that", four. [i.e. the answer category 4; authors] I: Mishmash, because? IP: Yes, maybe my mother is totally worried and, uh, all my friends are just not worried, that’s just how it was now. I: Ok, so because now we simply packed all [I: Yes.] contacts [I: Yes, all.] into this question [I: Uhm.] , so that it is difficult to name exactly [I: Exactly.] who is worried. [I: Yes.] That means, if we wanted to, so if we were interested in what your partner or friends were saying and if we wanted to separate that, we would have to list them separately. [I: Uhm.] Do I understand that correctly? IP: Totally. Exactly like that. I: Ok. [Interview 1, 32:58-33:37]

The interview partner addresses another flaw (“ it's such a mishmash” ) that he notices as he tries to select an appropriate answer category. The problem is that relatives, friends, and partner are all lumped together in the item. Even if one of these three categories would deserve the highest rating of 1 ( “maybe my mother is totally worried” ) he would still have to mark the second lowest rating of 4 because all the others would not be concerned ( “all my friends are just not worried” ).

This sequence underlines the interview partner’s commitment to his status as diligent co-expert: of his own accord he addresses another inconsistency by continuing to think aloud. The interviewer shifts from active listening to active understanding by interposing a simple detailing question that explores the contextuality of the term “mishmash” ( “Mishmash, because?” ). This question triggers an explication, which is then followed by a longer sequence of active understanding through paraphrasing and mirroring accompanied by several affirmations of the interview partner. In this way the indexicality of what he has said is gradually dissolved and replaced by genuine understanding. Again, the interviewer initiates the conclusion of this process by suggesting an adjustment of the item based on a compromise between research interest ( “if we were interested in…” ) and the now resolved irritation of the interview partner ( “Exactly like that.” ).

However, the interview partner is not quite finished yet. He once again assumes his responsibility as co-expert and submits his very own alternative formulation of the item.

IP: Yes. Otherwise, there might perhaps be the option to simplify it by saying "environment" or so. I: Uh, "your personal environment", something like that? [IP: Uhm.] Okay. (...) Thank you very much. [IP: Uhm.] [Interview 1, 33:38–33:51] Footnote 5

The researcher adapts his proposal and seeks one final agreement for her suggested clarification of understanding. At this point, the discussion of this item is finalised because all the suggestions and adjustments of the wording are fully acceptable for both sides. If this were not the case, the debate would continue. In the example it could then, hypothetically, evolve along the suggested notion of “environment” that is, in fact, just as indistinct as a list of potentially important members of this ‘environment’. Instead of concluding the negotiation, the interviewer could have initiated further clarification by confronting the interview partner with this contradiction. An open probe would be appropriate to obtain the interview partner’s notion of ‘environment’. In case he sticks with such a vague term, she could question its usefulness for improving the item. She could finally indicate her inclination to reject the suggestion and would provide arguments underlining her decision with the aim of finding out whether she would be able to convince the interview partner as co-expert. In any case, each proposal made by the interview partner enters the further discussion and questionnaire development among the researchers as a qualified contribution.

3.2.4 Summary

This short interview sequence demonstrates that with all these instructive shifts between the researcher’s and the interviewee’s reference systems (of research and everyday knowledge) intersubjective understanding can be accomplished in a very effective and highly indexical way. It requires careful briefing of the interview partner and an interviewer that is able to handle the idiosyncrasies of an open conversation and channel them towards negotiated agreement. In summary, these examples show different strategies of clarifying meaning and establishing mutual understanding in QPIs:

Active listening to the interview partner’s thinking aloud is the most subtle form of general exploration with the least risk of introducing reactivity to the conversation. With its foundation in thorough briefing it encourages most authentic expressions and preserves their indexicality . They constitute the basis for active understanding.

Active understanding through specific exploration is dedicated to the exploration and negotiation of contextual meanings and interpretations of these expressions. It is done through the strategic and repeated use of summaries, by paraphrasing and mirroring (of contradictions, if necessary) and by carefully employing interpretive confrontations that emphasise the QPI’s purpose of clarifying misunderstandings.

The joint discussion and adjustment of the wording of draft survey questions and items contributes significantly to the active clarification of understanding. Concrete suggestions by the interview partner are indicators for his or her degree of involvement and for the overall progress of the specific exploration of interpretations.

The identification of the interviewee's point of view provides valuable information about the range of possible interpretations and for determining appropriate alternative formulations. By adjusting sampling and analysis, the characteristic features of particular target groups can be established as well as possible divergences in their understanding of the relations between question, answer, and conceptual background.

The choice and use of certain communication strategies depends on the researcher’s interest in specific aspects of the draft questionnaire or other survey material (e.g., cover letter, instructions, items, answer categories), the various possible goals in the process of intersubjective understanding as well as the kind of course the conversation should take. Thus, researchers need to consider in advance the potential and advantages of certain kinds of communication and probing strategies with regard to active understanding and active listening. It is worthwhile figuring out for which parts of the questionnaire or which types of draft questions these strategies might be most suitable. All this can be documented in an interview guide. However, as the example indicates, interviewers need to remain flexible and should not just work through the interview guide without considering the previous part of the conversation (Hopf 1978 ). They need to remain open to the perspective of the interview partner for true conversations can be full of surprising turns and opportunities.

Interviewers must be trained carefully in general conversation techniques as well as the particular QPI strategies. Ideally, in addition to their QPI training they have some practical experience as well as comprehensive training in qualitative methods in general and beyond interviewing. The latter can help to understand exactly why it is so important for intersubjective understanding in QPIs to reflect both their own and the interview partner’s possible interpretations: it is the necessary precondition for improving the quality of questionnaires through an exchange and alignment of everyday knowledge and research knowledge. This article does not cover the analysis of QPIs; we need to postpone this to a different occasion. Depending on purpose, time, and resources the same data can be analysed in many different ways (e.g., Flick 2014 ). This applies also to the QPI, which can, in principle, equally utilise the full potential of available approaches.

3.3 Debriefing

The exit sequence is about concluding the social encounter appropriately, by recognising their status as co-experts. In the procedure described so far, the importance of uncovering the interviewees’ point of view and using their interpretive competence as co-experts was repeatedly emphasised. This aspect becomes relevant once again in the frame of debriefing.

In addition to expressing one’s thanks for their time, interest and commitment, the final appreciation of their participation should address the importance of their contribution (e.g. practical perspective, specific expertise and background) as well as the information provided (e.g. substance of their comments and significance for the improvement of the questionnaire). One part of this closing ritual consists in inviting the interview partners to address issues that have remained open so far or that are still missing. Their answers can hold valuable remarks like in the next example. Following the concluding recapitulation of the whole questionnaire, the interview partner emphasises, after a long pause for thought of six seconds, the importance of the briefing for this unusual QPI encounter in one of his final comments:

IP: It was a lot of fun. I found it very interesting, because (……) yes, I actually found it, I found it much more interesting to say everything that comes to my head. [I: laughs] Completely crazy this situation. [Interview 1, 47:35–47:52]

The final sequence illustrates that debriefing can be used for a summary and reflection of the background and purpose of the conversation. It highlights the researcher’s take-away conclusions and emphasises that the contribution of the interviewee will lead to adjustments in the questionnaire:

I: Now I would like to thank you very much for being ready to participate here. As you have noticed in many places, there were a few [IP: laughs] points where I noticed, “OK, here we could differentiate a bit more, there we could put things differently”, [IP: Uhm.] or maybe some things are not so clear yet. I can tell you now from my side, there were some things I was worried about, “Oops, I hope that's clear”, where I noticed, “OK, that's totally clear, you're really good with that.” [IP: Uhm, ok.] That was also very nice. [IP: Cool.] But above all there were some points where I thought we could make some improvements. [IP: Uhm.] That's very valuable for us. [IP: Yes.] Many, many thanks for being willing to do this. [Interview 1, 48:04–48:44].

Finally, debriefing addresses the next steps and informs, for instance, about how comments will be processed and considered, and what will likely need to be adjusted. Interview partners are also informed about how they could participate further and, if interested, who to contact for further information.

4 Summary and conclusion

The discussion about the degree of openness of the interaction between interviewers and interview partners has existed since at least the 1940s (Beatty 1995 ); more than 75 years after Lazarsfeld's ( 1944 ) first conciliatory intervention it is still ongoing (e.g., West et al. 2018 ). Both parties involved in this debate provide reasonable arguments that are highly relevant for interview practice. The proponents of a strong standardisation on the one side emphasise the necessity of using an efficient and coherent protocol of data collection to generate adequate data for the analysis of statistical distributions. Advocates of open interviewing on the other side argue that the validity of the answers of participants depends essentially on a shared understanding of questions. They consider the possibility of reflecting on this understanding and clarifying it in the interview interaction a key element in reducing bias and error in surveys (Suchman and Jordan 1990 ). At the same time, more intensive interaction implies the danger of interviewer influence and thus the distortion of answers. Ongoing comparative research into the techniques of “conversational” and “standardised” interviews (e.g., Schober and Conrad 1997 ) sheds light on the trade-off between the two main sources of measurement error—i.e. wrong understanding of the question by the respondents and distorted answers due to the influence of the interviewer.

One area, in which the use of open interviewing techniques does not cause much controversy, is questionnaire development. It is possible to increase the validity of answers by preponing the open exchange about the meaning of questions and moving it from the primary survey to the process of questionnaire development. The “cognitive turn” in survey research in the 1980s resulted in a systematisation of open pretesting techniques, especially through the development of methods that are now subsumed under the label of ‘Cognitive Interviews’ (Willis 2005 , 2015 ). These methods were developed to identify and, ideally, remedy problems in the respondents’ understanding already in the process of designing the wording of questions.

This paper discusses and advocates a comprehensive consideration of qualitative-interpretive aspects in open forms of pretesting survey questionnaires. More specifically, we start out from the notion of intersubjective understanding as the conceptual pillar of interpretive interview research. Borrowing from the well-developed methodology and techniques of Problem-centred Interviews (PCI) (Witzel and Reiter 2012 ; Reiter and Witzel 2019 ; Bethmann et al. 2019 ), we propose an approach we call Qualitative Pretest Interviews (QPI), which focuses on a joint production of understanding. The QPI can be described as a method of pretest interviewing that involves interview partners as co-experts in a joint discursive clarification of meaning in draft survey questions and other standardised stimuli.

The QPI shares its practical objectives with the Cognitive Interview (CI) developed by Willis (e.g., Willis 2005 , 2015 ), in aiming at reducing response and measurement errors due to problematic survey questions. While the QPI also takes an open approach to pretest interviewing it is conceptually rooted in qualitative-interpretive methodology, as opposed to the CI’s heritage of cognitive psychology. In a sense, we accept Willis’ ( 2015 ) invitation to elaborate the qualitative potential of pretest interviewing by fleshing it out in the QPI’s methodology.

In the course of the paper, we outline the QPI’s background in interpretive interview research and elaborate on the value of the concept of intersubjective understanding for the purpose of evaluating survey questions. Namely, it helps to identify and explicate ambiguous meanings of survey stimuli between participants, interviewers and (ideally) researchers by discussing them in their contexts of origin. Eventually, this dialog should lead to shared understanding of meaning and in turn yield suggestions for improvement of the questionnaire.

Regarding practical interviewing techniques, we borrow from the PCI and its particular qualitative interviewing methodology developed for the joint clarification of meanings related to topics, which, like in the QPI, have been identified in advance. Translating the concept of intersubjective understanding into actionable communication strategies, the QPI promotes strategies of active listening for general exploration and strategies of active understanding for specific exploration. We further differentiate this approach and show its practical application in an example interview discussing items in a paper-and-pencil questionnaire on income non-response developed as an add-on for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE, http://share-eric.eu ). We explain the concepts of general and specific exploration for the discursive-dialogical clarification of (implied) meaning, using straight-forward examples like encouragement to think aloud and paraphrasing by the interviewer, as well as more complex sequences of making and discussing suggestions to improve the questionnaire. We also point out the importance of briefing and debriefing in order to create a relaxed and professional atmosphere, as well as a relationship between participant and interviewer that is friendly and appreciative, but also sober enough to debate disagreements about the questionnaire critically. In order for a QPI to work, it is vital that the participant’s role of a co-expert is thoroughly understood and accepted by the participant him- or herself as well as the interviewer.

While rooting open pretesting techniques in qualitative-interpretive methodology, as we have done with the QPI, seems to be a fruitful approach, this paper can only give a first impression of what has to be further developed into a proper framework of the methodology and practice of QPIs in the future. Apart from further refining the interviewing techniques themselves, a second equally significant topic we were not able to cover here, is the discussion of methods to analyse the rich and complex material collected during the QPI. Also, a thorough comparison of priorities, procedures, and results with other pretesting methods like the CI needs to be postponed to another publication.

The task of pretesting standardised instruments of data collection with QPIs is at the intersection of quantitative and qualitative research; and only people or teams that are familiar with both approaches will really be able to accomplish it. One thing that becomes clear when looking at the implementation of QPIs in practical questionnaire pretesting is the substantial demand it poses on the training of interviewers. The techniques of QPIs are rather involved, and interviewers would benefit from comprehensive prior training in qualitative interviewing methods. In contrast to other forms of pretests, QPIs cannot be standardised very well as they rely heavily on the interviewer being able to react flexibly during the interaction with the participant. This leads to the need for a specific set of skills, rather than a simple list of prescriptions, which have to be learned through a substantial amount of practice.

QPIs allow for a very thorough investigation of how and why survey questions might not be understood and answered as intended. In our view, employing the methods described above provides a good way of making use of the potential that lies within the direct social interaction during an open pretest situation. By recognising the participants as co-experts, it is possible to tap into their knowledge and ability to discuss and interpret the meanings of questionnaire items as they understand them themselves or as is brought forward by the interviewer. Depending on the specific survey project, this might be very helpful indeed to mitigate important risks to survey quality.

At the same time, QPIs are very resource intensive, as they require well-trained interviewers and a considerable amount of time and money for conducting and processing the interviews, as well as their analysis. In direct comparison with CIs, we would assume that QPIs would require even more training and experience on the side of the interviewers, especially regarding qualitative interviewing techniques. The same will probably hold true for the analysis of the interview material, as the conversations will presumably be more complex due to the higher degree of dialogic interaction. For the same reasons it is likely harder to ensure high quality for a QPI. One could argue that the QPI allows for more degrees of freedom in interview and analysis, putting the result more at risk if done inaptly. The traditional CI, while still one of the most involved pretesting approaches available, might be—at least to some extent—easier to standardise than the QPI, reducing its margin for error. Or, to put it differently: the QPI puts more responsibility for the end result on the well-trained interviewer, rather than on the process. Whether these costs and quality risks are outweighed by the benefits of a potentially higher quality of the questionnaire needs to be decided for each survey project individually.

Finally, even open forms of pretesting will always have their limitations. Even the most elaborate procedure will not result in question wordings that produce equally valid answers for all different, heterogeneous groups of respondents. Conducting pretests with a variety of different types of respondents seems indicated. Still there will be cases where we are only able to find that some respondents may understand a specific question wording, while others do not. Standardisation across all groups of respondents will not at all be possible in some cases, and even open pretest procedures such as the proposed QPI will not be able to resolve these contradictions. Nevertheless, they can provide a nuanced basis for identifying group-differences in the comprehension of questions and for recognising the fundamental necessity of reflecting the concepts in the survey. Sometimes, QPIs might even be instrumental in determining that the study would benefit from an altogether more open approach to interviewing (e.g., Conversational Interviewing, cf. Schober and Conrad 1997 ). With regard to the decision whether to spend a considerable amount of time and money on thorough pretesting at all, be that QPIs, CIs, or other, maybe less elaborate strategies, we would like to close the discussion with a reminder put forward by Sudman and Bradburn already in 1982 (p. 283): “It is even more important for researchers with limited resources to pilot-test their questionnaires before spending all their money. If you do not have the resources to pilot-test your questionnaire, don’t do the study.”

The former comprehension of manifest and implied meaning in the tradition of pragmatism is required for situational intersubjective understanding in pretest interviews; the latter discovery of possible latent meanings and of unconscious generative structures behind utterances is characteristic of reconstructive qualitative research in the German hermeneutic tradition that applies sophisticated techniques of data analysis and interpretation (Reichertz 2016 ).

The final, German version, fielded in SHARE Wave 8, can be found here: http://www.share-project.org/fileadmin/pdf_questionnaire_wave_8_preliminary/Wave_8_DropOffs/DE_DE_SHAREw8_Main_dropoff.pdf .

The interview was audio-recorded, transcribed following simple standards, and anonymised. Underlined text indicates emphasis. “(.)” signifies pauses and their length (one point per second). “…” indicate that the account is continued. The end of each quotation includes time markers.

The paradigms of thinking aloud and probing in Cognitive Interviews described by Willis ( 2005 ), Beatty and Willis ( 2007 ), Willis ( 2015 ) have their origin in psychological laboratory analyses of short-term memory and information processing (Ericsson and Simon 1980 ). In the QPI these means of collecting data are combined with communication strategies in the context of an altogether different methodological frame (c.f. chapters 2 and 3.2).

This item was problematic for similar reasons for most of the interview partners in the other QPIs that were conducted.

Beatty, P.: Understanding the standardized/non-standardized interviewing controversy. J. Off. Stat. 11 , 147–160 (1995)

Google Scholar  

Beatty, P., Willis, G.B.: Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin. Q. 71 , 287–311 (2007)

Article   Google Scholar  

Bethmann, A., Buschle, C., Reiter, H.: Kognitiv oder qualitativ? Pretest-Interviews in der Fragebogenentwicklung. In: Menold, N., Wolbring, T. (eds.) Qualitätssicherung sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente, pp. 159–193. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2019)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bradburn, N.M., Sudman, S., Wansink, B.: Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design - For market research, political polls and social and health questionnaires, 2 rev ed Wiley, Hoboken (2004)

Buschle, C., Reiter, H., Bethmann, A.: Introducing the Qualitative Pretest Interview (QPI) for questionnaire development. (2020, July 11). https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3mgqd

Cicourel, A.V.: Method and Measurement in Sociology. Free Press, New York (1964)

Collins, D.: Cognitive Interviewing Practice. Sage, London (2015)

Book   Google Scholar  

Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Verbal reports as data. Psychol. Rev. 87 , 215–251 (1980)

Faulbaum, F., Prüfer, P., Rexroth, M.: Was ist eine gute Frage? Die systematische Evaluation der Fragenqualität. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden (2009)

Flick, U. (ed.): The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, London (2014)

Garfinkel, H.: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge (1984/1967)

Gobo, G., Mauceri, S.: Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach. Sage, London (2014)

Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Jr., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R.: Survey Methodology, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)

Honer, A.: Interview. In: Bohnsack, R., Marotzki, W., Meuser, M. (eds.) Hauptbegriffe qualitativer Sozialforschung, pp. 94–99. Barbara Budrich, Opladen (2006)

Hopf, C.: Die Pseudo-Exploration Überlegungen zur Technik qualitativer Interviews in der Sozialforschung. Z. Soziol. 7 (97), 115 (1978)

Kohli, M.: “Offenes” und “geschlossenes” Interview: Neue Argumente zu einer alten Kontroverse. Soziale Welt 29 , 1–25 (1978)

Kvale, S.: Doing Interviews. Sage, London (2007)

Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S.: InterViews. Learing the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks (2009)

Lazarsfeld, P.F.: The controversy over detailed interviews—an offer for negotiation. Public Opin. Q. 8 (1), 38–60 (1944)

Mann, S.J.: The Research Interview. Reflective Practice and Reflexivity in Research Process, Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills (2016)

Miller, K., Willson, S., Chepp, V., Padilla, J.L.: Cognitive Interviewing Methodology. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)

Porst, R., Fragebogen: Ein Arbeitsbuch, 4 ed VS Verlag, Wiesbaden (2014)

Przyborski, A., Wohlrab-Sahr, M.: Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch. Oldenbourg Verlag, München (2008)

Reichertz, J.: Qualitative und interpretative Sozialforschung. Springer, Wiesbaden (2016)

Reiter, H., Witzel, A.: Problem-centred interview. In: Atkinson, P. A., Delamont, S., Cernat, A., Sakshaug J. W., Williams, R. A. (eds.) SAGE Research Methods: An Encyclopedia. https://methods.sagepub.com/foundations/problem-centred-interview (2019)

Roulston, K., deMarrais, K., Lewis, J.B.: Learning to interview in the social sciences. Qual. Inq. 9 (4), 643–668 (2003)

Schnell, R.: Survey-Interviews. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden (2012)

Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G.: Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opin. Q. 61 , 576–602 (1997)

Schutz A.: The Phenomenology of the Social World. Northwestern University Press, Evanston (1967/1932)

Suchman, L., Jordan, B.: Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 85 , 232–241 (1990)

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M.: Asking Questions. Wiley, Hoboken (1982)

Tourangeau, R.: Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In: Jabine, T.B., Straf, M.L., Tanur, J.M., Tourangeau, R. (eds.) Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a bridge between the disciplines, pp. 73–100. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C (1984)

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., Rasinski, K.: The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

West, B.T., Conrad, F.G., Kreuter, F., Mittereder, F.: Can conversational interviewing improve survey response quality without increasing interviewer effects? J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A: Stat. Soc 181 (1), 181–203 (2018)

Willis, G.B.: Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2005)

Willis, G.B.: Analysis of the Cognitive Interview in Questionnaire Design. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

Witzel, A.: Verfahren der Qualitativen Sozialforschung. Überblick und Alternativen. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt (1982)

Wolf, C., Joye, D., Smith, T.W., Fu, Y. (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2016)

Witzel, A., Reiter H.: The problem-centred interview. Principles and practice. Sage, London (2012)

Willis, G.B., Royston, P., Bercini, D.: The Use of Verbal Report Methods in the Development and Testing of Survey Questionnaires. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 5, 251-267 (1991)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive critique and discussion that greatly helped us to improve the argument in terms of both substance and structure. We also thank the participants of our university seminar “Pretest-Interviews in der Entwicklung standardisierter Fragebögen” at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich/Germany in the winter semester 2019/2020 for providing us valuable feedback in the frame of developing the QPI.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Adult Education, IU International University of Applied Sciences, Bad Reichenhall, Germany

Christina Buschle

Department of Social Monitoring and Methodology, German Youth Institute, Munich, Germany

Herwig Reiter

Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA), Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Technical University of Munich (Chair for the Economics of Aging), Munich, Germany

Arne Bethmann

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Buschle .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Buschle, C., Reiter, H. & Bethmann, A. The qualitative pretest interview for questionnaire development: outline of programme and practice. Qual Quant 56 , 823–842 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01156-0

Download citation

Accepted : 27 April 2021

Published : 06 May 2021

Issue Date : April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01156-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Questionnaire development
• Qualitative interview
• Qualitative pretest interview
• Cognitive interview
• Measurement error
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Interview Method In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Interviews involve a conversation with a purpose, but have some distinct features compared to ordinary conversation, such as being scheduled in advance, having an asymmetry in outcome goals between interviewer and interviewee, and often following a question-answer format.

Interviews are different from questionnaires as they involve social interaction. Unlike questionnaire methods, researchers need training in interviewing (which costs money).

How Do Interviews Work?

Researchers can ask different types of questions, generating different types of data . For example, closed questions provide people with a fixed set of responses, whereas open questions allow people to express what they think in their own words.

The researcher will often record interviews, and the data will be written up as a transcript (a written account of interview questions and answers) which can be analyzed later.

It should be noted that interviews may not be the best method for researching sensitive topics (e.g., truancy in schools, discrimination, etc.) as people may feel more comfortable completing a questionnaire in private.

There are different types of interviews, with a key distinction being the extent of structure. Semi-structured is most common in psychology research. Unstructured interviews have a free-flowing style, while structured interviews involve preset questions asked in a particular order.

Structured Interview

A structured interview is a quantitative research method where the interviewer a set of prepared closed-ended questions in the form of an interview schedule, which he/she reads out exactly as worded.

Interviews schedules have a standardized format, meaning the same questions are asked to each interviewee in the same order (see Fig. 1).

   Figure 1. An example of an interview schedule

The interviewer will not deviate from the interview schedule (except to clarify the meaning of the question) or probe beyond the answers received.  Replies are recorded on a questionnaire, and the order and wording of questions, and sometimes the range of alternative answers, is preset by the researcher.

A structured interview is also known as a formal interview (like a job interview).

• Structured interviews are easy to replicate as a fixed set of closed questions are used, which are easy to quantify – this means it is easy to test for reliability .
• Structured interviews are fairly quick to conduct which means that many interviews can take place within a short amount of time. This means a large sample can be obtained, resulting in the findings being representative and having the ability to be generalized to a large population.

Limitations

• Structured interviews are not flexible. This means new questions cannot be asked impromptu (i.e., during the interview), as an interview schedule must be followed.
• The answers from structured interviews lack detail as only closed questions are asked, which generates quantitative data . This means a researcher won’t know why a person behaves a certain way.

Unstructured Interview

Unstructured interviews do not use any set questions, instead, the interviewer asks open-ended questions based on a specific research topic, and will try to let the interview flow like a natural conversation. The interviewer modifies his or her questions to suit the candidate’s specific experiences.

Unstructured interviews are sometimes referred to as ‘discovery interviews’ and are more like a ‘guided conservation’ than a strictly structured interview. They are sometimes called informal interviews.

Unstructured interviews are most useful in qualitative research to analyze attitudes and values. Though they rarely provide a valid basis for generalization, their main advantage is that they enable the researcher to probe social actors’ subjective points of view.

Interviewer Self-Disclosure

Interviewer self-disclosure involves the interviewer revealing personal information or opinions during the research interview. This may increase rapport but risks changing dynamics away from a focus on facilitating the interviewee’s account.

In unstructured interviews, the informal conversational style may deliberately include elements of interviewer self-disclosure, mirroring ordinary conversation dynamics.

Interviewer self-disclosure risks changing the dynamics away from facilitation of interviewee accounts. It should not be ruled out entirely but requires skillful handling informed by reflection.

• An informal interviewing style with some interviewer self-disclosure may increase rapport and participant openness. However, it also increases the chance of the participant converging opinions with the interviewer.
• Complete interviewer neutrality is unlikely. However, excessive informality and self-disclosure risk the interview becoming more of an ordinary conversation and producing consensus accounts.
• Overly personal disclosures could also be seen as irrelevant and intrusive by participants. They may invite increased intimacy on uncomfortable topics.
• The safest approach seems to be to avoid interviewer self-disclosures in most cases. Where an informal style is used, disclosures require careful judgment and substantial interviewing experience.
• If asked for personal opinions during an interview, the interviewer could highlight the defined roles and defer that discussion until after the interview.
• Unstructured interviews are more flexible as questions can be adapted and changed depending on the respondents’ answers. The interview can deviate from the interview schedule.
• Unstructured interviews generate qualitative data through the use of open questions. This allows the respondent to talk in some depth, choosing their own words. This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation.
• They also have increased validity because it gives the interviewer the opportunity to probe for a deeper understanding, ask for clarification & allow the interviewee to steer the direction of the interview, etc. Interviewers have the chance to clarify any questions of participants during the interview.
• It can be time-consuming to conduct an unstructured interview and analyze the qualitative data (using methods such as thematic analysis).
• Employing and training interviewers is expensive and not as cheap as collecting data via questionnaires . For example, certain skills may be needed by the interviewer. These include the ability to establish rapport and knowing when to probe.
• Interviews inevitably co-construct data through researchers’ agenda-setting and question-framing. Techniques like open questions provide only limited remedies.

Focus Group Interview

Focus group interview is a qualitative approach where a group of respondents are interviewed together, used to gain an in‐depth understanding of social issues.

This type of interview is often referred to as a focus group because the job of the interviewer ( or moderator ) is to bring the group to focus on the issue at hand. Initially, the goal was to reach a consensus among the group, but with the development of techniques for analyzing group qualitative data, there is less emphasis on consensus building.

The method aims to obtain data from a purposely selected group of individuals rather than from a statistically representative sample of a broader population.

The role of the interview moderator is to make sure the group interacts with each other and do not drift off-topic. Ideally, the moderator will be similar to the participants in terms of appearance, have adequate knowledge of the topic being discussed, and exercise mild unobtrusive control over dominant talkers and shy participants.

A researcher must be highly skilled to conduct a focus group interview. For example, the moderator may need certain skills, including the ability to establish rapport and know when to probe.

• Group interviews generate qualitative narrative data through the use of open questions. This allows the respondents to talk in some depth, choosing their own words. This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation. Qualitative data also includes observational data, such as body language and facial expressions.
• Group responses are helpful when you want to elicit perspectives on a collective experience, encourage diversity of thought, reduce researcher bias, and gather a wider range of contextualized views.
• They also have increased validity because some participants may feel more comfortable being with others as they are used to talking in groups in real life (i.e., it’s more natural).
• When participants have common experiences, focus groups allow them to build on each other’s comments to provide richer contextual data representing a wider range of views than individual interviews.
• Focus groups are a type of group interview method used in market research and consumer psychology that are cost – effective for gathering the views of consumers .
• The researcher must ensure that they keep all the interviewees” details confidential and respect their privacy. This is difficult when using a group interview. For example, the researcher cannot guarantee that the other people in the group will keep information private.
• Group interviews are less reliable as they use open questions and may deviate from the interview schedule, making them difficult to repeat.
• It is important to note that there are some potential pitfalls of focus groups, such as conformity, social desirability, and oppositional behavior, that can reduce the usefulness of the data collected.

For example, group interviews may sometimes lack validity as participants may lie to impress the other group members. They may conform to peer pressure and give false answers.

To avoid these pitfalls, the interviewer needs to have a good understanding of how people function in groups as well as how to lead the group in a productive discussion.

Semi-Structured Interview

Semi-structured interviews lie between structured and unstructured interviews. The interviewer prepares a set of same questions to be answered by all interviewees. Additional questions might be asked during the interview to clarify or expand certain issues.

In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer has more freedom to digress and probe beyond the answers. The interview guide contains a list of questions and topics that need to be covered during the conversation, usually in a particular order.

Semi-structured interviews are most useful to address the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ research questions. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses can be performed on data collected during semi-structured interviews.

• Semi-structured interviews allow respondents to answer more on their terms in an informal setting yet provide uniform information making them ideal for qualitative analysis.
• The flexible nature of semi-structured interviews allows ideas to be introduced and explored during the interview based on the respondents’ answers.
• Semi-structured interviews can provide reliable and comparable qualitative data. Allows the interviewer to probe answers, where the interviewee is asked to clarify or expand on the answers provided.
• The data generated remain fundamentally shaped by the interview context itself. Analysis rarely acknowledges this endemic co-construction.
• They are more time-consuming (to conduct, transcribe, and analyze) than structured interviews.
• The quality of findings is more dependent on the individual skills of the interviewer than in structured interviews. Skill is required to probe effectively while avoiding biasing responses.

The Interviewer Effect

Face-to-face interviews raise methodological problems. These stem from the fact that interviewers are themselves role players, and their perceived status may influence the replies of the respondents.

Because an interview is a social interaction, the interviewer’s appearance or behavior may influence the respondent’s answers. This is a problem as it can bias the results of the study and make them invalid.

For example, the gender, ethnicity, body language, age, and social status of the interview can all create an interviewer effect. If there is a perceived status disparity between the interviewer and the interviewee, the results of interviews have to be interpreted with care. This is pertinent for sensitive topics such as health.

For example, if a researcher was investigating sexism amongst males, would a female interview be preferable to a male? It is possible that if a female interviewer was used, male participants might lie (i.e., pretend they are not sexist) to impress the interviewer, thus creating an interviewer effect.

Flooding interviews with researcher’s agenda

The interactional nature of interviews means the researcher fundamentally shapes the discourse, rather than just neutrally collecting it. This shapes what is talked about and how participants can respond.

• The interviewer’s assumptions, interests, and categories don’t just shape the specific interview questions asked. They also shape the framing, task instructions, recruitment, and ongoing responses/prompts.
• This flooding of the interview interaction with the researcher’s agenda makes it very difficult to separate out what comes from the participant vs. what is aligned with the interviewer’s concerns.
• So the participant’s talk ends up being fundamentally shaped by the interviewer rather than being a more natural reflection of the participant’s own orientations or practices.
• This effect is hard to avoid because interviews inherently involve the researcher setting an agenda. But it does mean the talk extracted may say more about the interview process than the reality it is supposed to reflect.

Interview Design

First, you must choose whether to use a structured or non-structured interview.

Characteristics of Interviewers

Next, you must consider who will be the interviewer, and this will depend on what type of person is being interviewed. There are several variables to consider:

• Gender and age : This can greatly affect respondents’ answers, particularly on personal issues.
• Personal characteristics : Some people are easier to get on with than others. Also, the interviewer’s accent and appearance (e.g., clothing) can affect the rapport between the interviewer and interviewee.
• Language : The interviewer’s language should be appropriate to the vocabulary of the group of people being studied. For example, the researcher must change the questions’ language to match the respondents’ social background” age / educational level / social class/ethnicity, etc.
• Ethnicity : People may have difficulty interviewing people from different ethnic groups.
• Interviewer expertise should match research sensitivity – inexperienced students should avoid interviewing highly vulnerable groups.

Interview Location

The location of a research interview can influence the way in which the interviewer and interviewee relate and may exaggerate a power dynamic in one direction or another. It is usual to offer interviewees a choice of location as part of facilitating their comfort and encouraging participation.

However, the safety of the interviewer is an overriding consideration and, as mentioned, a minimal requirement should be that a responsible person knows where the interviewer has gone and when they are due back.

Remote Interviews

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote interviewing for research continuity. However online interview platforms provide increased flexibility even under normal conditions.

They enable access to participant groups across geographical distances without travel costs or arrangements. Online interviews can be efficiently scheduled to align with researcher and interviewee availability.

There are practical considerations in setting up remote interviews. Interviewees require access to internet and an online platform such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams or Skype through which to connect.

Certain modifications help build initial rapport in the remote format. Allowing time at the start of the interview for casual conversation while testing audio/video quality helps participants settle in. Minor delays can disrupt turn-taking flow, so alerting participants to speak slightly slower than usual minimizes accidental interruptions.

Keeping remote interviews under an hour avoids fatigue for stare at a screen. Seeking advanced ethical clearance for verbal consent at the interview start saves participant time. Adapting to the remote context shows care for interviewees and aids rich discussion.

However, it remains important to critically reflect on how removing in-person dynamics may shape the co-created data. Perhaps some nuances of trust and disclosure differ over video.

Vulnerable Groups

The interviewer must ensure that they take special care when interviewing vulnerable groups, such as children. For example, children have a limited attention span, so lengthy interviews should be avoided.

Developing an Interview Schedule

An interview schedule is a list of pre-planned, structured questions that have been prepared, to serve as a guide for interviewers, researchers and investigators in collecting information or data about a specific topic or issue.

• List the key themes or topics that must be covered to address your research questions. This will form the basic content.
• Organize the content logically, such as chronologically following the interviewee’s experiences. Place more sensitive topics later in the interview.
• Develop the list of content into actual questions and prompts. Carefully word each question – keep them open-ended, non-leading, and focused on examples.
• Add prompts to remind you to cover areas of interest.
• Pilot test the interview schedule to check it generates useful data and revise as needed.
• Be prepared to refine the schedule throughout data collection as you learn which questions work better.
• Practice skills like asking follow-up questions to get depth and detail. Stay flexible to depart from the schedule when needed.
• Keep questions brief and clear. Avoid multi-part questions that risk confusing interviewees.
• Listen actively during interviews to determine which pre-planned questions can be skipped based on information the participant has already provided.

The key is balancing preparation with the flexibility to adapt questions based on each interview interaction. With practice, you’ll gain skills to conduct productive interviews that obtain rich qualitative data.

The Power of Silence

Strategic use of silence is a key technique to generate interviewee-led data, but it requires judgment about appropriate timing and duration to maintain mutual understanding.

• Unlike ordinary conversation, the interviewer aims to facilitate the interviewee’s contribution without interrupting. This often means resisting the urge to speak at the end of the interviewee’s turn construction units (TCUs).
• Leaving a silence after a TCU encourages the interviewee to provide more material without being led by the interviewer. However, this simple technique requires confidence, as silence can feel socially awkward.
• Allowing longer silences (e.g. 24 seconds) later in interviews can work well, but early on even short silences may disrupt rapport if they cause misalignment between speakers.
• Silence also allows interviewees time to think before answering. Rushing to re-ask or amend questions can limit responses.
• Blunt backchannels like “mm hm” also avoid interrupting flow. Interruptions, especially to finish an interviewee’s turn, are problematic as they make the ownership of perspectives unclear.
• If interviewers incorrectly complete turns, an upside is it can produce extended interviewee narratives correcting the record. However, silence would have been better to let interviewees shape their own accounts.

Recording & Transcription

Design choices.

Design choices around recording and engaging closely with transcripts influence analytic insights, as well as practical feasibility. Weighing up relevant tradeoffs is key.

• Audio recording is standard, but video better captures contextual details, which is useful for some topics/analysis approaches. Participants may find video invasive for sensitive research.
• Digital formats enable the sharing of anonymized clips. Additional microphones reduce audio issues.
• Doing all transcription is time-consuming. Outsourcing can save researcher effort but needs confidentiality assurances. Always carefully check outsourced transcripts.
• Online platform auto-captioning can facilitate rapid analysis, but accuracy limitations mean full transcripts remain ideal. Software cleans up caption file formatting.
• Verbatim transcripts best capture nuanced meaning, but the level of detail needed depends on the analysis approach. Referring back to recordings is still advisable during analysis.
• Transcripts versus recordings highlight different interaction elements. Transcripts make overt disagreements clearer through the wording itself. Recordings better convey tone affiliativeness.

Transcribing Interviews & Focus Groups

Here are the steps for transcribing interviews:

• Play back audio/video files to develop an overall understanding of the interview
• Format the transcription document:
• Add line numbers
• Separate interviewer questions and interviewee responses
• Use formatting like bold, italics, etc. to highlight key passages
• Provide sentence-level clarity in the interviewee’s responses while preserving their authentic voice and word choices
• Break longer passages into smaller paragraphs to help with coding
• If translating the interview to another language, use qualified translators and back-translate where possible
• Select a notation system to indicate pauses, emphasis, laughter, interruptions, etc., and adapt it as needed for your data
• Insert screenshots, photos, or documents discussed in the interview at the relevant point in the transcript
• Read through multiple times, revising formatting and notations
• Double-check the accuracy of transcription against audio/videos
• De-identify transcript by removing identifying participant details

The goal is to produce a formatted written record of the verbal interview exchange that captures the meaning and highlights important passages ready for the coding process. Careful transcription is the vital first step in analysis.

Coding Transcripts

The goal of transcription and coding is to systematically transform interview responses into a set of codes and themes that capture key concepts, experiences and beliefs expressed by participants. Taking care with transcription and coding procedures enhances the validity of qualitative analysis .

• Read through the transcript multiple times to become immersed in the details
• Identify manifest/obvious codes and latent/underlying meaning codes
• Highlight insightful participant quotes that capture key concepts (in vivo codes)
• Create a codebook to organize and define codes with examples
• Use an iterative cycle of inductive (data-driven) coding and deductive (theory-driven) coding
• Refine codebook with clear definitions and examples as you code more transcripts
• Collaborate with other coders to establish the reliability of codes

Ethical Issues

Informed consent.

The participant information sheet must give potential interviewees a good idea of what is involved if taking part in the research.

This will include the general topics covered in the interview, where the interview might take place, how long it is expected to last, how it will be recorded, the ways in which participants’ anonymity will be managed, and incentives offered.

It might be considered good practice to consider true informed consent in interview research to require two distinguishable stages:

• Consent to undertake and record the interview and
• Consent to use the material in research after the interview has been conducted and the content known, or even after the interviewee has seen a copy of the transcript and has had a chance to remove sections, if desired.

Power and Vulnerability

• Early feminist views that sensitivity could equalize power differences are likely naive. The interviewer and interviewee inhabit different knowledge spheres and social categories, indicating structural disparities.
• Power fluctuates within interviews. Researchers rely on participation, yet interviewees control openness and can undermine data collection. Assumptions should be avoided.
• Interviews on sensitive topics may feel like quasi-counseling. Interviewers must refrain from dual roles, instead supplying support service details to all participants.
• Interviewees recruited for trauma experiences may reveal more than anticipated. While generating analytic insights, this risks leaving them feeling exposed.
• Ultimately, power balances resist reconciliation. But reflexively analyzing operations of power serves to qualify rather than nullify situtated qualitative accounts.

Some groups, like those with mental health issues, extreme views, or criminal backgrounds, risk being discredited – treated skeptically by researchers.

This creates tensions with qualitative approaches, often having an empathetic ethos seeking to center subjective perspectives. Analysis should balance openness to offered accounts with critically examining stakes and motivations behind them.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities.  Qualitative research in Psychology ,  2 (4), 281-307.

Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire . Cambridge University Press

Madill, A. (2011). Interaction in the semi-structured interview: A comparative analysis of the use of and response to indirect complaints. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8 (4), 333–353.

Maryudi, A., & Fisher, M. (2020). The power in the interview: A practical guide for identifying the critical role of actor interests in environment research. Forest and Society, 4 (1), 142–150

O’Key, V., Hugh-Jones, S., & Madill, A. (2009). Recruiting and engaging with people in deprived locales: Interviewing families about their eating patterns. Social Psychological Review, 11 (20), 30–35.

Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice . Sage.

Schaeffer, N. C. (1991). Conversation with a purpose— Or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, & N. A. Mathiowetz (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367–391). Wiley.

Silverman, D. (1973). Interview talk: Bringing off a research instrument. Sociology, 7 (1), 31–48.

Related Articles

Research Methodology

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Convergent Validity: Definition and Examples

Strategic best practices, industry insights & tactical tips for HR professionals.

• Featured Items
• This Month's Features
• Client Success Stories
• Product News & Trends
• Product Updates
• Company News, Research & Trends
• Browse By Industry
• Small Business
• Staffing & Recruiting
• AI in Hiring

How to use AI for pre-screening interviews

• Share this Article

There are many ways that hiring teams narrow down a list of candidates for a role. One method is through pre-screening interviews. Companies looking to streamline hiring can automate part of the pre-screening interview process. If you're wondering how you can  use AI  to simplify this procedure, this article looks at some helpful methods and tips to enhance your hiring strategy.

What are pre-screening interviews?

Pre-screening interviews are often phone or video conversations that occur before the formal interview process. The purpose of these meetings is to determine if you want to proceed with the formal interview process after analyzing some preliminary information provided by the candidate. The agenda of these interviews may vary slightly but often involves:

• Resume overview
• Salary expectations
• Surface-level questions

Since questions are often the same across multiple pre-screening interviews, many companies opt for AI to handle this portion of the hiring process. Here are  some ways to incorporate AI  into your pre-screening interviews.

Create lists of questions

There are often several questions that are consistent regardless of the role. This means that AI can potentially generate a list of questions for the pre-screening interview. Some tools may allow you to create lists of questions for different types of roles, but it's important to do your research into different types of AI tools. Reading company whitepapers — such as  the one created by CareerBuilder  — discussing their new technologies can help you learn the scope of different AI tools.

Review candidate resumes

A large part of the pre-screening process is reviewing candidate resumes. Many interviewers look through them, asking about key highlights. AI can assist by pulling these out, making it easy for you to keep the interview flowing. To make this step work even more efficiently, add some level of candidate ranking to this process.

Conduct pre-screening interviews

Some tools can also conduct AI-assisted or AI-led interviews, eliminating the need for your hiring team to set aside time for these meetings. AI-assisted interviews are often conducted via video recording and aim to make a recommendation about a candidate's compatibility with the role. For AI-led interviews, some companies allow technology to decide whether to advance an individual to the next stage of the hiring process.

These interviews collect visual, verbal, and vocal data to analyze a candidate. If your company opts for this level of AI integration, it's a good idea to include verbiage in an advance email to the candidate about how you plan to conduct the interview.

Collect candidate responses

Another reason for adding AI to pre-screening interviews is its ability to collect information that your interviewers may potentially miss. After completing the interview, your HR team can then use this data to rank candidates and decide whether to advance the individual to the next stage of the hiring process.

"Learning what you can automate, from question list generation to fully hosting pre-screening interviews, allows you to determine the level of AI integration your company is most comfortable with."

Benefits of using AI for pre-screening interviews

One major benefit of using AI in the hiring process is the potential to improve the quality of new hires. This means that it can help you find the best-qualified and most compatible candidates for the role. Here are some other benefits often associated with adding AI:

• Speeds up the hiring process:  Automating certain procedures takes tedious tasks away from your hiring team during the workday, since AI is available 24/7. This means you can collect pre-screening interview responses outside of typical office hours, allowing for more interviews to be done at a faster pace.
• Reduces subjective hiring choices:  There is always the potential for bias during hiring, and while it's necessary in some places, it's not needed in others. Incorporating AI into the process adds an objective take on a candidate's alignment with a particular role.
• Improves employee satisfaction:  As employees don't have to dedicate their time to tedious tasks, they may feel more satisfaction in their day-to-day responsibilities. This can have a positive snowball effect on morale and productivity, as employee satisfaction directly affects these two factors.

Tips for doing pre-screening interviews with AI

There are several things to consider that can help you and your team get the most out of AI. Here are some tips that can help you transform your hiring procedures into a highly efficient process:

Reflect on your pre-screening process

Take a hard look at your existing pre-screening process. Analyzing each step and the questions you ask can help you streamline this stage before automating anything. This can ensure that you have the best method possible after handing over tasks to AI, ultimately leaving your team with a streamlined procedure.

Add a human touch

Ensuring that there are checkpoints along the way in the hiring funnel can provide insight into how your company views its candidates and employees. Having a human touch at these intervals can show that your company values its team members, which can increase the chances of a candidate continuing along in the hiring procedure. As some candidates may not fully buy into AI handling hiring, a lack of human interaction may result in candidates abandoning the recruiting process with your company.

Reevaluate your process

The modern hiring landscape is constantly changing, as is technology. Reevaluating your hiring process regularly can ensure that your practices remain relevant and current. Taking time each week, month, or even quarter to look at your pre-screening interviews and candidate feedback can help you find ways to tweak your hiring funnel. Not setting aside time can result in a hiring procedure that quickly becomes outdated or irrelevant.

Determine your level of integration

Your team has complete control over how much or how little you let AI take over. Analyzing your current tasks, candidate feedback, employee satisfaction metrics, and other factors can help you determine how much AI integration will work for the company. This enables you to balance human and AI interactions while still streamlining the process. Different tools allow for different levels of integration, and finding a solution with several tools, such as those offered by CareerBuilder, can help you customize how much AI you incorporate. For example, the AI tools that CareerBuilder offers include:

• Resume writing:  This tool helps candidates create a comprehensive resume that fully encompasses their qualifications and skills.
• Job descriptions:  Part of attracting the right talent is having a well-crafted job description. AI can help write and optimize these descriptions, which can improve the effectiveness of the pre-screening process.
• Skills matching:  AI skills matching refers to improving the relevance of jobs that candidates apply for. This tool helps candidates discover future possibilities that align with their unique skill set.
• Search and match:  This AI tool delivers more relevant candidates to a company for the roles they advertise, which can reduce the time to hire.

Using AI for your company's pre-screening interviews can drastically speed up this stage of the hiring process. It can also help your hiring team reallocate their time, which can boost productivity and satisfaction. Learning what you can automate, from question list generation to fully hosting pre-screening interviews, allows you to determine the level of AI integration your company is most comfortable with. CareerBuilder offers many different AI hiring tools [placeholder for CB AI link], allowing you to get the most out of your hiring strategy.

More tips for transforming your pre-screening process

One way to boost your pre-screening process is by having an  effective hiring process  set up in the first place.

Another way companies host pre-screening interviews is by using a  recruiting chatbot , which asks and responds to a wide variety of questions that can help automate and expedite hiring.

No Previous Articles

Next Article

Understanding how to build your employer brand can give you access to a whole new talent pool. Follow this ...

Get inside the minds of 2,800 job seekers and what they want

Most Recent Articles

Understanding how to build your employer brand can give you access to a whole new talent pool. follow this guide to strengthen recruitment through branding..

Learn how to use AI for pre-employment assessments to streamline your company's hiring process and explore some tips that can help you get the most out of them.

Discover the benefits of going green that help the planet and your organization. From tax credits to company culture, there are many valid reasons to go green.

Discover how including AI chatbots for candidates in your hiring process can help streamline your company's recruitment efforts and attract top-tier talent.

Learn how artificial intelligence can help you effectively store and retrieve applicant information to streamline your hiring process and find the best talent.

Learn how artificial intelligence can help hiring teams quickly rank or reject candidates by exploring ways to integrate this tech into the hiring process.

Learn about the importance of offering competitive pay, how to determine whether pay is competitive, and what you can do to attract talent to your organization.

Discover to use AI for scheduling interviews, the advantages you may realize by using an AI scheduling tool, and some tips to optimize its performance.

Discover how to use AI for analyzing resumes and applications, how AI compares to other common hiring approaches, and what to look for in an AI tool.

Learn about 10 best practices for recruiters texting candidates so your organization can maximize the odds of finding and hiring the talent it needs.

Discover how you can use AI for new employee onboarding, along with the advantages thereof and tips for getting the most value out of your AI hiring tool.

Learn how AI can help your hiring team source top-tier talent for job vacancies and transform the hiring process into a dynamic and streamlined process.

Are you tracking the right recruiting metrics? Avoid these five benchmarks that don't tell the full story about success in this area.

Learn about six common ways businesses use AI for screening candidates, along with the key advantages that AI technology can provide to hiring decision-makers.

Top hiring challenges, priorities & methods for finding candidates

Read about the cost of hiring a new employee versus retaining one, with reasons why employees leave their jobs and strategies for boosting employee retention.

By using several open-ended strategic interview questions, you can learn more about candidates and their potential than by simply examining their resumes.

Learn about 10 of the most common and useful AI applications in recruiting and how each of them can streamline your organization's hiring and HR processes.

Are you looking for ways to boost morale at work for free? Explore six creative morale boosters you can implement in your workplace at little to no cost.

Learn about the top five AI challenges according to cross-industry leaders, as well as some of the potential solutions for overcoming them.

• Share our site

OpenAI Cofounder John Schulman Interview: Reasoning, RLHF, & Plan for 2027 AGI

John Schulman on how posttraining tames the shoggoth, and the nature of the progress to come…

Timestamps:

00:00:00 Pre-training, post-training, and future capabilities 00:17:21 Plan for AGI 2025 00:29:43 Teaching models to reason 00:41:14 The Road to ChatGPT 00:52:37 What makes for a good RL researcher? 01:01:22 Keeping humans in the loop 01:15:39 State of research, plateaus, and moats

I’m pretty skeptical of what these folks are dishing out.

Don’t get me wrong, gpt-4o is huge for sure, but it’s huge in that it will accelerate proliferation horizontally, but I see little indication of vertical progress and even some degradation.

90% of what we do all day is auto-pilot, and sure, getting to that with ChatGPT was a huge win. But there are so many endless stories of AI or ML getting to 90% and then just eeking out marginal gains thereafter.

Yeah, I’m fairly certain they have something even better they’re not showing us yet. No proof or anything, but a gut feeling. Maybe the next version warned not to release itself yet? Heh.

I remember when GPT-2 dropped (and we got the weights) … OAI only released the smallest model… for safety! Kind of a marketing ploy if you ask me, but eventually they released the biggest GPT-2 model and world didn’t self-destruct…

We have had problems with other AI tech (like voice recently)… and scammers ARE going nuts with AI tech all over the place.

Thanks for the comment. Trying to stir up more good convos here, and your input is appreciated.

Thanks for sharing Paul! The time stamps are great too!

Folks have been saying that on day 1 when they hyped how it could build an app from a prompt and a napkin. Still waiting for that.

4GLs have been around for 50 years, and frankly, they are more capable than ChatGPT.

GPT is a killer app for brainstorming and learning about stuff, no question, but AGI is more than a couple of years off.

Interesting considerations. I think once text reaches a plateau, VTubers data might give that boost of body language, eye movement and so on - but I think that might be a novel approach we’re not even close to getting to.

Anyways, here’s some interesting data from the simple-eval repository on github:

It’s captain obvious, but in order to get funding for a startup you have to make some very outrageous promises.

VC knows these promises are outrageous - without a doubt, but they gamble looking for the unicorns. It’s the model.

The failure rate for startups is around 90%

I’m not saying OpenAI will fail, just that we need to take these things with a grain of salt.

Their job, right now, is to talk aspirationally.

If we go by the definition laid out here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.02462 - than ‘competent’ AGI (the next level above emergent, which we’re already at), should be able to perform better than 50% of “skilled humans” (a term they avoid defining, amusingly enough).

That’s fine, but here’s the thing - a skilled human can be given a long horizon task and they can go away and work on it with minor course corrections. It won’t change the world probably, but any skilled human should be able to independently generate something large in scope which solves the problem the org needs solving.

Eg: I could tell a 50% skilled human “I want you to go create a marketing site for a new product. Use our current marketing site for product X as a template. Bob, who made it, can let you know where everything is to re-use so ask him if you need some help on that. If you have any other questions, let me know. I’ll check in with you in a week.”

Oh, and btw, the 50% skilled human will very likely be skilled in the latest GPT technology. I mean, for real, prompting an AI is something 50% skilled humans these days are going to learn first before any other skill.

That said, I can see a world in 2027 where there are single purpose solutions and frameworks that can use GPT to do the above - for a price. And there will be such a wide variety of them that when taken together as a whole, it could be considered ‘Competent AGI’.

But if that’s the bar, I’m afraid we passed that quite a long time ago, before GPT even arrived. These sorts of platforms have existed since the invention of 4GLs.

Still, I suppose there could be a meta agent that can thoughtfully select from these products, let you know what they’re capable of, and even drive them - and you could get things done that way. It’d be a very piecemeal way to get to ‘Competent AGI’, but it could maybe cover 80% of tasks that way.

OAI was kind of going down that direction with plugins, but I guess being commodified like that never really excites anyone seriously.

Related Topics

Elevate Your Hiring Game! Join Wizehire & Indeed on May 21 for a Must-See Webinar on Recruitment Tactics.

Get Wize with our Newsletter

News, tips, and resources to grow your business

You'll get the latest news, updates, and hiring resources every month.

• All Articles
• Career Advice
• Industry Insights
• People Management
• Talent Acquisition

7 Pre-Employment Assessments for Screening Candidates

Table of Contents

What are pre-employment assessments, why do employers use pre-employment assessment tests, are assessments better than interviews, 7 types of pre-employment assessment tests, 1. disc/disc+ tests, 2. job skills tests, 3. personality tests, 4. integrity tests, 5. emotional intelligence (ei) test, 6. physical ability tests, 7. situational judgment test (sjt), pros and cons of using pre-employment assessments.

• Pre-employment assessment tests streamline hiring decisions, improve job-person fit, and reduce turnover rates.
• Traditional hiring methods often fail to evaluate the whole person and can lead to unconscious bias.
• Assessments typically provide an objective evaluation, consistently testing all applicants with measurable results.

Pre-employment assessments are evaluations and tests employers use to measure job candidates’ skills, personality traits, and suitability for specific positions. They provide valuable insights beyond the information found in resumes, cover letters, and interviews.  

Get started with Wizehire

Elevate your hiring game—sign up now and find your people.

Administering these tests allows employers to make more informed and objective hiring decisions. This leads to a better fit between the candidate and the job, which can reduce employee turnover rates.

Employment assessments are invaluable for roles needing specific technical or interpersonal skills because they identify truly qualified candidates. While many applicants might look good on paper, skill assessments highlight those most likely to add value to the team.

21 Phone Screening Interview Questions

As a hiring manager, part of a people resource team, or a business owner, you know the effort and time…

Interviews are an important part of the hiring process, as they allow employers to evaluate a candidate’s skills, experience, and suitability for a job role. However, interviews can sometimes be inconsistent and biased, leading to unfair judgments and decisions. Biases can emerge due to cultural differences or stereotypes affecting an employer’s perception of one candidate over another.

Introducing assessment tests to the hiring process can help eliminate potential biases and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of candidates. This can ultimately lead to identifying the best individuals who align with the company’s culture and values.

5 Job Offer Letter Templates to Seal the Deal

A well-crafted job offer letter will help you secure the best candidate for your team. The best ones provide all…

Remember, when it is time to hire , pre-employment assessment tests are powerful tools for optimizing your recruiting efforts.

The DiSC assessment is a behavioral assessment tool used to understand individual behavioral styles.  It helps employers understand how candidates:

• communicate
• work in teams
• handle tasks
• respond to challenges

The four letters in “DiSC” categorize candidates into one of four core personality dimensions.

The DiSC+ personality assessment test , exclusive to Wizehire, digs beyond these four dimensions of human behavior and identifies seven additional motivators that drive what candidates care about most. Not only do DiSC and DiSC+ help identify talent, but they also help cultivate a positive company culture , retain employees, and create an inclusive hiring process.

A job skills assessment is an aptitude test that addresses specific hard and soft skills such as:

• critical thinking
• problem-solving
• time management
• writing and editing
• language proficiency
• technical skills
• creative skills

For example, a job skills test might assess a candidate’s technical proficiency by administering a coding assessment for software developers. Translators might undergo a language test, while tradespeople could perform practical exercises to evaluate their task performance abilities.

A personality test, sometimes called a psychological assessment, digs into how candidates approach work situations, handle stress, interact with colleagues, and respond to challenges. These tests often focus on soft skills such as communication, teamwork, adaptability, or problem-solving.

Personality testing is rising and becoming a standard practice in many employers’ hiring processes, particularly when assessing  interpersonal skills.

Assessments such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the Big Five personality traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) measure an individual’s vital characteristics. For instance, if you are looking for a salesperson, you are looking for someone who ranks high in extraversion and motivation. 

Integrity tests assess a candidate’s reliability and trustworthiness in the workplace. These tests examine a person’s core values, responses to ethical dilemmas, and perceptions of ethical versus unethical behavior. Hiring individuals with strong integrity helps maintain a positive work environment, enhances productivity, and ensures a cohesive, satisfied team.

High emotional intelligence is associated with strong interpersonal skills, empathy, self-awareness, and stress management. Employers are aware that EI is an increasingly vital strength to have. So, they use emotional intelligence tests to identify hires who can handle workplace relationships and challenges with emotional maturity, avoiding hostile situations .

Emotional intelligence indicators include listening to others, understanding their perspectives, and facilitating discussions.

Some jobs, such as firefighting, law enforcement, construction, or the military, require a certain standard of physical ability. Physical ability tests usually mimic conditions encountered on the job and evaluate whether an individual can keep up with the physical demands. 

They may be as extreme as having applicants complete timed runs and obstacle courses or as simple as performing drug tests to ensure that substances will not interfere with physical ability.

Situational judgment tests present candidates with hypothetical scenarios and ask them to choose the most appropriate course of action based on the situation. These tests assess how candidates might respond to real-world work challenges and how they use problem-solving abilities under pressure.

Typically, an SJT uses a multiple-choice format so that individuals can choose what they believe to be the best option for a presented scenario. This can help employers determine how candidates handle teamwork, conflicts, and communication.

While assessments can prove invaluable to employers, we would be remiss for not comparing the top pros and cons.

• Tests objectively evaluate candidates, reducing unconscious bias and promoting inclusivity.
• Assessments save time by bringing the most qualified applicants to the forefront.
• Resumes and interviews do not always accurately represent an applicant’s ability or character.
• Tests could exclude negative candidate traits or fail to account for a candidate’s potential to learn and adapt.
• Applicants may alter their responses to what they believe the employer wants to see.
• Assessments are time-consuming, so candidates may opt out of applying for the position due to lack of time.

Traditional hiring methods such as resumes and interviews still have their place, but including one or more tests in your recruitment process will help you adapt to the ever-changing hiring landscape.

Anna Petron is a professional writer with several years of communication and brand storytelling experience across a spectrum of businesses. She's intrigued by trends that constantly shift and affect recruitment and workplace culture, and she provides practical solutions for organizations looking to enrich their internal structure.

Anna Petron

Related articles.

11 Interview Invitation Email Templates

Your interview invitation email is the first step in building a relationship with candidates. Crafting a warm, well-written message leaves a positive impression and excites candidates about the opportunity to interview with your company. Let's make every word count.

The Ultimate Guide to Employee Onboarding

Think of employee onboarding as the foundation for great work relationships. It has far-reaching effects on productivity, job satisfaction, and retention. A well-structured onboarding process helps new hires feel welcomed and valued, plus equips them with the tools and knowledge they need to succeed in their roles.

When to Hire More Employees

Figuring out when to hire is all about balancing growth opportunities with your business's capacity to bring on new team members. Beyond just negotiating salaries, think about training and benefits too. Remember, hiring is an investment in your business’s future.

Find your people. Grow your team. Meet your Wizehire.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Magnitude of preterm birth and associated factors among mothers who gave birth in debre berhan comprehensive specialized hospital provisionally accepted.

• 1 Debre Berhan University, Ethiopia

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Premature deliveries are a major public health issue, with high health, economic, and productivity costs associated with lengthy hospitalizations in neonatal critical care units.The goal of this study was to determine the number of premature births in Ethiopia's Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital and the factors that influence them.The Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital conducted an institutionbased cross-sectional study between February and April 2020. A total of 325 study participants were selected using systematic random sampling. Face-to-face interviews using a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire were used to collect data. For data entry and analysis, Epi data version 3.1 and SPSS version 20 were used. At a P-value of 0.2, bivariate logistic regression analysis was used to categorize candidate variables to the next level, and variables in multivariate logistic regression models with a p-value of 0.05 were considered statistically significant.: Preterm births accounted for 16.1 % of all births at Debre Berhan Comprehensive Specialized Hospital. Cesarean section [AOR= 2.412; 95 % CI (1.154, 5.0370)], twin pregnancy [AOR=3.524; 95 % CI (1.114, 11.150)], and maternal anemia during pregnancy [AOR=3.124; 95 % CI (1.417, 6.887)] were statistically significant associations with the outcome variable in the final logistic regression model.Preterm birth was found to be greater in the study area than in the Global Action Report for Sub-Saharan Africa and a few other countries. Efforts should be made to prevent maternal health issues that lead to caesarean section, and all pregnant mothers should be supplemented with iron and folic acid as soon as feasible. This study suggests that there is still a gap in the field in terms of health service intervention.

Keywords: magnitude, Prevalence, Preterm Birth, Debre Berhan, Hospital, Ethiopia

Received: 23 Jan 2024; Accepted: 13 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Kibret, Dejene, Bunie tm, Mohammed and Deresse. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mr. Tadesse M. Dejene, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Amhara, Ethiopia

People also looked at