Search

ferred candidates from the total interviewed did not differ from chance. The results are discussed in terms of the quality of the candidates applying for training and of the reliabiliry and validity of the selection procedure. The literature on reliability and/or validity of the selection interview is extensive. However, the evidence remains mixed and difficult to assess (UIrich & Trumbo, 1965) but the topic continues to be of great importance because it affects the careers of the chosen (and the rejected) and because of the economics of the operation. There is evidence for the effectiveness of interviewing as a means of assessing career motivation (Ridand, 1960) and in selection where personal relationships form an important aspect of ultimate career success (Bomeau, 1957 ) . Since both of these aspects appear relevant in the selection of postgraduate students 04 clinical psychology the selection interview has traditionally been used in most universities offering training in this area. Nevertheless, the interview is clearly so costly a procedure, that it is still necessary from time to time to investigate its effectiveness in terms of reliability and validity. Such an investigation of reliability and validity of selection interviewing is being undertaken in the University of Birmingham Department of Psychology on the basis of applications for the 1972 intake to the 2-yr. MSc. course in Clinical Psychology. Reliability of interviewing is reported here. A report on the validity, involving long-term follow-up of both selected and rejected candidates, will follow later.

Validity of the interview procedure for selection of students for training in clinical psychology was assessed by comparing the careers and progress of those selected with those rejected at various stages of the selection process. No significant differences emerged. It was also possible to compare careers and progress of students accepted for training on the basis of interview and those accepted prior to or without interview. Again, there were no significant differences. However, when recent students admitted with or without interview were rated on clinical skills and likely future success as clinicians, the interviewed group showed significant advantage. The results are discussed in terms of the cost effectiveness of the interview procedures employed.