Reliability vs. Validity in Hiring

Reliability is consistency: does the method give the same result across raters and over time? Validity is accuracy: does it actually predict job performance? A method can be reliable without being valid.

A gut-feel interview is neither: different interviewers rate the same candidate differently, and the ratings do not predict performance. A structured interview with the same job-related questions is much stronger on both.

Would this method pick the same people twice, and does it pick people who actually do well?

Trusting a test because it gives consistent scores. A bathroom scale that is always 10 pounds off is reliable but not valid.

Think of how you were hired. Was the process structured and job-related, or mostly a conversation?

Two interviewers always agree on candidates, but their picks perform no better than random. Reliable, valid, both, or neither?