Part of our job here in the workforce science team is to keep up to date with new research in Organisational Psychology. This might sound boring to some people – but we love it!
As massive nerds, we find nothing more exciting than seeing new progress in our field. This time, our knowledge-cravings took us all the way from Melbourne to Orlando, Florida, to this year’s SIOP conference.
The issue of Adverse Impact
An important issue within our field – and within the US in general – is adverse impact and hiring for diversity.
We are passionate about ensuring people are not discriminated against in selection methods, whether it is because of gender, age, ethnic background or sexual orientation.
(Actually, this is also one of the key values and driving forces behind why Paul, our CEO, founded Sapia.)
One key topic at this year’s conference was the combination of data science and behavioural science. Specifically, there were a lot of discussions around how these sciences can work together to minimise bias and discrimination in the hiring process.
The standard recruitment selection process
To give you some background as to why this is important, let’s explore what a standard selection process might look like today.
If you ever have applied for a job, it is likely you have gone through a process involving;
- your resume
- a cover letter
- a psychometric test (personality/intelligence)
- an interview
- reference checks
As mentioned, pretty standard. This is typically the different pieces of information that recruiters would use to assess your suitability for a role.
However, from an adverse impact perspective, this isn’t good enough.
The reason is that humans are biased (there are a plethora of studies out there proving this). And even if our biases (in most cases) are unconscious, we still base discriminatory decisions on them.
Does your name predict future performance?
A research study by The Ladders found that recruiters only spend about 6 seconds looking at a resume. Using gaze-tracking technology they identified that recruiters spend almost 80% of this time on only a few items:
- name
- current title/company
- previous title/company
- previous position start and end dates
- current position start and end dates
- education
To most people that would seem reasonable. Our previous professional and educational experience should be predictive of future performance, right?
If you agree, it might surprise you that past job experience only has a 0.13 validity when used to predict performance (and your name certainly has nothing to do with how you would perform).
So not only is the information recruiters look at not actually predictive of performance, but it also has the potential to adversely impact minorities.
An eye-opening example
In the 1970s, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra was composed of almost all white males. A few years later, they caught on to their diversity issue and decided to do something about it.
One initiative was to introduce ‘blind auditions’. Individuals would perform from behind a screen, making the assessors ‘blind’ to who was performing. This meant that the performance was in the center of the assessment, not the individual.
The result?
The proportion of women within the orchestra increased from 5% to 35%.
Individuals within racial minority groups are also discriminated against based on resumes.
Research found that applicants with ‘traditional’ english names received an interview for every 1/10 resumes sent out. This is in contrast to applicants with African-American names, who only got an interview for every 1/15 resumes.
As the resume is one of the most common determinators of whether an applicant progresses to the next stage – it is alarming that this method can adversely impact minority groups.
Luckily, some progress is definitely being made to combat this.
Different techniques, for example blind recruitment, are increasing in popularity. Some progressive businesses have leap-frogged and started using artificial intelligence (AI) driven algorithms as a first step in their assessment process.
Important to keep in mind with AI and Adverse Impact
When using AI, it is very important to understand that the data put into the algorithm is of great importance. AI is often touted as the solution to the biases inherent in our thinking, but if not executed properly, AI can also become biased.
This is because an AI algorithm is only ever as bias-free as the data we used to build it.
It can be difficult to make sure AI is increasing diversity, and at the same time maintaining its predictive power. The predictive power is basically how good a model is at predicting good performance – and weeding out those who wouldn’t do so well.
To ensure best chance of success it is crucial that the data we put into AI recruitment tools is bias free.
One way is to control what you put into your AI models. Big Data can for example be dangerous, as it looks at adding all possible data sources of information to predict performance.
This could mean that the AI model learns that ethnic background is a predictor for success, which we clearly want to avoid.
To combat this issue at Sapia, we make the following decisions:
Targeted variables:
- we only choose variables that minority groups do not answer differently to other groups
(if we did the model could learn to discriminate against these groups if the variable was considered predictive)
Test our predictors:
- Are they in fact adversely impacting anyone?
- Conduct adverse impact studies
When considering a new assessment tool, you should always ask your test provider the following;
How do you ensure the assessment isn’t biased against any gender, age or racial category, whilst remaining highly predictive of performance?
If they can’t give you a satisfying answer, it is definitely worthwhile considering another vendor.
Liked what you read? For further reading on how we minimise bias in our algorithms, head here.
Related
Blog
Sapia.ai Wrapped 2024
It’s been a year of Big Moves at Sapia.ai. From welcoming groundbreaking brands to achieving incredible milestones in our product innovation and scale, we’re pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in hiring.
And we’re just getting started 🚀
Take a look at the highlights of 2024
All-in-one hiring platform
This year, with the addition of Live Interview, we’re proud to say our platform now covers screening, assessing and scheduling.
It’s an all-in-one volume hiring platform that enables our customers to deliver a world-leading experience from application through to offer.
Supercharging hiring efficiency
Every 15 seconds, a candidate is interviewed with Sapia.ai.
This year, we’ve saved hiring managers and recruiters hours of precious time that can now be used for higher-value tasks.
Giving candidates the best experience
Our platform allows candidates to be their best selves, so our customers can find the people that truly belong with them. They’re proud to use a technology that’s changing hiring, for good.
Leading the way in AI for hiring
We’ve continued to push the boundaries in leveraging ethical AI for hiring, with new products on the way for Coaching, Internal Mobility & Interview Builders.
Blog
Situational Judgement Tests vs. AI Chat Interviews: A Modern Perspective on Candidate Assessment
Choosing the right tool for assessing candidates can be challenging. For years, situational judgement tests (SJTs) have been a common choice for evaluating behaviour and decision-making skills. However, they come with limitations that can make the hiring process less effective and less inclusive.
AI-enabled chat-based interviews, such as Sapia.ai, provide organisations with a modern alternative. They focus on understanding candidates as individuals and creating a hiring experience that is both fair and insightful while enabling efficient screening and selection.
This shift raises important questions: Are SJTs still a tool that should be considered for volume hiring? And what do AI assessments offer in comparison?
1. The Static Nature of SJTs
Traditional SJTs use predefined multiple-choice questions to assess behavioural tendencies and situational knowledge. While useful for screening, these static frameworks lack the flexibility to adapt based on real-world performance data or evolving role requirements.
Once created, SJTs don’t adapt to new data or evolving organisational needs. They rely on fixed scenarios and responses that may not fully reflect the dynamic realities of modern workplaces, and as a result, their relevance may diminish over time.
AI-enabled chat interviews, on the other hand, are inherently adaptive. Using machine learning, these tools can continuously refine their models based on feedback from real-world outcomes such as hiring or turnover data. This ability to evolve ensures the assessments align with organisations’ needs.
2. Richer Data Through Open-Ended Responses
One of the main critiques of SJTs is their reliance on multiple-choice responses. While structured and straightforward, these options may not capture the full scope of a candidate’s thinking, communication skills, or problem-solving ability. The approach is often limiting, reducing complex human behaviour to a few predefined choices.
AI-enabled chat interviews work more holistically and dynamically. These tools provide a more complete picture of a person by allowing candidates to answer questions in their own words. Natural language processing (NLP) analyses their responses, offering insights into personality traits, communication skills, and behavioural tendencies. This open-ended format lets candidates express themselves authentically, giving employers a deeper understanding of their potential.
3. The Candidate Experience: Stressful or Supportive?
SJTs often include time constraints and rigid formats, which can create pressure for candidates. This is especially true when candidates feel forced to choose options that don’t fully reflect how they would actually behave. The process can feel impersonal, even transactional.
In contrast, chat-based interviews are designed to be conversational and low-pressure for candidates. By removing time limits and adopting a familiar chat interface, these tools help candidates feel more at ease. They also frequently include personalised feedback, turning the assessment into a valuable experience for the candidate, not just the employer.
4. Addressing Bias and Fairness
Traditional SJTs are prone to transparency issues, as candidates can often identify and select the “best practice” answers without revealing their true tendencies. Additionally, static test designs can unintentionally embed bias; due to the nature of the timed test, SJTs have been found to disadvantage some groups.
AI chat interviews, when developed ethically within a framework like Sapia.ai’s FAIR Hiring Framework, eliminate explicit bias by relying solely on the content of a candidate’s responses. Their machine learning models are continuously validated for fairness, ensuring that hiring decisions are free from subjective judgments or irrelevant demographic factors.
5. An Assessment That Improves Over Time
Workplaces are constantly changing, and hiring tools need to keep up. SJTs’ fixed nature can make them less effective as roles evolve or organizational priorities shift. They provide a snapshot but not a dynamic view of what’s needed.
AI-enabled chat interviews are built to adapt. With feedback loops and continuous learning, they incorporate real-world hiring outcomes—like retention and performance data—into their models. This ensures that assessments stay relevant and effective over time.
Rethinking Candidate Assessment
As hiring demands grow more complex, so does the need for tools that can capture the whole person, not just their response to hypothetical scenarios. While SJTs have played an important role in hiring practices, they are increasingly being replaced by tools like AI-enabled chat interviews.
These modern approaches provide richer data, adapt to changing needs, and create a richer and more engaging experience for candidates. Perhaps most importantly, they emphasise fairness and inclusivity, aligning with the growing demand for unbiased hiring practices.
For organisations evaluating their assessment tools, the question isn’t just which method is “better.” Understanding the specific needs of your roles, teams, and candidates will help you choose tools that help you make decisions that are both informed and equitable.
Blog
Keeping Interviews Real with Next-Gen AI Detection
It’s our firm belief that AI should empower, not overshadow, human potential. While AI tools like ChatGPT are brilliant at assisting us with day-to-day tasks and improving our work efficiency, employers are increasingly concerned that they’re holding candidates back from revealing their true, authentic selves in online interviews.
As an assessment technology provider, we are responsible for ensuring the authenticity and integrity of our platform. That’s why we’re thrilled to unveil the latest upgrade to our flagship Chat Interview: the AI-Generated Content Detector 2.0. With groundbreaking accuracy and a candidate-friendly design, this innovation reinforces our mission to build ethical AI for hiring that people love.
Artificially Generated Content (AGC) is content created by an AI tool, such as ChatGPT, Claude, or Pi. We initially rolled out the first version of our AGC detector last year and have continued to improve it as our data set has grown and these AI tools have evolved.
What’s New?
Our updated AGC Detector 2.0 achieves an impressive 98% detection rate for AI-assisted responses, with a false positive rate of just 1%. This gives organisations peace of mind that they’re getting the most authentic assessment of every candidate.
This cutting-edge system builds on Sapia.ai’s proprietary dataset of over 2 billion words, derived from more than 20 million interview question-answer pairs spanning diverse roles, industries, and regions. It’s trained on real-world data collected before and after the release of tools like ChatGPT, ensuring it remains robust and reliable even as AI tools evolve.
The Challenge of AI in Chat-based Interviews
Our data shows that around 8% of candidates use tools like GPT-4 to generate responses for three or more interview questions. While these tools may offer a quick way for candidates to complete their interview, they can inadvertently hide a person’s true personality and potential – qualities our customers are most interested in understanding through our platform. In fact, research from Sapia Labs shows that these tools have their own personality traits, which may be quite different from the candidate applying for the role.
For Candidates: Enabling Authenticity
When a response is flagged as potentially AI-generated, the system doesn’t disqualify candidates. Instead, a real-time warning pops up, allowing them to revise their answers or submit them as-is. This ensures that candidates are encouraged to present themselves authentically, reflecting their unique communication styles and sharing their genuine experiences.
For Hiring Teams: Actionable Insights
Responses flagged as AI-generated are highlighted in the candidate’s Talent Insights profile, accessible via Sapia.ai’s Talent Hub or ATS integrations. These insights give hiring teams the transparency to make informed decisions, fostering trust while accelerating hiring timelines.
Built on Unmatched AI Interview Expertise
“Our detection model’s strength lies in its foundation of real-world interview data collected from diverse roles and regions,” says Dr Buddhi Jayatilleke, Sapia.ai’s Chief Data Scientist. This depth of understanding enables the AGC Detector to maintain its industry-leading accuracy – even when candidates subtly modify AI-generated answers to appear more human.
Why This Matters
The AGC Detector 2.0 embodies Sapia.ai’s commitment to ethical AI that amplifies human potential. As our CEO Barb Hyman explains:
“The hiring landscape has fundamentally changed since ChatGPT, but our commitment remains clear: AI should amplify human potential, not penalise it. This breakthrough fosters authentic hiring conversations. Our real-time warning system helps candidates make better choices and gives enterprises confidence in their selection decisions.”
Testing and Validation of the AGC Detector 2.0
The new detector has been rigorously tested on over 25,000 interview responses generated by humans and leading AI models like GPT-4, Claude-3.5, and Llama-3. The results speak for themselves, reinforcing the reliability and fairness of this game-changing technology.
Fairness & Transparency in AI-Enabled Hiring
By detecting AI-generated content while allowing candidates to correct their responses, our AGC Detector 2.0 ensures every applicant has the chance to put their best, most authentic foot forward when applying for a role powered by Sapia.ai. For enterprises, it provides confidence in the integrity of their hiring decisions and ensures they’re connecting with real candidates at scale.