What is the underlying assumptions associated with behavioral interviews?

4.06.5.1.1 Behavioral Questionnaires, Interviews, and Checklists

Behavioral interviews, questionnaires, and checklists are commonly used in behavioral assessment because they are cost-beneficial (i.e., they efficiently provide useful information with ease; Lloyd et al., 2019). Note also that interviews, self-report questionnaires, and rating scales were all used in the assessment of Mrs. Ahn and her family. Questionnaires and checklists have the ability to examine a wide range of behaviors, help the clinician efficiently identify multiple behavior problems and goals, and can help to specify a client's most salient behavior problems. Furthermore, they are useful for gathering data from multiple informants regarding different dimensions of behavior (i.e., rate, intensity, and duration; Barbour and Davison, 2004). Additionally, behavioral-in contrast to non-behavioral-questionnaires are often more narrowly focused and amenable to time-series assessment strategies, such as systematically monitoring treatment outcomes over time. For example, a behaviorally oriented questionnaire on couple interaction is more likely to inquire about the frequency and duration of marital conflict in the past week rather than, or in addition to, soliciting a rating of “couple satisfaction.”

Behavioral and non-behavioral interviews often differ in their focus. Although the identification of a client's problems and goals are an important focus of all clinical interviews, behaviorally oriented interviews focus more on specific aspects and dimensions of a client's behaviors and goals. Additionally, consistent with its underlying foundations, behavioral interviews often attend to the context, dimensions, and functional relations associated with a client's behavior problems. For example, following a discussion with a client about the meaning of “feeling depressed,” specific queries might also include: “About how often after an argument with your husband do you begin to feel depressed?”; “Can you walk me through, step by step, what happened last night when your husband came home late after drinking with friends?”; or “Tell me what happened, what you were thinking, and how you felt.”

This emphasis on functional relations is illustrated in the interviews with Mrs. Ahn and her family, which focused on explaining her depressive symptoms. For example, the clinician attempted to identify the variables affecting the onset, duration, and severity of Mrs. Ahn's depressed mood and why she and her husband were experiencing conflicts. Furthermore, the explanations often tend to be very specific -- that is, we are interested in specific thoughts Mrs. Ahn may have after an argument with her husband, the specific events that precede or trigger an argument, and what she says in response to her daughter Eun-mi's behaviors.

A study by Weisz et al. (2019) highlighted the utility of a behavioral self-report rating form within applied clinical settings. Using ethnically diverse samples, Weisz and colleagues developed the Behavior and Feelings Survey (BFS), a 12-item youth- and caregiver-report questionnaire measuring internalizing and externalizing symptoms for youth receiving treatment. Results supported the BFS's factor structure, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change.

Some advantages of interviews, questionnaires, and checklists include their applicability in diverse settings, with most populations, and with most behavior problems. However, it is important to note that a particular questionnaire or interview format may not provide equally valid information across dimensions of individual differences -- that is, across clients who differ in age, ethnicity, education level, or symptom severity (Haynes et al., 2018). Furthermore, all self-report instruments are subject to many sources of error. The accuracy of the information provided may be reduced because of perceptual biases, cognitive deficits (e.g., distortions or memory limitations), state-dependent memory, purposeful omission and/or social desirability, and interviewer behavior and characteristics (see Fernandez-Ballesteros, 2004, for an extended discussion on questionnaires).

4.06.5.2 Ratings and Checklists

As with behavioral interviews, issues related to reliability and validity are also relevant to ratings and checklists. Cronbach (1960) has noted that the psychometric quality of rating scales is directly related to the number and specificity of the items rated. Further, O'Leary and Johnson (1986) have identified four factors associated with item-response characteristics and raters that enhance reliability and validity of such scales: (i) the necessity of using clearly defined reference points on the scale (i.e., estimates of frequency, duration, or intensity), (ii) the inclusion of more than two reference points on the scale (i.e., reference points that quantify the behavior being rated), (iii) a rater who has had extensive opportunities for observing the child being rated, and (iv) more than one rater who has equal familiarity with the child.

The rating forms and checklists described earlier (e.g., Revised Behavior Problem Checklist, Child Behavior Checklist, Behavior Assessment System for Children, the Louisville Fear Survey Schedule for Children, and the Home Situations Questionnaire) incorporate these item and response characteristics and are generally accepted as reliable and valid instruments. For example, the interrater reliability of the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist is quite high when raters are equally familiar with the children being rated and when ratings are provided by raters within the same setting (Quay, 1977; Quay & Peterson, 1983). Further, stability of these ratings has been reported over two-week and one-year intervals. These findings have been reported for teachers in the school setting and parents in the home setting. However, when ratings of teachers are compared to those of parents, interrater reliabilities are considerably lower. While teachers seem to agree with other teachers, and one parent tends to agree with the other parent, there is less agreement between parents and teachers. Such differences may be due to differential perceptions of behavior by parents and teachers or to the situational specificity of behavior, as discussed earlier (also see Achenbach et al., 1987). These findings support the desirability of obtaining information about the child from as many informants and from as many settings as possible.

The validity of the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist has also been demonstrated in numerous ways. It has been shown to distinguish clinic-referred children from nonreferred children, and to be related to psychiatric diagnosis, other measures of behavioral deviance, prognosis, and differential effectiveness of specific treatment strategies (see Ollendick & Cerny, 1981, for a discussion of these findings).

Findings similar to these have been reported for the Child Behavior Checklist, Behavior Assessment System for Children, Louisville Fear Survey Schedule, and the Home Situations Questionnaire. These rating forms and checklists, as well as others, have been shown to possess sound psychometric qualities and to be clinically useful. They not only provide meaningful data about the child's adaptive and problem behaviors but are also useful in orienting parents, teachers, and significant others to specific problem or asset areas and in alerting them to observe and record specific behaviors accurately and validly.

Functional behavioral interviews and questionnaires

The self-report methods of functional behavioral interviews and questionnaires are the most commonly used methods in behavioral assessment, especially in clinical settings, because they are less costly and easier to administer or conduct than direct behavioral observations and self-monitoring methods. They differ from nonbehavioral types of interviews and queries in their level of specificity for measuring behaviors versus measuring an aggregated cluster of symptoms. For example, a depression questionnaire that assesses symptoms of depression (e.g., negative affect, sleep disturbances, and anhedonia) and their frequency is useful for screening to determine referral for further assessment, or for diagnostic purposes, but it is less useful for identifying the antecedents and consequences of a specific symptom or behavior problem and their conditional probability across settings. Functional behavioral queries go beyond capturing the dimensions of a behavior (e.g., frequency and intensity) to also capturing the contexts, antecedent stimuli, consequences, and/or mediators and moderators that explain variance in the dimensions of a behavior problem: They are designed to explain behavior in addition to describing it.

Some examples of functional behavioral questionnaires that capture the dimensions, response modes, and functional relations of a behavior problem are: The Motivation Assessment Scale designed for persons with self-injurious behaviors, but also useful for persons with disruptive, aggressive, or stereotypic behavior problems (Durand & Crimmins, 1992). The Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (adult version) designed to assess anticipated experiences associated with a person’s alcohol use (Brown, Christiansen, & Goldman, 1987). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) designed to assess the prevalence, frequency, and severity of 39 specific partner conflict behaviors across five categories: “negotiation,” “psychological aggression,” “physical assault,” “sexual coercion,” and “injury” (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). For more discussion on behavioral questionnaires, see Fernández-Ballesteros (2004).

An array of techniques and strategies can be used that include open-ended and closed-ended questions, prompts to elicit information, and observation of paralinguistic behaviors, such as posture, head nods, and facial gestures. Strategies for clarification and elaboration (e.g., paraphrasing and reflections) and providing positive feedback (e.g., highlighting a client’s strengths and assets) to establish and maintain a positive and collaborative assessment experience can also be used. An interview strategy to help improve the accuracy of retrospective data collected is the timeline follow-back interview procedure (Sobell & Sobell, 1992). It is a semi-structured interview using calendars and memory anchors (e.g., birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays) to construct a daily behavior chart during a specified period of time).

Some examples of queries to specify behaviors and identify functional relations are: “In what situations are you most likely to start drinking?” “How does your wife respond when you start drinking?” “Can you explain to me what your binge drinking is like for you?” “How does it make you feel?” “How many times in the past month have you experienced mood changes that led to your drinking?” “How long did your drinking binge last?” On a scale from one to ten, with ten being the most important, how disruptive has your drinking been for you in regards to your work performance?”

Functional behavioral interviews and questionnaires can be used in conjunction with each other and adapted to fit a wide-range of behaviors and assessment goals and settings. They are particularly useful for obtaining information from multiple informants (e.g., spouses, family members, and psychiatric care staff); on a wide-range of behaviors across different settings; on low-frequency behaviors, such as migraine headaches or panic episodes; on covert or less observable behaviors, such as a client’s thoughts, mood, or emotions; on historical events, such as the client’s history of trauma and abuse; and on socially sensitive behaviors, such as a client’s sexual behaviors and partner violence.

Several factors can affect the validity of data collected from these self-report methods, including biases of the interviewer, the client, or informant; problems in recalling information, or dissimulation. An interviewer might neglect to ask certain questions or overlook or overly attend to certain information provided by the interviewee because of some bias toward the client or because of skill level. A client’s or informant’s willingness to respond to questions and their ability to remember information or respond honestly can affect the information obtained. Finally, the data obtained from these self-report methods can be affected by certain characteristics of the client or informant, such as their cognitive and language abilities and the severity of their behavior problem. The questionnaires used should be selected based on their validity indices in regards to relevant individual characteristics of the person being assessed, such age, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and educational level (see Haynes et al., 2018).

Interviews

A number of structured or guided interview methods exist and can be helpful in gaining a greater functional understanding of the behavior problem of interest. Behavioral interviews focus on understanding the antecedents, establishing operations, setting events, and history of the problem, as well as the consequences which the behavior may serve. To perform this type of interview, the clinician must guide questions to the client along the lines of objective definitions and environmental events (Miltenberger & Fuqua, 1985). Questions which commonly occur in traditional clinical interviews can be rephrased to elicit functional information. For example, instead of asking the client “How do you feel about losing your ability to use your left hand?” the clinician should seek to discover functional relationships via questioning such as “What seems to happen immediately after you have failed to pick up an item you used to be able to do so and become aggressive toward your caregivers? Do they then tend to just give you items to calm you down?” Questions may also assess the magnitude of the disorder such as “How long has your aggression toward others who try to assist you occurred?”, “Has it increased in frequency?” and so on. Again, the focus of these questions during the interview should be along the lines of objective measures by which to evaluate function.

Regardless of the cause or history surrounding the brain injury, the interview should take a general format of a brief introduction, assessment, and a brief closing. During the introduction, the clinician should recapitulate the problem behavior(s) which brought the client into treatment. The clinician should summarize all of the relevant information about the client that he/she currently has and ask the client to provide missing pieces to that initial information. Detailed questioning about functional relations should be left until initial rapport has been developed between parties, and reassurance should be given that the clinician is there to help. During the assessment part of the interview, the clinician should seek out means by which the client can describe the antecedents and consequences of the client's behavior of concern. At this time the therapist should explore the problem behavior's severity, intensity, history, and triggers. The therapist should also carefully explore the conditions under which the problem behavior does not occur, such as the places, people, and events that result in the problem not occurring. Such information will be useful when attempting to discover methods and strategies that can be used for treatment. During the closing of the behavioral interview, the clinician should summarize the information gathered during the interview, including initial analyses of the functional relationships that exist for the problem behavior. The clinician should stress the importance of seeing the problem as not an unmodifiable, internal flaw of personality of the person. Rather, it should be seen as an example of how situations in that person's life can arise which lend him/herself to the problem behavior occurring. The clinician should be empathic with the patient and inform him/her that there are others with similar disorders and, while difficult, behavior change can occur, and this will be the focus of subsequent therapy sessions.

A number of guided behavioral interviews have been developed for the functional assessment of behavior more generally and, while not specific for assessment in brain injury, hold a great deal of promise for understanding the functional relations. They include the Functional Analysis Interview Form (FAIF; O'Neil, Horner, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1990) and the Functional Analysis Checklist (FAC; Van Houten & Rolider, 1991). The FAIF is a structured interview designed to identify possible function and other relevant variables associated with the behavior. The FAIF provides an extensive amount of information and can aid the clinician to a great degree. The FAC is a 15-item interview that focuses on the physical environment, adjunctive behaviors, transitions, escape from demands, and positive reinforcement. These two behavioral interviews might be used together with brain injury-specific assessments.

Interviews

While the clinical interview technique is something that will vary across therapists and will be rooted in each clinician's theoretical orientation, a number of structured or guided interview methods exist and can be helpful in gaining a greater functional understanding of the behavior problem of interest. It is very common for two therapists to disagree on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a psychological disorder, in part due to inadequateness of diagnostic criteria and in part to the lack of standardized questions offered to patients (Segal & Falk, 1998). The behavioral interview for gaining a functional assessment of the behavior in question will focus heavily on understanding the antecedents, establishing operations, setting events, and history of the problem, and the consequences which the behavior may serve. To do this, the clinician must guide questions to the client along the lines of objective definitions and environmental events. This may require reframing common questions which occur in traditional clinical interviews. For example, instead of asking the client “How do you feel when starting fires?” the clinician should seek to discover functional relationships via questioning such as “What seems to happen immediately before you want to start a fire?” or “What happens to you immediately after a fire has been set?” Questions may also assess the magnitude of the disorder such as “How long has this behavior occurred?” “Has it increased in frequency?” and so on. Again, the focus of these questions during the interview should be along the lines of objective measures by which to evaluate function.

The structure of the interview, regardless of specific impulse control disorder, should take a general format of a brief introduction, the assessment, and a brief closing. During the introduction, the clinician should recap the problem behavior which has brought the client into treatment. The clinician should summarize all of the information about the client that he/she currently has and ask the client to provide missing pieces to that initial information. Detailed questioning about functional relations should be left until initial rapport has been developed between parties, and reassurance should be given that the clinician is there to help. During the assessment period of the interview, the clinician should seek out means by which the client can describe the antecedents and consequences of his/her behavior of concern. At this time the therapist should explore severity, intensity, history, and triggers of the problem behavior, but also as carefully explore the conditions under which the problem behavior does not occur. In other words, what are some of the places, people, and events that result in the problem not occurring? Such information will be useful when attempting to discover methods and strategies that can be used for treatment. During the closing of the behavioral interview, the clinician should summarize the information gathered during the interview, including initial analyses of the functional relationships that exist for the problem behavior. The clinician should stress the importance of seeing the problem as not an internal flaw of personality of the person, but rather as an example of how situations in that person's life can arise which lend themselves to the problem behavior occurring. The clinician should console the patient and inform him/her that there are others with similar disorders, and while difficult, behavior change can occur, and this will be the focus of subsequent therapy sessions.

A number of guided behavioral interviews have been developed for the functional assessment of impulse control disorders. With respect to childhood pyromania, Kazdin and Kolko developed a series of interviews that may detect severity and function of the disorder. They include the Fire Setting History Screen (Kolko & Kazdin, 1988), whereby the clinician would interview both child and parent or caregiver; the Fire Setting Risk Interview (Kolko & Kazdin, 1989a), which is designed primarily for the caregiver; and the Children's Fire Setting Interview (Kolko & Kazdin, 1989b), which is targeted directly at the suspected child. Such screening interviews, while designed for children with the disorder, may be worthy of attempts at revising to serve the adult population. It is also quite common for clinicians to utilize more general psychological interviews, while not specific for impulse control disorders, that may hold insight to eventual diagnosis (e.g., Baylé, Caci, Millet, Richa, & Olié, 2003).

The best prevention is to have a hiring process that allows screening out unethical employees

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2018) reports that, of the victim organizations included in their study, only 52% ran background checks on employees as part of the hiring process. Of the organizations that did run a background check as part of the selection process, 10% received a red flag concerning the perpetrator but decided to hire the individual regardless. Using background checks, a behavioral interview, and psychometric testing focusing on traits associated with CWB and fraud (in addition to the competencies needed for the job) should help reduce the probability of hiring individuals who are at risk of committing workplace misbehavior. By gaining a better understanding of the perpetrator profile for workplace misconduct, professionals in charge of hiring and promotion can prevent them from entering the organization and/or obtaining a management position, thus reducing the risks of workplace violence and corporate fraud.

To help readers identify traits associated with CWB and corporate fraud, I have created Table 7.2 including all of the traits presented in this chapter that are associated with CWB and corporate fraud. Note that these traits were also listed in the table presented in Chapter 1, where I put in relation workplace competencies and DT personalities. Putting the two tables side by side, you will see clearly how dark personalities are associated with misbehavior in the workplace. In the next chapter, I will offer recommendations on how to deal with employees and managers presenting dark personalities when they have managed to enter the organization.

Table 7.2. Relationship between DT personalities, personality traits, counterproductive work behaviors, and corporate fraud.

DT personalities and personality traitsLow versus high scoresMisconductCWBFraudNarcissismHigh✓✓MachiavellianismHigh✓✓PsychopathyHigh✓✓Honesty/HumilityLow✓AgreeablenessLow✓✓ConscientiousnessLow✓✓EmpathyLow✓Self-controlLow✓ResponsibilityLow✓DependabilityLow✓IntegrityLow✓

Note: The traits that were left unchecked do not indicate that there is no relationship between these traits and CWB or corporate fraud; rather, it simply indicates that the relationship was not presented in the chapter or not yet measured in research.

2 Identification of Children in Need of Social Skills Training

A number of methods, including rating scales, checklists, and sociometric nomination techniques, have been designed to identify children at risk for behavior problems. In general, social skills assessments have one of two purposes: identification/classification or intervention/program planning. A standard battery of tests or methods for assessing social skills does not exist. To increase the likelihood of accurate identification/classification decisions, it is recommended that one use direct observations of the target child and nontarget peers in multiple settings; behavioral interviews with the referral source and possibly the target child; rating scale data, preferably norm-referenced, from both a social skills scale and a problem behavior scale completed by more than one source; and sociometric data from the target child’s classmates. Regarding intervention decisions, data contributing to a functional analysis of important social behaviors are imperative. These types of data usually result from multiple direct observations across settings, behavioral role-plays with the target child, and teacher and parent/guardian ratings of socially valid molecular behaviors.

Children identified for social skills intervention historically have been either individuals who have been rejected by their peers because they behave aggressively toward others or students with significant cognitive disabilities. During the past two decades, a large number of students with learning disabilities have also been targeted for social skills interventions. A number of researchers have documented that mildly disabled students who are classified as behavior disordered, learned disabled, or cognitively impaired frequently exhibit a significant number of social skills deficits and could benefit from individual or group social skills interventions. Social skills have also been documented to be an important part of academic success for nondisabled students, and thus the number of classwide school skills programs has also increased substantially during the past decade. The intervention strategies used for individual students are directly applicable, with only minor changes, to small groups of students, a classroom, or an entire school.

4.07.5.4 Self-report Methods in Behavioral Assessment

Many interview formats and hundreds of self-report questionnaires have been adopted by behavioral assessors from other assessment paradigms. A comprehensive presentation of these methods is not possible within the confines of this chapter. Here, I will emphasize how behavioral and traditional self-report methods differ in format and content. The differences reflect the contrasting assumptions of behavioral and nonbehavioral assessment paradigms.

More extensive discussions of self-report questionnaire and interview methods, and applicable psychometric principles are provided by Anastasi (1988), Jensen and Haynes (1986), Nunnally and Burnstein (1994), Sarwer and Sayers (1998), and Turkat (1986)

Behavioral assessors, particularly those affiliated with an applied behavior analysis paradigm, have traditionally viewed self-report questionnaires and interviews with skepticism. Objections have focused on the content and misuses of these methods. Many questionnaires solicit retrospective reports, stress situationally insensitive aggregated indices of traits, focus on molar level constructs that lack consensual validity, and are unsuited for idiographic assessment. Biased recall, demand factors, item interpretation errors, and memory lapses, further challenged the utility of self-report questionnaires. Data from interviews have been subject to the same sources of error with additional error variance associated with the behavior and characteristics of the interviewer. Despite these constraints, interviews and questionnaires are the most frequently used methods used by behavior therapists (e.g., Piotrowski & Zalewski, 1993).

The interview is an indispensable part of behavioral assessment and treatment and undoubtedly is the most frequently used assessment method. All behavioral interventions require prior verbal interaction with the client or significant individuals (e.g., staff) and the structure and content of that interview can have an important impact on subsequent assessment and treatment activities.

As illustrated with Mrs. A, an assessment interview can be used for multiple purposes. First, it can help identify and rank order the client's behavior problems and goals. It can also be a source of information on the client's reciprocal interactions with other people, and, consequently, provides important data for the functional analysis. Interviews are the main vehicles for informed consent for assessment and therapy and can help establish a positive relationship between the behavior assessor and client. Additionally, interviews are used to select clients for therapy, to determine overall assessment strategies, to gather historical information, and to develop preliminary hypotheses about functional relationships relevant to the client's behavior problems and goals.

The behavioral assessment interview differs from nonbehavioral interviews in content and format. First, the behavioral interview is often more quantitatively oriented and structured (although most behavioral interviews involve unstructured, nondirective, and client-centered phases). The focus of the behavioral interview reflects assumptions of the behavioral assessment paradigm about behavior problems and causal variables and emphasizes current rather than historical behaviors and determinants. Behavioral interviewers are more likely to query about situational sources of behavioral variance and to seek specification of molecular behaviors and events.

A systems perspective also guides the behavioral assessment interview. The behavioral interviewer queries about the client's extended social network and the social and work environment of care-givers (e.g., the incentives at a psychiatric institution that encourage cooperation by staff members). The interviewer also evaluates the effects that treatment may have on the client's social system—will treatment effect family or work interactions?

Some of the concerns with the interview as a source of assessment information reside with its traditionally unstructured applications. Under unstructured conditions, data derived from the interview may covary significantly with the behavior and biases of the interviewer. However, structured interviews and technological advances in interview methods promise to reduce such sources of error (Hersen & Turner, 1994; Sarwer & Sayers, 1998). Computerization, to guide the interviewer and as an interactive system with clients, promises to reduce some sources of error in the interview process. Computerization can also increase the efficiency of the interview and assist in the summarization and integration of interview-derived data.

Other structured interview aids, such as the Timeline Followback (Sobell, Toneatto, & Sobell, 1994) may also increase the accuracy of the data derived in interviews. In Timeline Followback, memory aids are used to enhance accuracy of retrospective recall of substance use. A calendar is used as a visual aid, with the client noting key dates, long periods in which they abstained or were continuously drunk, and other discreet events associated with substance use.

Some interviews are oriented to the information required for a functional analysis. For example, the Motivation Assessment Scale is used with care-givers to ascertain the factors that may be maintaining or triggering self-injurious behavior in developmentally disabled persons (Durand & Crimmins, 1988).

Questionnaires, including rating scales, self-report questionnaires, and problem inventories, are also frequently used in behavioral assessment; they have probably been frequently used with all adult behavior disorders. Many questionnaires used by behavioral assessors are identical to those used in traditional nonbehavioral psychological assessment. As noted earlier, questionnaires are often adopted by behavioral assessors without sufficient thought to their underlying assumptions about behavior and the causes of behavior problems, content validity, psychometric properties, and incremental clinical utility. They are often trait-focused, insensitive to the conditional nature of the targeted behavior, and provide aggregated indices of a multifaceted behavioral construct (Haynes & Uchigakiuchi, 1993). Questionnaires are sometimes helpful for initial screening or as a nonspecific index of program outcome but are not useful for a functional analysis or for precise evaluation of treatment effects. The integration of personality and assessment is addressed further in a subsequent section of this chapter.

Some questionnaires are more congruent with the behavioral assessment paradigm. These usually target a narrower range of adult behavior problems or events, such as panic and anxiety symptoms, outcome expectancies for alcohol, recent life stressors, and tactics for resolving interpersonal conflicts. Most behaviorally oriented questionnaires focus on specific and lower-level behaviors and events and query about situational factors. However, the developers of behaviorally oriented questionnaires sometimes rely on the face validity of questionnaires and do not follow standard psychometric principles of questionnaire development (see special issue on “Methodological issues in psychological assessment research” in Psychological Assessment, 1995, Vol. 7). Deficiencies in the development and validation of any assessment instrument reduce confidence in the inferences that can be drawn from resulting scores.

What is the underlying assumption associated with Behavioural interviews?

Which of the following is a key assumption of situational interviewing?

Which interviewing method occurs when an applicant is interviewed by a number of interviewers at once?

Which of the following is true of selection interviewing?