AI Candidate Assessment: Evidence and Open Questions

What the evidence says

• ✦Situational judgment tests, which ask candidates how they would handle realistic work scenarios, have been shown in meta-analytic research to predict job performance. [1]
• ✦Comparisons of selection methods consistently favor structured, job-related assessment over unstructured judgment. [2][3]
• ✦Experts reviewing unproctored internet testing in employment settings described its practical benefits and its risks, including cheating and uncertainty about who completed the test. [4]
• ✦Studies of automated scoring of video interviews show that model performance can vary by trait, criterion and sample. [5]

AuraSync's interpretation

The case for AI assessment rests on structure: the same role-relevant scenarios for every candidate, scored consistently. The open questions are about integrity and generalization, which is why we pair assessment with identity verification and treat every automated score as an estimate for a person to review.

What AuraSync claims

• ✦AuraSync generates role-specific, behavior-probing questions from the job description.
• ✦Identity verification and session monitoring raise integrity flags for a person to review.
• ✦Most candidates complete the assessment in under 45 minutes.

Limitations

The research above concerns assessment methods in general. Validity depends on the role, the scenarios and the scoring, and must be considered for each use. Online assessment results can be affected by connection quality and the candidate's environment.

Sources

1. [1]McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 730–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.730
2. [2]Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000994
3. [3]Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00709.x
4. [4]Tippins, N. T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O., & Shepherd, W. (2006). Unproctored internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 189–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00909.x
5. [5]Hickman, L., Bosch, N., Ng, V., Saef, R., Tay, L., & Woo, S. E. (2022). Automated video interview personality assessments: Reliability, validity, and generalizability investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8), 1323–1351. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000695

This page summarizes third-party research for orientation. It is not an evaluation of AuraSync, and any summary of law is not legal advice.