utilizing one or more determination devices or strategies classified as such: Application Forms Interviews Personality tests Biographical data Cognitive ability tests Physical ability tests Work samples Development and implementation of such screening methods is sometimes done by human resources departments; larger organizations hire consultants or firms that specialize in developing personnel selection systems. I-O psychologists must evaluate evidence regarding the extent to which selection tools predict job performance, evidence that bears on the validity of selection tools. These procedures are usually validated (shown to be job relevant), using one or more of the following types of validity: content validity, construct validity, and/or criterion-related validity. History and development Chinese civil servant exams, established in AD 605, may be the first documented "modern" selection tests, and have influenced subsequent examination systems. As a scientific and scholarly field, personnel selection owes much to psychometric theory and the art of integrating selection systems falls to human resource professionals. In the United States of America, members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conduct much of the research on selection. Primary research topics include: the practicality, reliability, validity, and utility of various forms of selection measures methods for demonstrating return on investment for selection systems assessing fairness and making selection systems as fair as possible legal issues—such as disparate treatment and disparate impact—and overall compliance with laws the generalizability of validity across different work contexts alternative methods of demonstrating validity, such as synthetic validity the predictive validity of non-traditional measures, such as personality Validity and reliability Validity of interviews The validity of interviews describes how useful interviews are in predicting job performance. In one of the most comprehensive meta-analytic summary to date by Weisner and Cronshaw (1988). The authors investigated interview validity as a function of interview format (individual vs board) and degree of structure( structure vs unstructured). Results of this study showed that structured interviews yielded much higher mean corrected validities than unstructured interviews (0.63 vs 0.20), and structured board interviews using consensus ratings had the highest corrected validity (0.64). In McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt & Maurer's Comprehensive Review and Meta- analysis of the Validity of Interviews (1994) paper, the authors go a step further and include an examination of the validity of three different types of interview content(situational, job-related, and psychological).Their goal was to explore the possibility that validity is a function of the type of content collected. They define the three