MT203 Unit 4 Selection Method Comparison Example

Reviewed by Chester Goodwin, MBA Human Resource Management Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

The MT203 Unit 4 selection method comparison on this page helps a composite pool service company choose a route supervisor from two experienced technicians and one outside applicant, when the owner had planned to decide over lunch. Purdue Global MT 203 compares selection tools in Unit 4, and the sample weighs four of them: an unstructured conversation, a structured interview, a forty-minute route-planning work sample and reference checks. Each is judged on what it predicts, cost in hours, how candidates react and legal exposure. Validity figures from Schmidt and Hunter, as revised downward by Sackett's team in 2022, fill the prediction column, and Campion and colleagues define structure. Two sample interview questions come straight from the job, and the recommendation pairs the interview with the work sample. It is a BS in Business Administration assignment.

CourseMT203 Human Resource Management
UnitUnit 4
Paper typeSelection method comparison
LengthAbout 890 words, 6 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Business Administration
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for MT203 Unit 4

1

Deciding Over Lunch: A Unit 4 Selection Method Comparison for a Route Supervisor Opening

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT203: Human Resource Management

Unit 4 Selection Method Comparison

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Bluebonnet Pool Care, the candidates and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingFraming the comparison against the owner's actual plan makes the research answer a real decision rather than a textbook question.
2

The Opening and the Candidates

A route supervisor at Bluebonnet Pool Care oversees about eight technicians, rebalances routes when someone is out, handles the hardest customer calls, checks water quality on a sample of pools each week and approves repair orders up to [$600]. The candidates are Ana, a technician for six years who trains most new helpers; Derek, a technician for four years with the best callback record in the company; and an outside applicant who supervised a crew at a lawn care company. The owner knows Ana and Derek well and likes both, which is part of the problem.

Method One: Unstructured Conversation

Lunch with each candidate is what the owner proposed. It measures how comfortable he feels with the person, how well the candidate talks and how much they share his views. It costs about [three] hours and candidates enjoy it. Its weakness is prediction. Schmidt and Hunter (1998), combining 85 years of selection research, estimated the validity of unstructured interviews at about .38, well below structured methods, and Sackett et al. (2022), correcting what they argued were overstated adjustments in earlier work, lowered it further. A lunch also invites questions about family and plans, which can create legal exposure if they touch on protected characteristics.

Method Two: Structured Interview

In a structured interview, all three candidates hear an identical set of job-analysis questions and scores the answers against anchored examples agreed in advance. Campion et al. (1997) reviewed fifteen components of interview structure and found that basing questions on job analysis, asking the same questions of everyone and using rating scales with anchors contributed most to reliability and validity. For this job, the questions would include: "A technician calls in sick on a Monday in July with sixty-eight pools on his route. Walk me through the next two hours." And: "A customer insists a technician damaged her pool light. The technician says it was already broken. What do you do?"

In the reanalysis by Sackett et al. (2022), structured interviews came out ahead of every other method they examined. The method costs about [six] hours to write and score, and candidates generally see it as fair because everyone faces the same questions. Legal exposure is low when the questions come from the job.

What this part is doingShowing two actual questions, each tied to a duty in the job analysis, demonstrates what structure means in practice.
3

Method Three: Route-Planning Work Sample

The work sample gives each candidate a map with [eight] technicians' routes for a Monday, a sick call from one technician and two emergency calls from customers with green pools. Candidates have forty minutes to rebalance the routes, decide who handles the emergencies and write the text messages they would send. A second part hands them a water test result and a photo of a pump and asks what they would tell the technician.

Schmidt and Hunter (1998) gave work samples one of the highest validity estimates in their review, at .54, though Sackett et al. (2022) revised it downward. The method costs about [eight] hours to design the first time and little after. It tests the planning and judgment the job requires most, rather than skills the candidates already showed as technicians. It also gives the outside candidate a fair chance, since it tests what none of them has done in this company.

Method Four: Reference Checks

Reference checks would add little for Ana and Derek, whose work the owner already knows, but they matter for the outside applicant. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) estimated their validity at about .26. They are most useful when limited to behavior a former supervisor can verify, such as whether the applicant managed a schedule or handled a complaint. Their cost is low, and their main risk is that former employers say little.

Comparison

On prediction, the structured interview and the work sample are far stronger than lunch or references. On cost, lunch is cheapest and the work sample most expensive the first time. On candidate reaction, the structured interview and work sample are seen as fair, while lunch can feel like favoritism to whichever candidate does not get the job. On legal exposure, lunch is the riskiest because it is unscripted.

The comparison also shows what each method would reveal about these candidates. Derek's callback record shows he is an excellent technician. It does not show whether he can rebalance eight routes on a bad Monday. Ana's training experience suggests she can coach, but not whether she can tell a long-time customer no. Only the structured interview and the work sample test those things.

What this part is doingApplying each method to the named candidates turns the general research into a judgment about this hiring decision.
4

Lunch would tell the owner which candidate he likes; the work sample would tell him which one can run a Monday in July.

Recommendation

The owner should use a structured interview and the route-planning work sample for all three candidates, weighting them equally, and check references for the outside applicant. Lunch can still happen after the decision, as a way to welcome the new supervisor. The candidate who is not chosen should hear from the owner directly, with feedback from the interview and work sample, because both Ana and Derek will still be on the trucks next week.

5

References

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

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

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

What the MT203 Unit 4 assignment asks for

Unit 4 typically asks you to compare selection methods for a specific job and recommend an approach. Most prompts expect at least three methods, judged against criteria such as predictive validity, cost, fairness, candidate reactions and legal risk. Research on how well each method predicts performance is central, and many sections assign the Schmidt and Hunter meta-analysis or a newer review. The comparison should apply to the job and candidates in front of you, not only to methods in general. Show what a structured interview or work sample would actually contain for this job, using the job analysis. Close with a recommendation that names which methods to use, how to weight them and how to handle internal candidates who are not chosen. Expect roughly four pages, with a comparison table if your section likes one and APA 7 references.

How the MT 203 Unit 4 example is put together

The comparison opens with the supervisor job and the three candidates, noting that the owner likes both internal ones. The unstructured lunch is assessed first, with Schmidt and Hunter's estimate of about .38 and the lower revision by Sackett and colleagues, plus its legal risk. The structured interview follows, defined through Campion and colleagues, with two questions taken from the job: a sick call on a sixty-eight-pool Monday and a disputed pool light. The work sample hands candidates a map of eight routes, a sick call and two green pools, plus a water test to interpret. Reference checks are limited to verifiable behavior for the outside applicant. A comparison section sets the four side by side, and a margin note marks where the methods are applied to Ana and Derek. The recommendation weights the interview and work sample equally and plans feedback for the candidate not chosen.

MT203 Unit 4 rubric: what earns full points

Marks on a selection comparison usually rest on accurate research, fair criteria and a recommendation that fits the job. Citing validity estimates correctly, including newer revisions, shows the writer has read the evidence rather than repeating old figures. Lunch, interview, work sample and references should all face identical criteria. Graders give more credit when the methods are made concrete, for example by writing actual interview questions or describing the work sample. Applying the methods to the named candidates shows understanding of what each one would reveal. Legal exposure deserves a sentence for each method. The recommendation should combine methods sensibly and address the internal candidates' experience, since a selection process affects people who stay. Campion and colleagues, Sackett and colleagues and Schmidt and Hunter need full APA 7 entries, with years and validity figures matching the sources.

Common MT203 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Weak comparisons describe each method from the textbook and never connect it to the job. Another common error is citing validity figures from older research as if they were settled, without noting the 2022 revision. Some papers recommend a structured interview without writing a single question. Others ignore candidate reactions, even when internal candidates will continue working beside whoever is chosen. Legal risk is often skipped or treated as a single sentence at the end. Be careful not to recommend every method at once, which raises cost without explaining how the results will be combined. If you are comparing methods for your own employer's opening, keep identifying details out. Send our writers the job, the candidates' situation and the methods your section covers, and they can draft a comparison with real questions, a work sample design and a defensible recommendation.

Get an MT203 Unit 4 example written to your instructions

Tell the desk which job the comparison is for, taken from the Unit 4 prompt or from a past job of your own, and add the rubric. Within 24-48h a paper comes back weighing each method by prediction, cost, candidate reaction and legal exposure, with a recommendation at the end. The first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All MT203 units Finished samples

More MT203 papers and BS in Business Administration samples

MT203 Unit 4 questions, answered

Which research does the example cite on selection validity?

Schmidt and Hunter's 1998 meta-analysis, which ranked methods by how well they predict job performance, and the 2022 reanalysis by Sackett and colleagues, which argued earlier corrections overstated several figures. The example uses both because citing only the older numbers now reads as dated. It keeps the discussion to a paragraph; the comparison table carries the argument.

Where can I find a free MT203 Unit 4 sample paper?

This page contains a complete MT203 Unit 4 selection method comparison for a route supervisor opening. It weighs four methods on prediction, cost, reactions and legal risk, writes sample questions and a work sample, and carries margin notes.

Why not just promote the technician with the most seniority?

Seniority rewards years served but says little about rebalancing eight routes on a bad Monday. The sample tests that ability directly with a work sample, so experience counts where it shows up in the results.

What does the route-planning work sample ask candidates to do?

Rebalance eight technicians' Monday routes after a sick call, assign two emergency green-pool visits, write the texts they would send, and interpret a water test and a pump photo, all within forty minutes.

How should the company treat the internal candidate who is not chosen?

The owner should tell that technician directly and share feedback from the interview and work sample. Both internal candidates will keep working on the trucks, so a fair, explained decision protects the relationship.