Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3 - 58

Full-time professionals reported a higher influence for interview
score, resume, peer advice, and GPA . . . Graduate assistants reported
a higher mean influence for direct supervisor advice, leadership
experience, references, and candidates' social media.
terms of candidacy for a position. It is also
important to note one of the main items
comprising the negative comments factor,
excluding items about drugs, alcohol, and
sexual inappropriateness, was " racial comments " (Root & McKay, 2014, p. 205).

Institution Type
An interesting pattern emerged concerning
the influence of interview score by institution type. Specifically, professionals at small
private institutions placed higher value on
the interview score compared to those at
large public and small public institutions.
However, the threshold of 15,000 students
distinguishing between small and large institutions could be a contributing factor to
these results. Specifically, 45% of the participants at small private institutions reported a
total RA staff of 50 or less compared to only
12.5% of participants from small public institutions who reported a staff size of 50 or less.
It is foreseeable that supervisors at smaller
institutions have an increased likelihood of
prior interactions with multiple applicants.
Therefore, interviews could prove to be a distinguishing aspect among a group of familiar
applicants. Additionally, smaller staffs would
likely lead to higher levels of involvement in
planning due to limited personnel resources,
which also appeared to be a contributing factor for valuing a candidate's interview score.

LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations to this study.
Due to the limited literature, this study
was exploratory in nature. The exploratory
nature heavily influenced the instrument,

which was informed by professional experience due to a lack of an existing validated
instrument. The variability of RA selection
processes across different institutions is also
a limitation. Some of the components of the
selection process may be similar in nature,
but implemented differently. This study did
not consider staff members' belief in their
ability to be good supervisors. Appropriate
leadership style and supervision could positively impact a poor performing RA. Another
limitation concerned the sample. The sample included a limited number of graduate
assistants, which may be due to many graduate assistants not having hiring decision
authority for RA positions. Additionally, the
sample size and higher levels of variance for
some variables limited the power of some of
the inferential statistical analyses.

IMPLICATIONS
Despite these limitations, the results of this
study carry several potential implications for
practice and future research. First, departments should consider prioritizing the planning and implementation of group process,
given the influential role it plays in decision
making. Second, the results suggest that
graduate assistants would benefit from increased involvement in planning and facilitation of selection processes. Departments and
graduate preparation programs should explore structured and collaborative opportunities to support competency development for
graduate students in the areas of recruitment
and selection. Finally, the results emphasize
the importance of training on the value and
role of various metrics within the selection
Volume 47, No. 3 * 2021

55
Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Vol. 47 No. 3
