The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3 - 30

Stephen A. Berg * James C. Stoner

standing the RA position, time management,
diversity, academics, ability to be a team player,
community and campus involvement, interpersonal qualities, eagerness to meet new people,
and programming). Candidates also received
scores for each group process interview, based
on a standardized rubric (components including general attitude, communication and listening skills, teamwork, leadership ability,
problem-solving and analytical skills, and
overall recommendation). After the conclusion
of the interview process, scores were entered
in a database with a combined total score for
each of the applications, individual interviews,
and group process interviews. A grand total
score was then calculated by adding all the individual component scores.

Job Performance Data Collection
The housing department conducted annual
RA performance evaluations toward the end
of each fall semester. RAs were evaluated by
their supervisor on various job performance
categories (time management, timeliness and
preparation, policies and procedures, conflict
management, programming, community
development, knowledge of residents, leadership, communication skills, team player,
academic engagement, customer service, and
projects and collateral assignments), with each
category scored on a five-point rubric. A total
evaluation score was calculated by adding all
the individual categories together.
To control for variability in supervisory perspective, the housing department conducted
an evaluation training session with all supervisors prior to the evaluation period where
descriptive case studies of multiple RAs were
presented. Each case study was individually
evaluated by each supervisor and then dis30

cussed as a group as to why each supervisor
scored particular categories a certain way.
The primary goal of this supervisory training
session was to best control for variability in the
supervisory opinion of job performance.

RESULTS
A Pearson correlation was conducted to
investigate the relationship between the
components of the interview process and performance evaluation scores (see Table 1). Performance evaluation scores were only slightly
correlated to each component of the interview
process: application scores (r = .105, p > .05),
individual interview scores (r = .198, p >
.05), and group interview scores (r = .103, p >
.05). Overall, the combined total scores were
only slightly correlated to performance evaluation scores (r = .194, p > .05).
The data were used to test previous research
findings on demographic variables not predicting RA job performance. Using a multiple
regression procedure, several factors-GPA,
class standing, and gender-were examined
as predictors of RA performance scores (see
Table 2). Supporting previous findings (Jaeger
& Caison, 2006; Wu & Stemler, 2009), the
model was insignificant and a weak predictor of RA performance, F(3,67) = 2.139, p =
.103, R2 = .087.
Three rounds of multiple regression analyses were conducted, with each round differing
in the number of variables contributing to each
model. The first round included three multiple
regression analyses based on each individual
component (application scores, individual interview scores, and group interview scores)
predicting the performance evaluation scores
of RAs (see Table 3). All three regression equa-

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3