The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 2 - 51

James C. Stoner

two opposing sides on the scoring continuum.
Unless designed to do so, raw scores place no
value on the weight of scores in each component other than what happens to be the total
available points. On the other end of the spectrum, standardized scores create equal value
for candidate performance in each component
but still place no intentional value on each
component other than the fact that they all are
equal. A middle ground exists where practitioners can customize the value of each component by weighting the component scores
differently. For instance, an RA job description
at one institution may primarily encompass
group-oriented responsibilities while another
department's RA job description may be more
heavily focused on individual interactions.
The various components may provide specific
insight relevant to departmental priorities; as
such, the first institution may want to place
more value on group process performance
while the second institution may want to place
more value on the individual interactions.
Neither raw nor standardized scores allow for
a customized approach unless out of happenstance or intentional design during the process
planning stages.
To account for department priorities and expected job responsibilities, a total weighted score
allows for customized value for each component
with the overall score. Total weighted scores
distribute along the same 100-point scale, but
each process component contributes to the
candidate's total score at a predetermined and
departmentally assigned weight. For instance, if
the institution decided to weight the individual
interview scores at 30% (or .30) of the total, the
example candidate (with an 89 raw interview
score and a 79.46 standardized interview score)
would receive a converted 23.84 interview score
52

Although well documented in
other fields, research on RA hiring
processes is sparse when it comes
to understanding unintended, builtin biases within the structure and
scoring of applicants.

out of a now maximum 30 points. The other
components fill in the remaining available
70 points to sum to a maximum of 100. The
weighted score for a single component and an
overall weighted score (for n number of components) can be calculated based on the following
formulas, respectively:
Weighted Score = Standardized Score ∑ Component Weight
Total Weighted Score = Weighted Score1 +
Weighted Score2 + ... + Weighted Scoren

PROCESS AND DATA ANALYSIS
This study revisited the department's RA
hiring process first explored by Berg and
Stoner (2016) and chronicled the subsequent
two years of hiring and performance evaluation processes. The two studied years were
2016 and 2017, with candidate selection occurring in February and March and performance evaluations occurring in December and
January. The 2016 hiring cycle received 168
applications for 47 available positions, while
the 2017 hiring cycle received 193 applications
for 46 available positions. The large research
institution in Texas employed nearly 90 RAs

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 45, No. 2