[ArekDymalski]

By "established" I meant: defined and researched (the 50% accuracy I mentioned above comes from the literature). But they aren't "established" as popular/widely used. Partly because they require well defined competencies, but also because they aren't easy to conduct in comparison to typical interview (which has the accuracy around 20% AFAIR).

[shamney]

could you link to some of this literature?

competency based interviews are standard for junior positions with large companies in the UK. however, this approach often turns interviews into a bullshitting competition.

[ArekDymalski]

Here comes the full text of an old research comparing traditional interviewing with other methods: https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/pei/diferencias/H... (tl;dr traditional interviwing has validity .14)

Here's the more recent, often cited meta-analysis: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%... (tl;dr structured interview has validity of .51)

Naturally it has an extensive bibliography if you'd like to dive deeper in the topic.

And even more references can be found here: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20...

[sfilipov]

> this approach often turns interviews into a bullshitting competition.

That is also my experience. As a result I generally avoid applying to big companies where I expect a lot of non-technical interviews. If that's how everyone is hired, I don't want to end up in a MENSA club instead of a place where people have strong technical abilities.