Why Do Situational Interviews Predict Performance? Is it Saying How You Would Behave or Knowing How You Should Behave?

Purpose: The present study examined two theoretical explanations for why situational interviews predict work-related performance, namely (a) that they are measures of interviewees’ behavioral intentions or (b) that they are measures of interviewees’ ability to correctly decipher situational demands. Design/Methodology/Approach: We tested these explanations with 101 students, who participated in a 2-day selection simulation. Findings: In line with the first explanation, there was considerable similarity between what participants said they would do and their actual behavior in corresponding work-related situations. However, the underlying postulated mechanism was not supported by the data. In line with the second explanation, participants’ ability to correctly decipher situational demands was related to performance in both the interview and work-related situations. Furthermore, the relationship between the interview and performance in the work-related situations was partially explained by this ability to decipher situational demands. Implications: Assessing interviewees’ ability to identify criteria might be of additional value for making selection decisions, particularly for jobs where it is essential to assess situational demands. Originality/Value: The present study made an effort to open the ‘black box’ of situational interview validity by examining two explanations for their validity. The results provided only moderate support for the first explanation. However, the second explanation was fully supported by these results

Ultrastructural proof of polyomavirus in Merkel cell carcinoma tumour cells and its absence in small cell carcinoma of the lung

Contains fulltext : 81049.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: A new virus called the Merkel Cell Polyomavirus (MCPyV) has recently been found in Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC). MCC is a rare aggressive small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma primarily derived from the skin, morphologically indistinguishable from small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). So far the actual presence of the virus in MCC tumour cells on a morphological level has not been demonstrated, and the presence of MCPyV in other small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas has not been studied yet. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We investigated MCC tissue samples from five patients and SCLCs from ten patients for the presence of MCPyV-DNA by PCR and sequencing. Electron microscopy was used to search ultrastructurally for morphological presence of the virus in MCPyV-DNA positive samples. MCPyV was detected in two out of five primary MCCs. In one MCC patient MCPyV-DNA was detected in the primary tumour as well as in the metastasis, strongly suggesting integration of MCPyV in the cellular DNA of the tumour in this patient. In the primary MCC of another patient viral particles in tumour cell nuclei and cytoplasm were identified by electron microscopy, indicating active viral replication in the tumour cells. In none of the SCLCs MCPyV-DNA was detected. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results strongly suggest that MCPyV is an oncogenic polyomavirus in humans, and is potentially causally related to the development of MCC but not to the morphological similar SCLC