Video Assessments

Last registered on October 22, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Video Assessments
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016929
Initial registration date
October 14, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
October 22, 2025, 1:08 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation
PI Affiliation

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-10-15
End date
2026-10-15
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Recently, many organizations have adopted 0:1 video-recorded interviews, particularly in job recruitment. In this format, candidates enter a virtual meeting room without a live interviewer, are presented with questions (typically in written form on the screen), and must respond verbally while being video-recorded. Increasingly, these asynchronous 0:1 interviews are replacing traditional 1:1 live interviews, especially in the initial stages of the hiring process.

A common concern is that individuals may feel uncomfortable with this format, as it lacks a real interviewer with whom they can make eye contact, build rapport, interpret nonverbal cues etc.—factors that can affect interview performance.

Thus, we conduct a randomized field experiment testing whether educating interviewees about the fairness and equity advantages of 0:1 video-recorded interviews influences their performance. During the interview, the control group is shown only the basic format description, whereas the treatment group is shown the basic format description and also informed about the format’s fairness and equity benefits. Furthermore, we explore heterogeneity in interview performance based on individuals’ personality traits and their anxiety related conditions.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bapna, Sofia et al. 2025. "Video Assessments." AEA RCT Registry. October 22. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16929-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The sample comes from students enrolled in a master's level course on Research Methods. One of their graded assignments (20% of the course final grade) is a viva voce test which takes the form of a 0:1 video-recorded interview. All of the students are required to take part in the 45-minute interview at the same time. The students are randomly assigned into one of two groups—Control or Treatment.

During the interview, students in the Control group are shown information about the interview format only. The text displayed to them reads:
"Assignment format: no live examiner; written presentation of questions; preset questions; recorded answers."

During the interview, students in the Treatment group are shown the same format information as the Control group, supplemented with explanations of the format’s fairness and equity advantages. The text displayed to them reads:
"Assignment format: no live examiner, ensures reduced interpersonal bias (EQUITY); written presentation of questions, ensures uniform delivery across candidates (EQUITY); preset questions, ensures consistent examination across individuals (FAIRNESS); recorded answers, ensures consistent rubric application via replay (FAIRNESS)."
Intervention Start Date
2025-10-15
Intervention End Date
2025-10-16

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Interview performance (i.e., grade of the student based on the instructors' evaluation of the interview).
Note: We will examine heterogeneity in performance based on personality traits (Big Five and narcissism) and anxiety-related conditions (social interaction anxiety and social phobia). Personality traits and anxiety-related conditions will be measured through surveys administered separately from the viva voce interview.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)


Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
1) Self-reported confidence/satisfaction in interview performance, measured using the following question administered at the end of the viva voce assignment:
To what extent do you agree with the statement, “I feel positive about my performance on the assignment. (Not at all, To a small extent, To some extent, To a great extent, To a very great extent)”

2) Non-grade related markers of performance. For example:
-Response fluency (fewer filler words, smoother delivery)
-Lexical richness/vocabulary
-Emotional markers in voice
-Facial tension/camera avoidance
(For #2, the scope of voice and video analysis will depend on the permissions granted by the university concerning the use of student-related materials and recordings.)

3) As a robustness test, we will examine whether the likelihood of cheating varies across conditions, to verify that any observed performance differences are not attributable to cheating.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The sample consists of students enrolled in a master’s-level course on research methods. One of their required graded assignments is a viva voce examination conducted as a 0:1 video-recorded interview. All enrolled students simultaneously participate in the 45-minute interview. Students are randomly assigned to one of two groups: Control or Treatment. During the interview, the Control group is shown only a basic description of the interview format, whereas the Treatment group is shown the same description along with additional information emphasizing the format’s fairness and equity benefits.

The primary outcomes are interview performance—assessed through graded scores, non-graded behavioral indicators, and self-reported confidence or satisfaction with interview performance. Furthermore, we examine heterogeneity in performance based on individuals’ personality traits and anxiety-related conditions.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
By a computer.
Randomization Unit
Level of randomization: student
Randomization method: block randomization, with gender as the block
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N/A
Sample size: planned number of observations
The sample includes all students enrolled in the Master’s-level BIM Research Methods course. We expect close to 200 enrolled students.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
The enrolled students will be randomly assigned to the two groups (control and treatment); approximately half the students will be in each group.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Rotterdam School of Management, IRB-E
IRB Approval Date
2025-10-01
IRB Approval Number
ETH2425-0959