International Conference
conducted by Globel Academic Network
held at South California University, LOS ANGELES,USA.
FACING JOB INTERVIEWS: STRATEGY-SUCCESS NEXUS
-Dr.SelvaRani Selvam
Principal, Sri Sarada Niketan College for Women
Amaravathipudur, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India- 630311; www.srisaradaniketancollege.com
conducted by Globel Academic Network
held at South California University, LOS ANGELES,USA.
FACING JOB INTERVIEWS: STRATEGY-SUCCESS NEXUS
-Dr.SelvaRani Selvam
Principal, Sri Sarada Niketan College for Women
Amaravathipudur, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu, India- 630311; www.srisaradaniketancollege.com
ABSTRACT
Research
based outcomes on the strategies for grooming one to face job interviews
revealing one’s treasure of caliber, character, courage, conviction and
credence (C-qualities) are dealt. Research Setting and Research Findings on (i)
Broad Contours and Strategies Adopted for Preparation for Interview and (ii)
Interview Performance as Depicted by the Candidates are thrusts aspects of the
study.
Research Setting: The research setting for the study
is the Performance of Candidates in the Personality Test of Civil Services
Examinations meant for selecting IAS/IFS/IPS and Group A/B positions in the
Central Government Services in India by the Union Public Services Commission
(UPSC), New Delhi. This is two-phase
examination with interview-rate just 1%
and final success rate just about 0.5% of candidates taking the preliminary
examination. A structured
questionnaire was adopted. A sample of 35 candidates consisting of 21
successful candidates and 14 unsuccessful candidates at the interview level was
selected adopting Random sampling.
Research Findings on Broad Contours: In the sample of 35 candidates, 22
observed that they were very confident of being called for interview (based on
their own assessment of written examination performance). Of this, 16 had
passed the personality test giving a success proportion of 0.73. Out of 19
candidates who adjudged themselves as 'talkative', 13 passed out. So, being
talkative is a ‘plus’. The mean time spent in preparing for the personality test
for the passed-out candidates was 4.66 hours/day, while the same for the failed
candidates, 3.43 hours/day. The 73 minute excess time spent daily by the
passed-out group mattered the most. Out of the 31 candidates who took training
for interview only 18 passed in the interview. Taking training with training
institutes didn’t help much.
Findings
on Strategies of Interview Preparation: Adoption & Perceived Effectiveness
Rates
The 13 strategies of preparation for facing the
interview were picked up from own experience and from reviewed literature and
these were evaluated. Also, the perceived effectiveness of these strategies was
also studied, using a 5 point-scale. The mean scores for the interview-passed
out and interview-failed groups of candidates on the different strategies as to
level of adoption (X1s & X2s) and on the extent of
perceived effectiveness (Y1s & Y2s) were obtained and
given as below.
Scores for the Mutually Inclusive
Strategies of Preparing for Interview
S.
No.
|
Different Mutually Inclusive Strategies for Preparing for Interview
|
Interview- passed out candidates (Mean score)
|
Interview- failed candidates (Mean score)
|
||
X1s
|
Y1s
|
X2s
|
Y2s
|
||
1.
|
Keeping abreast of
general current development
|
4.05
|
3.70
|
4.42
|
3.86
|
2.
|
Refreshing
knowledge on home State
|
4.10
|
3.62
|
3.43
|
3.14
|
3.
|
Deep study of
recent national/ regional/international problems issues,etc.
|
3.90
|
3.95
|
3.57
|
3.14
|
4.
|
Participating in
mock interviews at homes or place of work/study
|
3.10
|
2.86
|
2.57
|
2.77
|
5.
|
Getting training
under behavioral scientists
|
1.48
|
1.52
|
0.86
|
0.43
|
6.
|
Getting training
under private training institutes
|
2.62
|
2.23
|
2.14
|
1.86
|
7.
|
Going through
write-ups of toppers about their interview proceedings
|
2.19
|
2.00
|
1.86
|
2.14
|
8.
|
Holding discussions
with friends/teachers on preparation for personality test
|
3.24
|
2.48
|
2.71
|
2.14
|
9.
|
Acquiring knowledge
on own hobbies & extra- curricular activities
|
3.62
|
3.67
|
3.86
|
3.71
|
10.
|
Making 'cuttings'
or 'clippings' of events subject-wise for ready reference
|
3.29
|
3.29
|
2.86
|
2.29
|
11.
|
Viewing TV program
on Business, Polity, Current & World Affairs, etc.
|
2.10
|
2.62
|
1.71
|
1.29
|
12.
|
Keeping abreast of
recent utterances by national/international personalities
|
3.14
|
2.62
|
2.86
|
2.43
|
13.
|
Started preparing
immediately after main written examinations
|
2.33
|
2.62
|
2.14
|
2.00
|
Source: Primary
Data
Mann-Whitney U test could not establish significant difference between Interview-passed out and Interview-failed
candidates. Finer method of testing or
alternative approach to establish the performance differences of the groups is
needed, at this juncture. Test of significance of Difference between the two
Independent Correlation Coefficients to find out the possible performance
difference, established that the interview-passed-out candidates rightly
matched the emphasis needed on a strategy of preparation for interview with the
perceived effectiveness of the strategy. That clicked well in deciding the
performance-success.
Research Findings on Depiction of one's Performance in the
Personality Test
It
should be possible for any candidate to state how well he or she perceivably
performed in the personality test. The Mann-Whitney test rejected the
null-hypothesis of equality of perceived performance depiction scores, with
Z=3.25 at 5% significance level. The significantly higher mean score of the
interview-passed out candidates than that of the interview failed candidates in
respect of each performance depiction, signified the fact that the former group
did better than the latter group in their own relative assessments. Mann-Whitney
test confirmed the significant difference between the groups.
Mean Scores of Interview Passed and Failed Candidates for
the
Different Performance Depictions
No.
|
Performance
indicators.
|
Passed (mean)
|
Failed (mean)
|
1.
|
Proceeded on
expected lines
|
2.62
|
2.14
|
2.
|
Felt confident
through out
|
2.71
|
2.28
|
3.
|
Situation totally
in your control
|
2.38
|
2.00
|
4.
|
Felt out of focus
|
2.95
|
2.28
|
5.
|
Over - awed by
initial disappointments if any
|
2.81
|
2.57
|
6.
|
Board members kept
you at ease
|
2.57
|
2.28
|
7.
|
Not hesitated to
say 'I don't know'
|
2.95
|
2.28
|
8.
|
Caught 'trapped' by
own 'traps'
|
2.86
|
2.70
|
9.
|
Presence of mind
helped much
|
2.48
|
2.14
|
10.
|
Preparations helped
much
|
2.33
|
2.21
|
Source: Primary
Data
Sum-up
In the
interview performance excellence depends on one’s methodical preparedness
adopting right strategies to the right extent. A person can self-judge his/her
performance in the interview mostly. High achievers by their hard work and
presence of mind kept the interview process under their grip.
=-=-=
MAIN PAPER
Today
job interviews are becoming a great hunt for finding the treasure of caliber,
character, courage, conviction and credence (C-qualities) in the candidates so
that right people are inducted into the organization. But these C-qualities are
wrapped due to lack of awareness or preparedness or guidance or all these
knot-together on the part of the candidates and that extra efforts are needed
to fathom them out. Instead, if the candidates are groomed to project their
C-qualities that would make the job of job interviews lighter. Here are some
research based outcomes on the strategies for grooming one to face job
interviews revealing their C-qualities, presented on four major heads, namely
Broad Contours, Specific Strategies, Research Setting and Research Findings on
(i) Broad Contours and Strategies Adopted for Preparation for Interview and (b)
Interview Performance as Depicted by the
candidates.
1. Broad Contours
Broad
Contours of interview-preparedness included ‘Level of Confidence of being called for Interview’, 'Speak and Talk
Aspects of Candidates', ‘Time spent for Preparation for Interview’ and ‘Training
for Personality Test in Coaching Institute’. These affect the general
preparedness of candidates for facing the interview.
2. Different
Strategies of Preparation for Interview
The
final interview phase in a typical selection process is very crucial and
performance at this stage might ultimately decide ‘job’ or next job-interview. Hence strenuous preparation is expected of
candidates. There are diverse strategies of preparation followed by the
candidates. More from own experience and to a small extent from words of mouth
and research literature review, 13 different mutually inclusive strategies of
preparation are identified.
These strategies
are:
i.
Keeping abreast of general
current developments
ii.
Refreshing knowledge on
home State/Country
iii.
Deep study of recent
national/regional/international problems, issues and the like
iv.
Participating in mock
interviews at home or place of work/study
v.
Getting training under
behavioral scientists
vi.
Getting training in
reputed training Institutes
vii.
Going through write-ups of
toppers’ interview experience in magazines/ news papers/ other media
viii.
Holding discussions with
friends/teachers on preparation for personality test
ix.
Acquiring knowledge on own
hobbies & extra-curricular activities
x.
Making 'cuttings' or
"clippings' of Events subject-wise for ready reference
xi.
Viewing TV programs on
Business, Policy, Current/ World Affairs, ‘Sports Round Up’ etc.
xii.
Keeping abreast of recent
utterances by important national/international personalities
xiii.
Starting preparation for
interview immediately after pre-stage examination/screening
|
3. Research Setting, Tool and Sample
The
research setting for the study is the Performance of Candidates in the
Personality Test of Civil Services Examinations meant for selecting IAS/IFS/IPS
and Group A/B positions in the Central Government Services in India by the
Union Public Services Commission (UPSC), New Delhi. The two-phase examination, involves (i)
Preliminary examination (written) and (ii)(a) Main examination (written) followed
by (ii)(b) Personality Test (i.e., Oral Interview) for screened out candidates.
Setting: Candidates are called for Personality
Test on the basis of their score in the main (written) examination, subject to social
inclusiveness policy time to time in vogue, prescribing different cut-off marks
for general and social inclusiveness-class candidates. Candidates obtaining
marks equal to or more than the cut-off marks, are called for personality test.
At personality test phase, the success-failure rate is 50:50. That is about twice
the number of total positions to be filled up during the year, are called for
interview.
The
personality test involves a face to face interview at the UPSC office, New
Delhi, lasting for about 30 minutes for each candidate. The interview board
consists of seven members, with a Chairperson as well. There are parallel
interview boards. The object of the personality test is to assess the personal
suitability of the candidates for careers in public service. The intellectual
capabilities, social qualities, administrative talents, interest in current
affairs, balance on judgment, moral integrity, critical powers of assimilation,
clear and logical exposition etc of the candidates are assessed by the
interview board in a fair and unbiased manner. The top-layer of India’s
administrative machinery is represented by the IAS/IFS/IPS and Group A/B
cadres.
Objectives: The objectives of the study are:
i.
To
Study the Strategies adopted by the Candidates to prepare for the Interview
ii.
To
measure the extent of adoption of, and perceived effectiveness rates of the
different strategies for the successful and unsuccessful candidates.
iii.
To
measure the self-judged Interview Performance Depictions by the candidates
themselves.
Hypotheses: Hypotheses of the Study are:
i.
To test whether the two groups, (interview-passed
out and interview-failed candidates) differed significantly from each other in
level of adoption and perceived effectiveness of the different strategies
ii.
To test whether the two correlation coefficients (i)
between Adoption Level and Perceived Effectiveness Level of
interview-passed-out candidates & (ii) between Adoption Level and Perceived
Effectiveness Level of interview-failed candidates differed significantly.
Research Tool: A structured questionnaire was adopted
with 5-point scaling. The questions covered content, criterion and context
factors pertaining to interview preparation strategies and opinion about
interview performance.
Sampling: The sampling technique adopted is
multi-stage sampling restricted to candidates from Tamilnadu who took the Civil
Services examination. A sample of 35 candidates consisting of 21 successful
candidates and 14 unsuccessful candidates at the interview level was randomly
chosen for enquiry into how they prepared for the personality test. Getting
this number of candidates is a great achievement, because less than 200
candidates met the criteria, both time frame, geography and performance. The
sample amounted to more than 20% of candidates in the three-year period of
study.
4.
Research Findings on Broad Contours and Strategies of Preparation for Interview Now the
research findings of the study based on primary data are dealt. The
presentation is in regard to Broad Contours, Strategies for Preparation for Interview
and Interview Performance depiction by the candidates themselves on a
structured set of factors.
4.1.1
Level of Confidence of being called for Personality Test and Performance
In the
sample of 35 candidates, 22 candidates observed that they were very confident
of being called for interview (based on their own assessment of written
examination performance). Of this 16 had passed the personality test giving a
success proportion of 0.73. Out of 13 who did entertain even a humble hope or
no hope at all of being called for personality test, 5 had passed out in the
personality test giving a success proportion of 0.38. The former category
success proportion is significantly higher than the latter category. It must be
noted that it is not merely the interview call expectation, but based on the
expectation preparing for the interview quite assiduously from early on counts
much.
4.1.2
'Speak and Talk' Aspects of Candidates and Performance
19
candidates adjudged themselves as 'talkative' and 13 adjudged them as 'quite
comfortable' (a shade less than the ‘talkative’ group) and rest felt diffident
or submissive. Readers must take the term ‘talkative’ is a positive frame! The
success proportion for the 'talkative' group amounted to 0.79 and for the non-talkative
(all the rest) group the figure was just 0.38 and significant difference
between the groups in success was found. Interview
is the place for ‘talking’ and talkativeness helps a lot.
4.1.3
Average time per day spent on Preparation for personality test and Performance
The
time spent per day by the candidates in reading the newspapers, journals and
magazines varied widely from just 2 hours a day to 11 hours a day. The mean
time spent in preparing for the personality test for the passed-out candidates
amounted to 4.66 hours a day, while the same for the failed candidates,
amounted to 3.43 hours a day. With high levels of standard deviation, the
interview passed and failed candidates did not differ significantly on mean
time spent. Still, the 73 minute excess time spent daily by the passed-out
group mattered the most.
4.1.4
Training for Personality Test with Coaching Institute and Performance
31 out
of the 35 candidates, who appeared for interview, took training in one or more
coaching institute(s) in order to get them equipped for the personality test. Behavior
modeling was also imparted to the candidates. Out of the 31 candidates who took
training, 18 passed in the interview, giving a pass percentage for the group at
58%. Nexus between Training for
Personality Test with Coaching Institute and Performance didn’t get established,
however.
4.2
Strategies of Interview Preparation: Adoption and Perceived Effectiveness Rates
The 13 strategies for preparation for facing the
interview were evaluated. Also, the perceived effectiveness of these methods
was also studied. 5 point-scale was adopted. The mean scores for the
interview-passed out and interview-failed groups of candidates on the different
strategies as to level of adoption (X1 & X2) and on
the extent of perceived effectiveness (Y1 & Y2) were
obtained.
It must be noted that in India at the time the study
was made, annually about 700 to 800 candidates were finally selected. Twice
this number, that is about 1400 to 1600 candidates normally called for the
interview. That meant the 1400 to 1600 passed out the Main (written)
examination. On average, this 1400 to 1600 candidates emanated from 10 times
this of number of candidates, that is 14000 to 16,000, who wrote the Main
(written) examination, clearing the preliminary examination. Usually, about
140,000 to 160,000 wrote the Preliminary examination from whom the above
referred to 14,000 to 16,000 candidates emerged successful permitted to write
the Main (written) examination. That is final success rate is about 0.5% and
interviewed rate is just 1% of candidates taking the preliminary
examination. This is the level of high
competitiveness of the examination as a whole.
Table 1: Scores for the Mutually Inclusive
Strategies of Preparing for Interview
S.
No.
|
Different Mutually Inclusive Strategies for Preparing for Interview
|
Interview- passed out candidates (Mean score)
|
Interview- failed candidates (Mean score)
|
||
X1s
|
Y1s
|
X2s
|
Y2s
|
||
1.
|
Keeping abreast of
general current development
|
4.05
|
3.70
|
4.42
|
3.86
|
2.
|
Refreshing
knowledge on home State
|
4.10
|
3.62
|
3.43
|
3.14
|
3.
|
Deep study of
recent national/ regional/international problems issues,etc.
|
3.90
|
3.95
|
3.57
|
3.14
|
4.
|
Participating in
mock interviews at homes or place of work/study
|
3.10
|
2.86
|
2.57
|
2.77
|
5.
|
Getting training
under behavioral scientists
|
1.48
|
1.52
|
0.86
|
0.43
|
6.
|
Getting training
under private training institutes
|
2.62
|
2.23
|
2.14
|
1.86
|
7.
|
Going through
write-ups of toppers about their interview proceedings
|
2.19
|
2.00
|
1.86
|
2.14
|
8.
|
Holding discussions
with friends/teachers on preparation for personality test
|
3.24
|
2.48
|
2.71
|
2.14
|
9.
|
Acquiring knowledge
on own hobbies & extra- curricular activities
|
3.62
|
3.67
|
3.86
|
3.71
|
10.
|
Making 'cuttings'
or 'clippings' of events subject-wise for ready reference
|
3.29
|
3.29
|
2.86
|
2.29
|
11.
|
Viewing TV program
on Business, Polity, Current & World Affairs, etc.
|
2.10
|
2.62
|
1.71
|
1.29
|
12.
|
Keeping abreast of
recent utterances by national/international personalities
|
3.14
|
2.62
|
2.86
|
2.43
|
13.
|
Started preparing
immediately after main written examinations
|
2.33
|
2.62
|
2.14
|
2.00
|
Source: Primary
Data
4.2.1
Test of significance of Difference between Means
Mann-Whitney U test was adopted on rank transformed X1s and X2s testing
for equality of means of adoption scores for the two groups. The test could not
establish any significant difference
between Interview-passed out and Interview-failed candidates. Yes the
variation is minute because the two groups are highly competitive and only a
thin shade of difference normally exists. But this thin shade of difference
must be established convincingly, however. Finer method of testing or alternative approach to establish the
performance differences of the groups is needed, at this juncture.
4.2.2
Test of significance of Difference between Independent Correlation Coefficients
Individually
the correlation coefficient between Adoption
Level and Perceived Effectiveness Level of interview-passed-out candidates is
significant (0.9: X1s,
Y1s) and the same between of the interview-failed
candidates (0.575: X2s, Y2s) is also significant, though the value is lower. Test
of significance of Difference between the two Independent Correlation Coefficients
is attempted to find out the possible performance difference, with ‘Z’
transformation approach. And the difference was established which meant that
the interview-passed-out candidates rightly matched the emphasis needed on a
strategy of preparation for interview with perceived effectiveness of the
strategy.
5. Research Findings on Depiction of
one's Performance in the Personality Test
It
should be possible for any candidate to state how well he or she perceivably
performed in the personality test. This depiction is a testimony of one’s
performance by one-self. Everyone is one’s own best judge. A comparison of this
perceived performance depiction scores of the two groups could establish the
difference between the Interview-passed out candidates and Interview-failed
candidates. Varied depictions of perceived performance were used as yardsticks.
The candidates’ responses were obtained on a three point scale, namely, ‘high’,
‘moderate’ and ‘low’.
The
interview performance depiction score is measured over 10 factors are as
follows:
i.
Proceeded on expected lines
|
ii.
Felt confident throughout
|
iii.
Situation totally in your control
|
iv.
Felt out of focus
|
v.
Over-awed by initial disappointments
|
vi.
Board members kept you at ease
|
vii.
Not hesitated to say, 'I don't know'
|
viii.
Caught 'trapped' by own 'traps'
|
ix.
Presence of mind helped much
|
x.
Preparations helped much
|
‘Proceeded
on expected lines' as a perceived performance depiction measured the extent to
which the about 30 minutes' duration personality test proceedings went
according to a candidates' expectation of the course of personality test. 'Felt
confident throughout' underlined self-confidence as a positive contributor. ‘Situation
totally in your (i.e. candidate's) control’ depicted the ability of the
candidates to keep the board members to rejoice through his/her intellectual
and spirited performance enabling the candidate to keep the interview situation
totally in his/her control. 'Felt out of focus' is a negative factor and could
happen when the interview proceedings dripped out of focus. 'Over-awed by
initial disappointments', a negative factor, might happen that certain initial
disappointments at the very beginning of the interview haunted the candidate
throughout and that he/she would not recover throughout the course. In a sense,
this indicates inability of the candidate to handle 'stress'.
‘Board
members kept you at ease' referred to overall interview environment, helping
not hindering to find out one’s C-qualities. 'Not hesitated to say "I
don't know' is a positive depiction indicating the candidates' assertiveness
and honesty. But, such responses are better fewer in number! ‘Caught trapped by
own traps' is a negative depiction. Generally, the interviewers take leads from candidate's responses
and interests. It might happen that a ‘wrong lead’ might wreck a candidate. 'Presence of mind helped much' is a very
important depiction. Presence of mind will see a candidate, through the rough
and tough of interview. Presence of mind tests the candidate's pragmatism and
situation- specific articulation. Would be administrators are seriously tested
on presence of mind. Finally, 'preparations helped much' comes as a depiction
of perceived performance. Though every interview is a unique course, preparation for the interview constitutes the
fundamental strength from which other strengths such as self-confidence,
presence of mind, etc emerge. For personality test of the type of civil
services examination, a lot could be gained through systematic preparation.
Table 2 gives the distribution of candidates with the sub classification for
interview passed and interview failed groups under high, moderate and low
levels for the above 10 perceived performance depictions.
Table 2 Distribution of Candidates by General Perception
on One's Performance
S. No.
|
Performance Indicator
|
High Level
|
Moderate
|
Low Level
|
|||
Passed
|
Failed
|
Passed
|
Failed
|
Passed
|
Failed
|
||
1.
|
Proceeded on expected lines
|
14
|
4
|
6
|
8
|
1
|
2
|
2.
|
Felt confidence through out
|
16
|
7
|
4
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
3.
|
Situation totally in your control
|
10
|
4
|
9
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
4.
|
Felt out of focus
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
6
|
20
|
6
|
5.
|
Over-awed by initial disappointments
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
18
|
8
|
6.
|
Board members kept you at ease
|
13
|
8
|
7
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
7.
|
Not hesitated to say 'I don't know'
|
20
|
8
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
4
|
8.
|
Caught 'trapped' by own 'traps'
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
18
|
9
|
9.
|
Presence of mind helped much
|
12
|
4
|
7
|
8
|
2
|
2
|
10.
|
Preparations helped much
|
10
|
4
|
8
|
9
|
3
|
1
|
Source: Primary
Data
The
group-wise mean scores for each of the above ten perceived performance
indicators were obtained for interview passed and failed candidates separately.
3, 2 and 1 points for 'high', 'moderate' and 'low' ratings, were assigned for
positive indicators and the scores reversed for negative factors. Group mean
score was obtained adopting weighted average. These mean scores are given in
table 3. The Mann-Whitney test rejected the null-hypothesis of equality of
perceived performance depiction scores, with Z=3.25, at 5% significance level.
The significantly
higher mean score of the interview-passed out candidates than that of the
interview failed candidates in respect of each performance depiction, signified
the fact that the former group did better than the latter group in their own relative
assessments. Also, test of significance of difference between proportions of
the two classes of candidates crossed with levels of performance depictions
(‘High’ and ‘Moderate-Low Combined’) rejected null hypothesis of no difference
in 6 out of 10 performance depictions. This meant that successful candidates
are masters of their interview performance while unsuccessful candidates could
not have that much breathing space or leeway, because of own
making/marring/messing-up or so.
Table 3: Mean Scores of Interview- Passed and Failed Candidates
for the
Different Performance Depictions
No.
|
Performance
indicators.
|
Passed (mean)
|
Failed (mean)
|
1.
|
Proceeded on
expected lines
|
2.62
|
2.14
|
2.
|
Felt confident
through out
|
2.71
|
2.28
|
3.
|
Situation totally
in your control
|
2.38
|
2.00
|
4.
|
Felt out of focus
|
2.95
|
2.28
|
5.
|
Over - awed by initial
disappointments if any
|
2.81
|
2.57
|
6.
|
Board members kept
you at ease
|
2.57
|
2.28
|
7.
|
Not hesitated to
say 'I don't know'
|
2.95
|
2.28
|
8.
|
Caught 'trapped' by
own 'traps'
|
2.86
|
2.70
|
9.
|
Presence of mind
helped much
|
2.48
|
2.14
|
10.
|
Preparations helped
much
|
2.33
|
2.21
|
Source: Primary
Data
Sum-up
In the
interview performance excellence depends on one’s methodical preparedness
adopting right strategies. The strategies of preparation for interview and
perceived effectiveness of the strategies had a significantly higher
correlation for passed-out candidates than the interview-failed candidates. A
person can self-judge his/her performance in the interview mostly. High
achievers by their hard work, presence of mind and other factors kept the
interview process under their own-grip, emerging successful in the end.
Significant performance differences existed between the groups as revealed by
the scores on the performance depictions.
-=-=-
