Meta-analysis of assessment center validity

Article Abstract:

Meta-analysis (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982) of 50 assessment center studies containing 107 validity coefficients revealed a corrected mean and variance of .37 and .017, respectively. Validities were sorted into five categories of criteria and four categories of assessment purpose. Higher validities were found in studies in which potential ratings were the criterion, and lower validities were found in promotion studies. Sufficient variance remained after correcting for artifacts to justify searching for moderators. Validities were higher when the percentage of female assessees was high, when several evaluation devices were used, when assessors were psychologists rather than managers, when peer evaluation was used, and when the study was methodologically sound. Age of assessees, whether feedback was given, days of assessor training, days of observation, percentages of minority assessees, and criterion contamination did not moderate assessment center validities. The findings suggest that assessment centers show both validity generalization and situational specificity. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Psychological aspects, Management training, Psychology, Applied, Applied psychology

---

Number of assessment center dimensions as a determinant of assessor accuracy

Article Abstract:

Undergraduates (N = 131) were trained as assessors who, evaluated the performance of confederates in an assessment center simulation on 3, 6, or 9 dimensions. Number of dimensions significantly affected some assessment center judgments but not others. Ss who rated a small number of dimensions classified behaviors more accurately and made more accurate ratings than did Ss who rated a large number of dimensions. Number of dimensions did not affect the accuracy of assessors' observations nor the discriminant validity of their dimension ratings. Given these results and the findings of others (Hinrichs & Haanpera, 1976; Russell, 1985; Sackett & Hakel, 1979; Schmitt, 1977), developers of assessment centers should limit the cognitive demands placed on assessors by, for example, minimizing the number of dimensions assessors are required to process. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Organizational behavior

---

Construct validity of self- and peer evaluations of performance dimensions in an assessment center

Article Abstract:

The construct validity of final self- and peer evaluations in an assessment center was examined within a nomological network of conceptually related and unrelated variables. Data included self-, peer, and assessor evaluations, cognitive ability and personality measures, and job advancement. The evidence for construct validity was stronger for peer than for self-evaluations, and for more easily observable dimensions than for dimensions requiring greater inferential judgment. Self- and peer evaluations were associated with assessor ratings of management potential, whereas only peer evaluations predicted job advancement. Implications for the use of self- and peer evaluations in assessment centers and the need for further research are discussed. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Peer review, Self-evaluation, Self evaluation

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Situational constraints on the achievement - performance relationship: a service sector study. Balancing work and family: a field study of multi-dimensional, multi-role work-family conflict
• Abstracts: A multiple motive perspective on strike propensities. Self-determination theory and work motivation
• Abstracts: Spiritual intimacy in later life: implications for clinical practice. A tribute to adaptability: mental illness and dementia in intimate late-life relationships
• Abstracts: Who's afraid of life extension? Is there an 'anti-aging' medicine?
• Abstracts: Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal-setting

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.