This article reports a study of the construct validity of in-baskets designed to measure managerial abilities. Data were collected using a randomized pretest-posttest experimental design with two alternate in-basket forms. Results indicated that (a) there was little convergent validity and evidence of method bias both within and between alternate in-basket forms and (b) brief training improved in-basket performance on the perceptiveness and delegation dimensions and on overall performance. Both lines of evidence call into question the validity of inferring individual differences in managerial ability from in-basket scores.The assessment center was originally developed to select military officers during World War II (e.g., Thornton & Byham, 1982, pp. 19-59; Wiggins, 1973, pp. 519-539). After the war, the assessment center was adapted to civilian life and used to select managers in businesses (e.g., American Telephone & Telegraph; see Bray, 1964). In the assessment center, simulations are used to elicit behaviors believed to be useful in inferring managerial skills and abilities.There are two primary uses of assessment centers at present: selection and training. There has been a great deal of evidence that assessment centers, are useful predictors of subsequent managerial success (Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987; Thornton & Byham, 1982, pp. 251-320). The traditional explanation of such success has been that assessment centers use multiple exercises (simulations) to tap multiple dimensions (abilities or skills). At the end of the assessment center exercises, multiple assessors judge the overall competence of the managerial candidate and presumably arrive at an accurate overall picture of the candidate's abilities. Assessor knowledge of abilities such as organizing and planning, leadership, decision making, and so forth, should allow prediction of subsequent managerial success (e.g., Denning & Grant, 1979;Sackett&Dreher, 1984).More recently, questions have arisen not so much as to whether assessment centers work, but rather why they work (