No abstract

The purpose of this study was (a) to provide additional tests of C. E. Lance, Newbolt, et al.'s (2000) situational specificity (vs. method bias) interpretation of exercise effects on assessment center postexercise dimension ratings and (b) to provide competitive tests of salient dimension versus general impression models of assessor within-exercise evaluations of candidate performance. Results strongly support the situational specificity hypothesis and the general impression model of assessor cognitive processes in which assessors first form overall evaluations of candidate performance that then drive more specific dimensional ratings.

The inability of assessment center (AC) researchers to find admissible solutions for confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) models that include dimensions has led some to conclude that ACs do not measure dimensions at all. This study investigated whether increasing the indicator-factor ratio facilitates the achievement of convergent and admissible CFA solutions in 2 independent ACs. Results revealed that, when models specify multiple behavioral checklist items as manifest indicators of each latent dimension, all of the AC CFA models tested were identified and returned proper solutions. When armed with the ability to undertake a full set of model comparisons using model fit rather than solution convergence and admissibility as comparative criteria, we found clear evidence for modest dimension effects. These results suggest that the frequent failure to find dimensions in models of the internal structure of ACs is a methodological artifact and that one approach to increase the likelihood for reaching a proper solution is to increase the number of manifest indicators for each dimension factor. In addition, across exercise dimension ratings and the overall assessment rating were both strongly correlated with dimension and exercise factors, indicating that regardless of how an AC is scored, exercise variance will continue to play a key role in the scoring of ACs.

A two-year collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and advisers from the major national organizations of mediators produced a job analysis relevant to mediators involved in interpersonal disputes (i.e., divorce, community, formal parent-child mediation, etc.). One byproduct of the job analysis is an extensive list of the knowledge areas and skills important to effective job performance. This essay defines the knowledge and skill areas that emerged from the analysis.

Over time, many fields of work—law, medicine, and teaching—matured from informal bodies of knowledge and skills, passed from one practitioner to another, into professions. In the process each began enumerating and affirming their intellectual and practical roots. Each also began testing practitioners to insure comprehension of relevant knowledge and an ability to demonstrate relevant skills. Family mediators in Canada have moved in this direction. In the United States, people who mediate interpersonal disputes also feel pressured to take additional steps to assure the quality of our work. This article summarizes what mediation organizations in the United States have done and could do to vouch for work in our field. But, taking additional steps calls for a clearer understanding of what a mediator should know and what they are expected to do. These two critical pieces of information remain nebulous. So, this article goes beyond describing ways of insuring accountability by also describing a recently completed job analysis, a tool frequently used in other fields of work to describe the skills and knowledge relevant to a particular job.