During the past 30 years, individual psychological assessment (IPA) has gained in use and in value to organizations in the management of human resources. However, even though IPA is considered a core competency for industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology, its practice is not without critics. This article is written not only to address several criticisms of IPA but also to discuss a variety of issues that must be taken into consideration if IPA is to advance as a major component of the I–O scientist–practitioner model. We rely upon a working definition of IPA in general but, when possible, focus on executive assessment in particular, given its high level of complexity and growing popularity. We discuss the effectiveness of assessment practice, including the ongoing statistical versus clinical prediction argument and the difficulties with establishing validity. Although we are confident that IPA has many strong research and practice underpinnings, we also propose some important research questions, training guidelines, and opportunities for assessing psychologists to improve their practices.

Individual Psychological Assessment is widely practiced among I–O psychologists and supported as a core competency by a majority of the commentaries. Our response addresses some of the key points made in the commentaries, such as issues related to the definition, contextual and criterion variables, interpretation and integration methods, validity evidence, professional matters, and future research directions. We also respond to a few critics who want to entirely eliminate expert assessor judgment in IPAs. Models are presented for using assessor judgment and mechanical methods in IPAs and for distinguishing naïve and sophisticated IPA researchers and practitioners. We conclude that IPA is now widely accepted as a core part of I–O psychology.

No abstract