A Triadic Approach to the Construct Validity of the Assessment Center

Abstract

This study examined the influence on construct validity of implementing the triad Feeling, Thinking, and Power as a taxonomy for behavioral dimensions in assessment center (AC) exercises. A sample of 1567 job applicants participated in an AC specifically developed according to this taxonomy. Each exercise tapped three dimensions, one dimension from each cluster of the taxonomy. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the multitraitmultimethod matrix showed evidence for construct validity. Thus, the ratings matched the a priori triadic grouping to a good extent. Practical implications are discussed.

Candidates' Ability to Identify Criteria in Nontransparent Selection Procedures: Evidence from an assessment center and a structured interview

“…Based on a job analysis conducted for an earlier study, three dimensions were chosen to be assessed in the AC and the interview: Systematic Planning (prioritizing tasks, making plans for tasks and projects, making appointments in due time, and allocating tasks), Leadership Behavior (striving for and assuming responsibility for tasks and groups, coordination of teams, and arguing for one's point of view in groups), and Cooperation (assisting others with problems they may have, considering the needs of others, being prepared to compromise with others, and mediating between diverging points of view). These three dimensions correspond to the thinking–power–feeling taxonomy suggested for ACs (Kolk, Born, & van der Flier, 2004). As in many ACs (cf.…”

A New Scoring Procedure in Assessment Centers: Insights from Interaction Analysis

“…Several studies have already demonstrated increases in the construct validity of ACs by improving the observation of the behaviors shown during the exercise. This was accomplished either by reducing the number of dimensions to rate (Kolk, Born, & Van der Flier, 2004), by ensuring that the behaviors to be rated will be visible in the exercise (Klehe et al, 2008;Lievens, Chasteen, Day, & Christianson, 2006), by frame-of-reference trainings (Woehr & Huffcutt, 1994), and by using behavioral checklists instead of overall trait ratings (Jackson, Barney, Stillman, & Kirkley, 2007). Although the effects on construct validity tend to be small, these findings suggest that more systematic procedures that enable AC developers to select independent and easily measurable (behavioral) dimensions will help distinguish between these dimensions.…”

Construct validity of competency dimensions in a leadership assessment and development centre

“…In agreement with Kolk et al (2004) it is worthwhile to note that AC dimensions are never completely orthogonal and therefore less discriminant validity may naturally be expected. In the ALS simulation for example it is expected that similar behaviour would relate to the winning business and business acumen competency dimensions.…”

“…The results of the study hold implications for improving construct validity of the LADC through improved AC design. Construct validity of ACs depends primarily on the accuracy of ratings and thus assessors' ability to process complex cognitive information inherent to the AC process (Kolk et al, 2004;Melchers et al, 2010;Moses, 2008;Thornton and Krause, 2009). In the LADC the assessors' cognitive load was affected by the large number of competency dimensions.…”

“…The small number of competencies in the SPS and EXEC exercises combined with their logical underlying similarity (for example, personal impact and oral communication) were furthermore not efficient in distinguishing behaviour. Kolk et al (2004) recommends three to five competencies per exercise. Competencies assessed in a particular exercise should then however be more distinct to ensure that the AC remains competency based rather than become exercise focussed involving redundant and inefficient assessment of similar competencies.…”