An Empirical Comparison of Self-Assessment and Organizational Assessment in Personnel Selection

Abstract

While it can be accepted that we as human beings are capable of knowing and assessing ourselves, it is not clear whether such self-assessment information can be accurately reported and used in a predictive role. Self-assessment information was requested of 85 applicants before and after an assessment centre selection program. Those applicants em ployed provided self-assessments of job performance after 12 months on the job. Self-assessments were com pared with organizational evaluations of performance at selection and after 12 months employment. The moderating effects of age, gender, intelligence, social desirability, work experience, and education were considered for each relationship. Resu Its showed that general ly self-assessment was unrelated to organizational assessments. Post-assessment centre selfassessments were significantly lower than self-assessments requested prior to the centre. Dave George is an In dustrial/Organizational PsyctiologisI in Itie Manage ment Services Department of Peat Mar%vick, in Wcllmgtot\,Nortti, New Zealand. He has published articles in the areas ot personnel selection and as sessment. 1-te has lectured in Industrial /Organizational Psychotogy al Massey Univer sity and has been involved in the design of selection and ap praisal programs, sur\'ey and research projects for a range of government and private sector organizations. continuiä A number of recent review^s have shown that self-assessment is a valid source of predictor information. Shrauger and Osberg (1981) considered those studies which compared self-a.ssessment with other assessment pro cedures in a range of settings and concluded that other assessment methods did not show clearly superior validity when compared to self-assessment. Mabe and West (1982) focused on the effects of individual characteristics and measurement conditions on the relationship between various ability and performance measures and self-assessment. Potential individual char acteristics associated with accurate self-evaluation included relatively higher intelligence, high achievement status, and internal locus of control. In general terms, accurate self-evaluator tended to be the more intelligent subjects, individuals high in achievement status, and those with an internal locus of control. In addition, Mabe and West (1982) showed that when certain favorable conditions of measurement were present there was a substantial increase in the mean validity coefficient. The measurement conditions which were the main contributors to explained variance were relative self-evaluation, expectations of validation, anonymity instruction and self-evaluation experience. The increase from .00 (no measurement conditions present), to .64 (any four measurement conditions) implied that many of the finding reported in the literature may be affected by the way in which .self-assessment data were collected.A recent review by Harris and Schaubroek (1988) focused on the relationship between self, peer, and supervisory assessments in mainly work settings. They reported a relative...

A comparison of assessor and self dimension ratings in an advanced management assessment centre

“…O n the other hand, since there was no concern that the results would be used to make decisions, the instructions may have resulted in greater similarity between ratings (Farh & Werbel, 1986;Mabe & West, 1982). In another study, George & Smith (1990) found no significant correlations between assessor and self-ratings of assessment exercises. They also found that these rclationships were not moderated by cognitive ability or gender.…”

The value of subjectivity: problems and prospects for 360-degree appraisal systems

“…It has even been suggested that employee participation in appraisals could be extended as far as bilateral approaches to personnel selection for certain jobs (George and Smith, 1990;Robertson and Makin, 1986). Hogan (1991) has offered a theoretical rationale for considering the relative efficacy of self versus others' appraisal.…”

Short report: The impact of measurement conditions on the validity of self-assessment in a selection setting

“…However, few studies have been conducted in selection and findings are inconsistent, with some reporting that SAs are unrelated to organizational assessments (George & Smith, 1990), whereas others have found them to be valid (Fox & Dinur, 1988). In addition, Mabe and West (1982) highlighted that certain measurement conditions have a substantial positive impact on the quality of self-ratings (e.g., social comparison instructions, expectation of validation, anonymity of raters, and previous SA experience).…”