Construct Validity of Two Categories of Assessment Center Dimension Ratings

Shore, Ted H.; Thornton, George C.; Shore, Lynn M.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02008.x

Cited by 68 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Past research that studied the nomological network of AC ratings involved the overall assessment rating (e.g., Collins et al, 2003), final dimension ratings (Dilchert & Ones, 2009;Meriac, Hoffman, & Woehr, 2014;Shore, Thornton, & Shore, 1990), overall exercise ratings (Hoffman, Kennedy, LoPilato, Monahan & Lance, 2015), or latent exercise factors together with the latent general performance factor (Lance et al, 2007) and their relationships with the Big Five and general mental ability (GMA). However, this research allows only limited inferences with regard to the constructrelated validity of the different latent components that constitute AC performance, namely, dimensions, exercises, and general performance (Hoffman et al, 2011) relative to each other.…”

Section: Nomological Network Of Ac Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A test of the generalizability of a recently suggested conceptual model for assessment center ratings

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Nomological Network Of Ac Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A test of the generalizability of a recently suggested conceptual model for assessment center ratings

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…But, in addition, they agree wel1 with fïndings from research (as discussed above) into determinants of career advancement in management. And moreover, they correspond closely with results from research into the basic dimensions that, generally, underlie assessment center ratings (Sagie & Magnezy, 1997;Scholz & Schuier, 1993;Shore, Thomton & McFarlane Shore, 1990). In every step of the selection procedure, these rather broad dimensional categories are elucidated by corresponding behavioral samples or 'anchors' of the dimensions.…”

Section: Selection Dimensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamics of assessment center validity: Results of a 7-year study.

Jansen

Stoop²

2001

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors investigated temporal trends in the validity of an assessment center consisting of a group discussion and an analysis presentation exercise for predicting career advancement as measured by average salary growth over a 7-year period in a sample of 679 academic graduates. The validity of the overall assessment rating for persons with tenure of 7 years, corrected for initial differences in starting salaries and restriction in range, was .39. There was a considerable time variation in the validity of both the overall assessment rating and the assessment center dimensions. In accordance with findings from research in managerial effectiveness and development, the interpersonal effectiveness dimension became valid only after a number of years, whereas the firmness dimension was predictive in the whole period and increased with time. For comparison, validity trends for 2 types of interviews and a mental test were also studied.

show abstract

“…One study that found evidence of construct validity for AC dimension ratings is Shore, Thornton and Shore (1990). They investigated the validity of these ratings using measures of personality and cognitive ability within a nomological network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Using this unified model of validity, the present study investigated the construct validity of ratings from a developmental AC. The nomological network approach used by Shore et al (1990) appears to be a suitable method for studying construct validity. By enlarging this network to include measures of job performance in addition to personality, the present study attempts to provide stronger evidence of construct validity for assessment centers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructs and developmental assessment centers: Further troubling empirical findings

Fleenor

1996

J Bus Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:. Research indicates that assessment center (AC) ratings typically demonstrate poor construct validity; that is, they do not measure the intended dimensions of managerial performance (e.g., Sackett & Harris, 1988). The purpose of this study was to investigate the construct validity of dimension ratings from a developmental assessment center (N= 102), using multitrait-multimethod analysis and factor analysis. The relationships between AC ratings, job performance ratings, and personality measures also were investigated. Results indicate that the AC ratings failed to demonstrate construct validity. The ratings did not show the expected relationships with the job performance and personality measures. Additionally, the factors underlying these ratings were found to be the AC exercises, rather than the managerial dimensions as expected. Potentially, this lack of construct validity of the dimension ratings is a serious problem for a developmental assessment center. There is little evidence that the managerial weaknesses identified by the AC are the dimensions that actually need to be improved on the job. Methods are discussed for improving the construct validity of AC ratings, for example, by decreasing the cognitive demands on the assessors.

show abstract

Construct Validity of Two Categories of Assessment Center Dimension Ratings

Cited by 68 publications

References 31 publications

A test of the generalizability of a recently suggested conceptual model for assessment center ratings

A test of the generalizability of a recently suggested conceptual model for assessment center ratings

The dynamics of assessment center validity: Results of a 7-year study.

Constructs and developmental assessment centers: Further troubling empirical findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About