General performance factors and group differences in assessment center ratings

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent of general performance factors (GPF) in assessment center (AC) exercises and dimensions. The study further aims to determine if larger GPF contributes to larger ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions that are more cognitively loaded in an emerging market context. Design/methodology/approach-The authors analyzed data across three independent AC samples (Sample 1: N = 172; Sample 2: N = 281; Sample 3: N = 428). The Schmid-Leiman solution was used to determine the extent of GPF in AC exercises and dimensions. An independent samples t-test and Cohen's d was used to determine the size of ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions. Findings-The results indicate that GPF is consistently large for the in-basket exercise. Furthermore, dimensions that are more cognitively loaded, such as problem solving, strategic thinking, and business acumen, seem to produce the largest ethnic group differences. Overall, the research indicates that larger GPF is associated with larger ethnic group differences in relation to specific AC dimensions and exercises. Originality/value-The authors add to the literature by investigating the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings across AC exercises and dimensions. A novel contribution of the research attempts to link the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings to group membership in South Africa. The study offers an alternative statistical analysis procedure to examine GPF in AC ratings.

Same‐gender and same‐race bias in assessment center ratings: A rating error approach to understanding subgroup differences

“…Assessors make observations and judgments of behaviors relevant to dimensions as elicited by exercises. Research has demonstrated the differing nature of dimensions and simulation exercises, the role of cognitive ability in performance effectiveness, and racial subgroup differences (Bobko & Roth, ; Buckett, Becker, & Roodt, ; Ployhart & Holtz, ; Roth, Bobko, McFarland, & Buster, ). This raises the question of whether assessor errors occur in different ways in different dimensions and different exercises, and whether they are influenced by assessor and assesse demographic variables.…”

Ethical challenges in assessment centres in South Africa

“…Bias, prejudice and unfairness in the use of ACs could result from many variables such as the attitudes, values and judgements of the assessor (Kuncel & Highhouse, 2011;Muchinsky et al, 2005), properties of the measures (Buckett, Becker & Roodt, 2017;Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013;Moerdyk, 2009), contextual realities embodied in the socio-political world at the time (Donald et al, 2014;Foxcroft & Roodt, 2013), cultural preferences for certain personality characteristics such as bias towards extroverts (Collins et al, 2003;Crawley, Pinder & Herriot, 1990;De Beer, 2012;Furnham, Jensen & Crump, 2008;Jackson et al, 2010) and a tendency towards cloning (Bagues & Perez-Villadoniga, 2013;Fiske, 1999). In ACs specifically, preconceived ideas, different points of view, different interpretations and differences in scoring and scoring methods, especially where judgement is concerned, may lead to disparate outcomes (Kuncel, Klieger, http://www.sajip.co.za Open Access…”