Transsituational variability in human performance within assessment centers

Turnage, Janet J.; Muchinsky, Paul M.

doi:10.1016/0030-5073(82)90217-3

Cited by 54 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They concluded that the dimension ratings did not accurately reflect the abilities they were purported to measure. Several other studies support these findings (e.g., Joyce, Thayer & Pond, 1994;Sackett & Dreher, 1982;Schneider & Schmitt, 1992;Silverman, Dalessio, Woods & Johnson, 1986;Turnage & Muchinsky, 1982). According to Bycio et al, the failure of ACs to demonstrate construct validity may result from the cognitive limitations of the assessors to rate accurately a large number of complex dimensions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Constructs and developmental assessment centers: Further troubling empirical findings

Fleenor

1996

J Bus Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is ample evidence that environmental and situational factors can affect the quality of performance measures (Borman, 1978;McCall & DeVries, 1976;Schwab et al, 1975;Scott & Hamner, 1975;Turnage & Muchinsky, 1982).…”

Section: Environmental Context Non-work Variables Performance Constmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is strong support in the literature for the use of all of these techniques for the measurement of individual job performance (Boehm, 1982;Hakel, 1982;Robertson & Downs, 1979;Smith, 1976;Vineberg & Joyner, 1982). As discussed previously, this method will focus on measuring the smallest possible unit of job-relevant behaviors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Job Performance Measurement in the Military: A Classification Scheme, Literature Review, and Directions for Research

Kavanagh¹,

Borman²,

Hedge³

et al. 1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This indicated that the performance areas are unidimensional and that halo probably was not occurring (Turnage & Muchinsky, 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Typically, the validity coefficient in assessment centers is determined by correlating the overall assessment rating with a measure of job performance. However, recent studies have investigated the extent to which performance in one skill area of the assessment center is related to job performance in the same skill area (Huck & Bray, 1976;Turnage & Muchinsky, 1982;Rotolo, 1989). Mixed results on the significance of these correlations has been found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Predicting sales performance

Burroughs

White²

1996

J Bus Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT" This study investigated the relative effectiveness of several types of predictors of sales performance in a human resource consulting firm. These predictors included scores on an assessment center, a structured interview, a test of technical knowledge, and a simulated sales presentation. The criterion measure used was supervisory ratings of overall sales performance, or "the extent to which this person accomplishes sales quotas." In addition, the skill to skill validity of the counselor selling dimension, which included relating, discovering, supporting, advocating, and collaborating, was assessed. Results indicated that both the structured interview and the assessment center were effective in predicting sales performance, (R = .63, F= 7.90, p = .002). Also, this study indicates that performance in each of the skill areas of an assessment center or of an interview is a valid predictor of on the job performance in each of the same skill areas.

show abstract

Transsituational variability in human performance within assessment centers

Cited by 54 publications

References 60 publications

Constructs and developmental assessment centers: Further troubling empirical findings

Constructs and developmental assessment centers: Further troubling empirical findings

Job Performance Measurement in the Military: A Classification Scheme, Literature Review, and Directions for Research

Predicting sales performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About