Search

Although research has established the criterion-related validity of assessment centers for selection purposes, the construct validity of dimension ratings has not been demonstrated. A quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the influence of retranslated behavior checklists on the construct validity of dimension ratings for two assessment center exercises. Assessor use of behavior checklists increased the average convergent (i.e., same dimension across exercise) validity from .24 to .43 while decreasing the average discriminant (i.e., different dimension within exercise) validity (.47 to .41). Behavior checklist sums were moderately correlated with corresponding dimension ratings and demonstrated a comparable level of construct validity. It is suggested that using behavior checklists may improve dimension construct validity by reducing the cognitive demands placed on raters. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Validity coefficients for a single assessment center implemented in multiple locations are presented. Correction for range restriction, criterion unreliability, and sampling error did not account for a large portion of the variability in these validity coefficients. The type of assessor used, the center's administrative arrangement, and prior assessor-assessee contact moderated these validities. It is suggested that the quality of the implementation of a selection procedure when there is local latitude in its implementation is an important factor in determining the procedure's effectiveness. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

The finding that assessment centers are successful in making valid predictions of managerial success is well established in the literature. Unfortunately, it is not clearly understood why assessment centers work. For example, construct validity of assessment center dimensions is rarely obtained. In this paper we affirm the evidence for predictive validity of assessment centers and conclude that assessment centers can work for a variety of purposes and in numerous contexts. But we also assert that we do not know why they work. The bulk of the paper goes on to raise possible explanations for the predictive validity observed in assessment centers and raises implications for practice and guidance of future research. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Assessment center ratings of 52 state law enforcement agency managers predicted both a contaminated promotions criterion and two uncontaminated ratings criteria, but they did significantly better in predicting the former. Criteria data were gathered two, four, and seven years after the assessment center, and a modest upward trend in validity coefficients was observed. Ratings by subordinates demonstrated promise as a near term predictor, outperforming the assessment center on uncontaminated criteria in the two- and four-year time frames. Last, regression analyses using the Year Seven criteria revealed unique predictive power for both ratings by subordinates and assessment centers above and beyond that provided by supervisor ratings. (Reprinted with permission of the publisher.)

Literature on the use of content validity to establish the job-relatedness of assessment centers is reviewed. Most approaches to content validity are shown to focus on job-analysis-based exercise construction and dimension selection as the bases for determining the content validity of an assessment center. The article attempts to show that content validity requires more that the careful construction of stimulus materials (i.e., exercises); how these stimulus materials are presented to candidates and how responses to these stimuli are evaluated are also critical considerations in making judgments about content validity. Variability in the way these issues are dealt with is documented. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)