Meta-analysis of assessment center validity

Meta-analysis (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982) of 50 assessment center studies containing 107 validity coefficients revealed a corrected mean and variance of .37 and .017, respectively. Validities were sorted into five categories of criteria and four categories of assessment purpose. Higher validities were found in studies in which potential ratings were the criterion, and lower validities were found in promotion studies. Sufficient variance remained after correcting for artifacts to justify searching for moderators. Validities were higher when the percentage of female assessees was high, when several evaluation devices were used, when assessors were psychologists rather than managers, when peer evaluation was used, and when the study was methodologically sound. Age of assessees, whether feedback was given, days of assessor training, days of observation, percentages of minority assessees, and criterion contamination did not moderate assessment center validities. The findings suggest that assessment centers show both validity generalization and situational specificity. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)