Premium
Assessment Centre Observation Procedures: An Experimental Comparison of Traditional, Checklist and Coding Methods
Author(s) -
Hennessy Jo,
Mabey Bill,
Warr Peter
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/1468-2389.00093
Subject(s) - checklist , judgement , psychology , coding (social sciences) , construct (python library) , social psychology , cognition , dimension (graph theory) , construct validity , cognitive dimensions of notations , applied psychology , cognitive psychology , clinical psychology , statistics , psychometrics , computer science , mathematics , epistemology , philosophy , neuroscience , pure mathematics , programming language
Concern about the construct validity of assessment centre judgements has led to calls for research into observers’ cognitive processes. In an experiment comparing the Traditional observation procedure against use of a Behavioural Checklist and of Behavioural Coding, six outcome variables were examined. The methods were found to yield similar outcomes in terms of accuracy of judgement, accuracy of written evidence, correlation between dimension ratings, and attitude toward the method employed. However, significant between‐method differences were observed in variability between observers and in their willingness to recommend a procedure. It is argued that Behavioural Coding has special merit in assessment centres; the method reduces the cognitive demands placed on assessors, and valuably structures their information‐processing. Traditional objections to simultaneous observation and classification are shown to be inappropriate.