Premium
A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS
Author(s) -
ARTHUR WINFRED,
DAY ERIC ANTHONY,
MCNELLY THERESA L.,
EDENS PAMELA S.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00146.x
Subject(s) - assessment center , dimension (graph theory) , psychology , criterion validity , variance (accounting) , center (category theory) , statistics , set (abstract data type) , range (aeronautics) , social psychology , psychometrics , applied psychology , mathematics , construct validity , clinical psychology , computer science , combinatorics , chemistry , materials science , accounting , programming language , business , composite material , crystallography
We used meta‐analytic procedures to investigate the criterion‐related validity of assessment center dimension ratings. By focusing on dimension‐level information, we were able to assess the extent to which specific constructs account for the criterion‐related validity of assessment centers. From a total of 34 articles that reported dimension‐level validities, we collapsed 168 assessment center dimension labels into an overriding set of 6 dimensions: (a) consideration/awareness of others, (b) communication, (c) drive, (d) influencing others, (e) organizing and planning, and (f) problem solving. Based on this set of 6 dimensions, we extracted 258 independent data points. Results showed a range of estimated true criterion‐related validities from .25 to .39. A regression‐based composite consisting of 4 out of the 6 dimensions accounted for the criterion‐related validity of assessment center ratings and explained more variance in performance (20%) than Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, and Bentson (1987) were able to explain using the overall assessment center rating (14%).