Premium
Two field tests of an explanation of assessment centre validity
Author(s) -
Russell Craig J.,
Domm Donald R.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
journal of occupational and organizational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.257
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 2044-8325
pISSN - 0963-1798
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1995.tb00686.x
Subject(s) - psychology , trait , job performance , social psychology , criterion validity , concurrent validity , consistency (knowledge bases) , construct validity , performance appraisal , incremental validity , task (project management) , applied psychology , field (mathematics) , cognitive psychology , internal consistency , psychometrics , job satisfaction , developmental psychology , computer science , artificial intelligence , management , economics , programming language , mathematics , pure mathematics
Klimoski & Brickner (1987) described two sets of constructs underlying assessment centre ratings. The trait explanation holds that dimensional ratings capture a candidate's personal characteristics, skills and abilities. The performance consistency/role congruency explanation holds that dimensional ratings are predictions of how well the candidate will perform various tasks and/or roles in the target job. While past research has failed to find support for the trait explanation, no studies have explicitly examined the validity of assessment centres designed to make task or role‐based dimensional ratings. We report two field evaluations of this explanation. In Study 1 assessor training was modified to have assessors view traditional assessment dimensions as role requirements. Concurrent validation of assessor evaluations of retail store managers resulted in correlations ranging from .22 to .28 with superiors' performance appraisal ratings and .32 to .35 with store profit. Study 2 evaluated the criterion‐related validity of ratings on both job requirements and traits. Findings indicate that task‐based ratings demonstrate concurrent validity in a sample of entry level unit managers while the traditional trait‐based ratings do not. Implications for the construct validity and design of assessment centres are drawn.