Same‐gender and same‐race bias in assessment center ratings: A rating error approach to understanding subgroup differences

This study investigated leniency and similar‐to‐me bias as mechanisms underlying demographic subgroup differences among assessees in assessors’ initial dimension ratings from three assessment center (AC) simulation exercises used as part of high‐stakes promotional testing. It examined whether even small individual‐level effects can accumulate (i.e., “trickle‐up”) to produce larger subgroup‐level differences. Individual‐level analyses were conducted using cross‐classified multilevel modeling and conducted separately for each exercise. Results demonstrated weak evidence of leniency toward White assessees and similar‐to‐me bias among non‐White assessee–assessor pairs. Similar leniency was found toward female assessees, but no statistically significant effects were found for assessee or assessor gender or assessee–assessor gender similarity. Using traditional d effect size estimates, weak individual level assessee effects translated into small but consistent subgroup differences favoring White and female assessees. Generally small but less consistent subgroup differences indicated that non‐White and male assessors gave higher ratings. Moreover, analyses of overall promotion decisions indicate the absence of adverse impact. Findings from this AC provide some support for the “trickle‐up” effect, but the effect on subgroup differences is trivial. The results counter recent reviews of AC studies suggesting larger than previously assumed subgroup differences. Consequently, the findings demonstrate the importance of following established best practices when developing and implementing the AC method for selection purposes to minimize subgroup differences.     

Do overall dimension ratings from assessment centres show external construct-related validity?

ABSTRACT

There have been repeated calls for an external construct validation approach to advance our understanding of the construct-related validity of assessment centre dimension ratings beyond existing internal construct-related validity findings. Following an external construct validation approach, we examined whether linking assessment centre overall dimension ratings to ratings of the same dimensions that stem from sources external to the assessment centre provides evidence for construct-related validity of assessment centre ratings. We used data from one laboratory assessment centre sample and two field samples. External ratings of the same dimensions stemmed from assessees, assessees’ supervisors, and customers. Results converged across all three samples and showed that different dimension-same source correlations within the assessment centres were larger than same dimension-different source correlations. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses revealed source factors but no dimension factors in the latent factor structure of overall dimension ratings from the assessment centre and from external sources. Hence, consistent results across the three samples provide no support that assessment centre overall dimension ratings and ratings of the same dimensions from other sources can be attributed to dimension factors. This questions arguments that assessment centre overall dimension ratings should have construct-related validity.     

EXERCISES AND DIMENSIONS ARE THE CURRENCY OF ASSESSMENT CENTERS

A novel assessment center (AC) structure that models broad dimension factors, exercise factors, and a general performance factor is proposed and supported in 4 independent samples of AC ratings. Consistent with prior research, the variance attributable to dimension and exercise factors varied widely across ACs. To investigate the construct validity of these empirically supported components of AC ratings, the nomological network of broad dimensions, exercises, and general performance was examined. Results supported the criterion‐related validity of broad dimensions and exercises as predictors of effectiveness and success criteria as well as the incremental validity of broad dimensions beyond exercises and general performance. Finally, the relationships between individual differences and AC factors supported the construct validity of broad dimension factors and provide initial insight as to the meaning of exercise specific variance and general AC performance.     

评价中心的构想效度和结构模型

采用多质多法和验证性因素分析的方法,对以无领导小组讨论、文件筐和人格测验构成的一个评价中心的构想效度和结构模型进行了研究。通过对136名被试在四个测评维度上的施测,其结果表明,在评价中心中会聚效度低于区分效度,影响评价中心测评结果的主要因素是测评方法而不是测评维度,从而得到了一个以测评方法为潜变量的评价中心结构模型。从该结构模型来看,评价中心之所以起作用是由于其多个测评方法(情景)的结果。表明测评情景对于构建评价中心有着至关重要的作用。     

The Importance of Exercise and Dimension Factors in Assessment Centers: Simultaneous Examinations of Construct-Related and Criterion-Related Validity

This study presents a simultaneous examination of multiple evidential bases of the validity of assessment center (AC) ratings. In particular, we combine both construct-related and criterion-related validation strategies in the same sample to determine the relative importance of exercises and dimensions. We examine the underlying structure of ACs in terms of exercise and dimension factors while directly linking these factors to a work-related criterion (salary). Results from an AC (N = 753) showed that exercise factors not only explained more variance in AC ratings than dimension factors but also were more important in predicting salary. Dimension factors explained a smaller albeit significant portion of the variance in AC ratings and had lower validity for predicting salary. The implications of these findings for AC theory, practice, and research are discussed.     

Transparency of Assessment Centers: Lower Criterion‐related Validity but Greater Opportunity to Perform?

Assessment centers (ACs) are popular selection devices in which assessees are assessed on several dimensions during different exercises. Surveys indicate that ACs vary with regard to the transparency of the targeted dimensions and that the number of transparent ACs has increased during recent years. Furthermore, research on this design feature has put conceptual arguments forward regarding the effects of transparency on criterion‐related validity, impression management, and fairness perceptions. This study is the first to examine these effects using supervisor‐rated job performance data as the criterion. We conducted simulated ACs with transparency as a between‐subjects factor. The sample consisted of part‐time employed participants who would soon be applying for a new job. In line with our hypothesis, results showed that ratings from an AC with nontransparent dimensions were more criterion valid than ratings from an AC with transparent dimensions. Concerning impression management, our results supported the hypothesis that transparency moderates the relationship between self‐promotion and job performance, such that self‐promotion in the nontransparent AC was more positively related to job performance than self‐promotion in the transparent AC. The data lent no support for the hypothesis that participants’ perceptions of their opportunity to perform are higher in the transparent AC.     

Personality,Autonomy, and Contextual Performance of Managers

This study contributes to research on assessment centers' (AC) external construct-related validity by investigating a potential moderator of the relationship between personality and AC dimension ratings. On the basis of recent insights in person-situation contingencies we hypothesized that individual differences in people's perception of situational demands moderate the relationship between personality and conceptually related AC dimension ratings. The hypotheses were tested with 108 individuals in two leaderless group discussion exercises. Results confirmed the hypotheses for two of the three traits (i.e., Agreeableness and Conscientiousness). In particular, people high on these traits who identified the situational demands received higher AC dimension ratings. People high on these traits who did not identify the situational demands received lower AC dimension ratings.     

What Is Important on the Job? Differences Across Gender,Perspective, and Job Level1

The importance ratings of job competency dimensions on a 360‐degree feedback instrument were examined. We hypothesized that men (incumbents and bosses) would rate agentic behaviors higher in importance than would women, and that women (incumbents and bosses) would rate communal behaviors higher in importance than would men. Differences were found for men and women across rating sources and across job level (organizational position). The present findings suggest that men and women incumbents view different factors as important for their jobs and that people in higher level jobs place more importance on agentic behaviors than do those in lower level positions, and people in lower level jobs place more importance on communal behaviors than do those in higher level positions.     

Dimension and exercise variance in assessment center scores: a large-scale evaluation of multitrait-multimethod studies.

This study addresses 3 questions regarding assessment center construct validity: (a) Are assessment center ratings best thought of as reflecting dimension constructs (dimension model), exercises (exercise model), or a combination? (b) To what extent do dimensions or exercises account for variance? (c) Which design characteristics increase dimension variance? To this end, a large set of multitrait-multimethod studies (N = 34) were analyzed, showing that assessment center ratings were best represented (i.e., in terms of fit and admissible solutions) by a model with correlated dimensions and exercises specified as correlated uniquenesses. In this model, dimension variance equals exercise variance. Significantly more dimension variance was found when fewer dimensions were used and when assessors were psychologists. Use of behavioral checklists, a lower dimension-exercise ratio, and similar exercises also increased dimension variance.     

EVALUATING DEVELOPMENTAL ASSESSMENT CENTERS AS INTERVENTIONS

This study addresses the question of whether developmental assessment centers are effective interventions. Career outcomes of assessment center participants ( n = 151) were evaluated with respect to center ratings, developmental activity, and acceptance of feedback. Although comparison between a subgroup of assessees ( n = 113) and a naturally occurring control group of non-assessees ( n = 167) showed no differences in terms of career advancement, findings within the assessee sample did show that developmental activity related to advancement. Findings also showed that assessors' ratings of career motivation, rather than ratings of knowledge or skill (KS) dimensions, predicted both developmental activity and career advancement.     

评价中心的构想效度谜题:测量维度还是活动?

评价中心是一种高保真度的情境模拟,它被设计用来在多种与工作相关的活动中测量多项维度.30年来的大量研究发现,评价中心具备良好的内容效度和效标关联效度,但构想效度却始终不理想,评价中心评分反映的总是由活动而非预先设想的维度带来的效应.这一评价中心“构想效度谜题”吸引了大量研究关注,并逐步形成了维度中心取向、活动中心取向及交互作用取向三种主要观点,分别主张控制各种误差因素以改善维度测量、放弃维度而转向活动或任务以及关注维度与活动的共同作用.未来研究应在传统的维度中心取向之外给予活动中心取向足够重视,并重点发展交互作用取向.     

Impact of Common Rater Variance on Construct Validity of Assessment Center Dimension Judgments

In an assessment center (AC), assessors generally rate an applicant's performance on multiple dimensions in just 1 exercise. This rating procedure introduces common rater variance within exercises but not between exercises. This article hypothesizes that this phenomenon is partly responsible for the consistently reported result that the AC lacks construct validity. Therefore, in this article, the rater effect is standardized on discriminant and convergent validity via a multitrait-multimethod design in which each matrix cell is based on ratings of different assessors. Two independent studies (N = 200, N = 52) showed that, within exercises, correlations decrease when common rater variance is excluded both across exercises (by having assessors rate only 1 exercise) and within exercises (by having assessors rate only 1 dimension per exercise). Implications are discussed in the context of the recent discussion around the appropriateness of the within-exercise versus the within-dimension evaluation method.     

Why Assessment Centers Do Not Work the Way They Are Supposed To

Assessment centers (ACs) are often designed with the intent of measuring a number of dimensions as they are assessed in various exercises, but after 25 years of research, it is now clear that AC ratings that are completed at the end of each exercise (commonly known as postexercise dimension ratings) substantially reflect the effects of the exercises in which they were completed and not the dimensions they were designed to reflect. This is the crux of the long-standing "construct validity problem" for AC ratings. I review the existing research on AC construct validity and conclude that (a) contrary to previous notions, AC candidate behavior is inherently cross-situationally (i.e., cross-exercise) specific, not cross-situationally consistent as was once thought, (b) assessors rather accurately assess candidate behavior, and (c) these facts should be recognized in the redesign of ACs toward task- or role-based ACs and away from traditional dimension-based ACs.     

Sex differences in knowledge of occupational dimensions across four age levels

The purpose of the present study was to better understand the development of children's occupational knowledge, as assessed by their ability to give ratings to jobs along various dimensions that were similar to ratings given by adults, and to investigate differences in boys' and girls' ratings. Overall, younger students gave higher ratings to the jobs pictured than did older students. Also, females gave higher ratings to three of the four dimensions investigated. Girls rated traditionally female jobs higher on respect and service, while boys rated traditionally male jobs higher on respect and service. Both males and females agreed that more education would be required for the female jobs pictured, but that males would be paid more money for the male jobs pictured.     

Are assessment center behaviors' meanings consistent across exercises? A measurement invariance approach

To examine the appropriateness of a Multi‐Trait–Multi‐Method framework for testing construct validity of Assessment Centers (ACs) and get practical implications for the improved AC design, degree to which the AC dimension‐related performance behaviors consistently manifest across multiple AC rating situations was investigated. The present study used a large sample (N = 5,006) to apply a measurement invariance analysis. AC rating situations generally produced consistent factor loadings for items on AC dimensions, item residuals, dimension factor variances, and covariance between dimensions. The AC rating situation of interview tended to produce higher ratings and less item residuals. These findings support the consistency in constructs assessed across different AC rating situations, while some exercises may be better for teasing apart particular dimensions than others.     

A test of the generalizability of a recently suggested conceptual model for assessment center ratings

The present study replicated and extended research concerning a recently suggested conceptual model of the underlying factors of dimension ratings in assessment centers (ACs) proposed by Hoffman, Melchers, Blair, Kleinmann, and Ladd that includes broad dimension factors, exercise factors, and a general performance factor. We evaluated the criterion-related validity of these different components and expanded their nomological network. Results showed that all components (i.e., broad dimensions, exercises, general performance) were significant predictors of training performance. Furthermore, broad dimensions showed incremental validity beyond exercises and general performance. Finally, relationships between the AC factors and individual difference constructs (e.g., Big Five, core self-evaluations, positive and negative affectivity) supported the construct-related validity of broad dimensions and provided further insights in the nature of the different AC components.     

Constructs and developmental assessment centers: Further troubling empirical findings

Research indicates that assessment center (AC) ratings typically demonstrate poor construct validity; that is, they do not measure the intended dimensions of managerial performance (e.g., Sackett & Harris, 1988). The purpose of this study was to investigate the construct validity of dimension ratings from a developmental assessment center (N=102), using multitrait-multimethod analysis and factor analysis. The relationships between AC ratings, job performance ratings, and personality measures also were investigated. Results indicate that the AC ratings failed to demonstrate construct validity. The ratings did not show the expected relationships with the job performance and personality measures. Additionally, the factors underlying these ratings were found to be the AC exercises, rather than the managerial dimensions as expected. Potentially, this lack of construct validity of the dimension ratings is a serious problem for a developmental assessment center. There is little evidence that the managerial weaknesses identified by the AC are the dimensions that actually need to be improved on the job. Methods are discussed for improving the construct validity of AC ratings, for example, by decreasing the cognitive demands on the assessors.This study is based on a dissertation submitted to North Carolina State University. Portions of this paper were presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Montreal, Quebec, May, 1992. I am grateful to Paul Thayer, Bert Westbrook, James W. Cunningham, and Patrick Hauenstein for their contributions to this research. I also thank several anonymous reviewers for their comments on this article.     

An investigation into assessment centre validity,fairness, and selection drivers

This study examined the construct‐related validity of an assessment centre (AC) developed by a national distribution company for the selection and development of lower‐grade managers. In five locations throughout Britain, 487 individuals were observed on nine dimensions, each of which was measured through six distinct exercises. Multitrait‐multimethod analyses conducted to investigate the convergent and discriminant validity of the AC revealed strong exercise (“method”) effects. This finding was corroborated by an exploratory factor analysis showing that AC ratings clustered into factors according to exercises, rather than according to performance dimensions. A series of MANOVAs and chi‐squared tests demonstrated that neither the exercise ratings nor the selection decision were biased by sex, ethnicity, or training location, and a logistic regression determined which exercises had most impact on the final decision.     

Students' ratings of occupational dimensions of traditionally male and traditionally female occupations

The purpose of the present study was to investigate four traditionally male occupations and four traditionally female occupations on a number of dimensions which people use to judge the prestige or importance of a job. Workers were pictured on one form in their traditional roles and on a second form in nontraditional roles. Results indicated a tendency for subjects to give lower ratings to workers in nontraditional jobs. More importantly, for the two “objective” dimensions, money and education, boys and girls agreed on job ratings; however, on the two more “subjective” dimensions, respect and importance to the community, boys gave higher ratings to the male jobs, while girls gave higher ratings to the female jobs.     

Assessor Constructs in Use as the Missing Component in Validation of Assessment Center Dimensions: A critique and directions for research

The basis for assessment center dimension ratings has been examined through the lens of various multitrait–multimethod approaches, with some researchers concluding that dimension ratings are not representative of meaningful constructs. This presents a serious challenge for those who would generalize predictor constructs, particularly those that are broadly articulated in management assessment center dimensions. This paper addresses the problems with applying such analyses to assessment center dimension ratings without first articulating expected construct relationships. Ackerman and Humphreys' analysis of constructs will be used to better frame assessment center dimensions and to articulate possible assessor constructs in use. Theories of performance held by the managers, who serve both as subject matter experts when dimensional constructs are initially defined, and as the assessors who impose these dimensions on assessees' behavior in assessment center ratings, are suggested as important bases for further construct validation. Approaches for generalization of assessor constructs in use to the managerial work domain will be discussed.