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.     

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.     

Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity

This study used trait activation theory as a theoretical framework to conduct a large-scale test of the interactionist explanation of the convergent and discriminant validity findings obtained in assessment centers. Trait activation theory specifies the conditions in which cross-situationally consistent and inconsistent candidate performances are likely to occur. Results obtained by aggregating correlations across 30 multitrait-multimethod matrices supported the propositions of trait activation theory, shedding a more positive light on the construct validity puzzle in assessment centers. Overall, convergence among assessment center ratings was better between exercises that provided an opportunity to observe behavior related to the same trait, and discrimination among ratings within exercises was generally better for dimensions that were not expressions of the same underlying traits. Implications for assessment center research and practice are discussed.     

Extending the Nomological Network of Assessment Center Construct Validity: Prediction of Cross-Situationally Consistent and Specific Aspects of Assessment Center Performance

The purpose of this study was to expand the nomological validity of assessment centers (ACs) by investigating predictors of cross-situationally consistent versus specific aspects of AC performance. Consistent with hypotheses, (a) Big Five personality factors predicted AC performance as it related to a cross-situationally consistent general performance factor but not as it related to exercise (i.e., situationally specific) factors, and (b) job knowledge predicted performance as it related to both the general performance factor and exercise-specific factors. Results are interpreted as they relate to the growing literature on AC construct validity.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

Where Have We Been, How Did We Get There, and Where Shall We Go?

Commentators expressed a wide variety of views on my evaluation of the state of assessment center (AC) research and practice. In this response, I first trace the evolution of the construct validity paradox "urban legend." Next, I consider the commentators' comments as they relate to (a) my recommendation to abandon dimension-based ACs in lieu of task- or role-based structures (b) my recommendation to discontinue design fix attempts toward making ACs conform to multitrait–multimethod construct validity criteria, and (c) considerations of construct validity and validation evidence. Finally, I offer some directions for future AC research and practice.     

不同类型的测评维度对评价中心结构效度的影响研究

本研究将测评维度分为行为能力和心理特质两组,考察对评价中心结构效度的不同影响。A公司216名部门副经理级员工接受了本次管理素质评价中心测评,采用公文筐、角色扮演和无领导小组讨论三种方法,测查行为能力和心理特质两组维度,各自有三个维度被一种以上的方法测量。多质多法和验证性因素分析的结果表明,评价中心以行为能力比以心理特质为测评维度结构效度好;以行为能力为测评维度时,会聚效度和区分效度都较好。     

The Construct Validity of Assessment Centre Performance Dimensions

Evidence regarding the construct validity of assessment centre performance dimensions is reviewed. The evidence strongly suggests that variance in ratings tends to reflect exercises more than individual performance dimensions, thus calling into question the construct validity and utility of these dimensions. A number of biases in the assessment centre process, as well as more general rating biases are noted that may be responsible for these pervasive exercise effects. Suggestions are made for enhancing the construct validity of performance dimensions.     

A meta-analytic evaluation of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center ratings

Two recent reviews have attempted to summarize findings quantitatively regarding assessment center (AC) construct-related validity (i.e., Lance, Lambert, Gewin, Lievens, & Conway, 2004; Lievens & Conway, 2001). Unlike these previous studies, which reanalyzed individual multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices from previously published research, the authors recoded and combined past matrices into a single MTMM matrix. This matrix, comprised of 6 dimensions each measured by 6 exercises, was then analyzed, providing a more generalizable set of results. Both dimensions and exercises were found to contribute substantially to AC ratings. Specific dimensions (i.e., communication, influencing others, organizing and planning, and problem solving) appeared more construct valid than others (i.e., consideration/awareness of others and drive). Implications for AC design and practice are discussed.     

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.     

Assessment center construct-related validity: Stepping beyond the MTMM matrix

Recent Monte Carlo research has illustrated that the traditional method for assessing the construct-related validity of assessment center (AC) post-exercise dimension ratings (PEDRs), an application of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to a multitrait-multimethod matrix, produces inconsistent results [Lance, C. E., Woehr, D. J., & Meade, A. W. (2007). Case study: A Monte Carlo investigation of assessment center construct validity models. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 430-448]. To avoid this shortcoming, a variance partitioning procedure was applied to the examination of the PEDRs of 193 individuals. Overall, results indicated that the person, dimension, and person by dimension interaction effects together accounted for approximately 32% of the total variance in AC ratings. However, despite no apparent exercise effect, the person by exercise interaction accounted for approximately 28% of the total variance. Although these results are drawn from a single AC, they nevertheless provide general support for the overall functioning of ACs and encourage continued application of variance partitioning approaches to AC research. Implications for AC design and research are discussed.     

Revised estimates of dimension and exercise variance components in assessment center postexercise dimension ratings

The authors reanalyzed assessment center (AC) multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices containing correlations among postexercise dimension ratings (PEDRs) reported by F. Lievens and J. M. Conway (2001). Unlike F. Lievens and J. M. Conway, who used a correlated dimension-correlated uniqueness model, we used a different set of confirmatory-factor-analysis-based models (1-dimension-correlated Exercise and 1-dimension-correlated uniqueness models) to estimate dimension and exercise variance components in AC PEDRs. Results of reanalyses suggest that, consistent with previous narrative reviews, exercise variance components dominate over dimension variance components after all. Implications for AC construct validity and possible redirections of research on the validity of ACs are discussed.     

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.     

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF USING BEHAVIOR CHECKLISTS ON THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS

Although research has established the criterion-related validity of assessment centers for selection purposes, the construct validity of dimension ratings has not been demonstrated. A quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the influence of retranslated behavior checklists on the construct validity of dimension ratings for two assessment center exercises. Assessor use of behavior checklists increased the average convergent (i.e., same dimension across exercise) validity from .24 to .43 while decreasing the average discriminant (i.e., different dimension within exercise) validity (.47 to .41). Behavior checklist sums were moderately correlated with corresponding dimension ratings and demonstrated a comparable level of construct validity. It is suggested that using behavior checklists may improve dimension construct validity by reducing the cognitive demands placed on raters.