Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions: A Conceptual and Empirical Reexamination of the Assessment Center Construct-Related Validity Paradox
By Winfred Arthur Jr., D. Woehr, R. Maldegen. 2000
108 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Management Science and Operations Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ff3c584f7a8d951b1302a6d2f88b450f92fb4de
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Computer Networks and Communications
In Management Science and Operations Research
- William I. MacKenzie
- Filip Lievens
- P. Sackett
- Robert E. Ployhart
- M. C. Campion
- Michael S. Cole
- John E. Mathieu
- Matt C. Howard
Citations in the corpus
- The State of Research on Situational Judgment Tests: A Content Analysis and Directions for Future Research (2014, methodology): “…chosen based on narrative summaries of the SJT literature (e.g., Lievens et al., 2008; McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001; Whetzel & McDaniel, 2009), and narrative reviews of other related selection methods (e.g., assessment centers, interviews; Arthur et al., 2000; Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001).”
- Why Assessment Centers Do Not Work the Way They Are Supposed To (2008, unknown): “…1997; Kolk, Born, & van der Flier, 2003), using alternative rating methods such as the within-dimension (vs. within-exercise) method (e.g., Arthur et al., 2000; Harris, Becker, & Smith, 1993; Robie et al., 2000; Silverman, Dalessio, Woods, & Johnson, 1986), using expert (vs.…”
- Personnel selection. (2008, background): “First, well-designed assessment centers show more construct validity evidence (Arthur et al. 2000, Lievens & Conway 2001).”