The Validity of Assessment Centres for the Prediction of SupervisoryPerformance Ratings: A meta-analysis

By E. Hermelin, Filip Lievens, I. Robertson. 2007

95 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Purpose. The main aim of the present study is to update previous research data on the Assessment Center (AC) Validity, obtained in Gaugler study in 1987. This meta-analytic study focused on Assessment Center Validity examination. Study design. This meta-analysis examined works carried out from 1985 to 2005, 26 studies and 27 validity coefficients (N = 5850), linking the Overall Assessment Rating (OAR) to the supervisory performance ratings (PR) were analyzed. The same methodology as Gaugler employed to analyze data. AC has seen in terms of the ability to select the best candidates for a position, Overall Assessment Rating has used as a criterion measure Assessment Center Effectiveness. The validity of the individual competencies measurement has not considered. Findings. The average value of the correlation between the OAR and PR is 0.28 (95% confidence interval 0.24 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.32). Number of assessed competencies, number of original selection methods and type of procedure were taken into account. As might be expected, none of the variables are affected. Research implications for practice. Focus future research predictive validity AC deserves the following issues. Firstly, it is the need to expand and refine the criteria by which the validity of the AC is measured. Secondly, it is important to examine the validity of the AC competitive compared with simulation exercises with low ecological validity, such as case-tests. It has been suggested that this validity estimate is likely to be conservative given that assessment centre validities tend to be affected by indirect range restriction.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Management Science and Operations Research, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/617c5282680d4736722a678d4e35deff50bde033

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Michael A. McDaniel
2. Michael T. Brannick
3. G. Banks

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Sven Kepes
2. G. Banks
3. Michael A. McDaniel
4. Michael T. Brannick

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Michael A. McDaniel
2. Sven Kepes
3. G. Banks
4. Herman Aguinis
5. Erik Gonzalez‐Mulé

Citations in the corpus

• Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards) (2013, methodology): “Thus, we recommend the detailed discussion of exclusion and inclusion criteria as well as descriptions of operational characteristics (see, e.g., Banks et al. 2010; Carey et al. 2007; ElseQuest et al. 2010; Hermelin et al. 2007; Judge et al. 2001; Van Iddekinge et al. 2012).”
• The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance (2015, background): “There is also amodest literature on the relationship of assessment center ratings and performance ratings obtained later (Hermelin et al. 2007).”