The Construct-Related Validity of Assessment Center Ratings: A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Methodological Factors

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

A different look at why selection procedures work (2011, background): “…in selection procedures, as well as by the research concerning moderators and mediators of the validity of selection procedures (Huffcutt et al., 2001; Huffcutt, Roth, & McDaniel, 1996; Macan, 2009; Morgeson et al., 2007; Sackett & Lievens, 2008; Salgado & Moscoso, 2002; Woehr & Arthur, 2003).”
Why Assessment Centers Do Not Work the Way They Are Supposed To (2008, background): “…candidate behaviors and dimensions are not defined sufficiently concretely, assessors are not sufficiently skilled, and/or certain rating strategies (e.g., the ‘‘withinexercise’’ method) engender systematic rating biases (Lievens & Klimoski, 2001; Sackett & Tuzinski, 2001; Woehr & Arthur, 2003).”
Empathy and the emergence of task and relations leaders (2006, unknown): “Recent research by Woehr & Arthur (2002) supports the validity of well-designed assessment centers.”
The State of Research on Situational Judgment Tests: A Content Analysis and Directions for Future Research (2014, methodology): “…of integrity tests (Berry, Sackett, & Wiemann, 2007; Sackett, Burris, & Callahan, 2006; Sackett & Harris, 1984), assessment centers (Gibbons & Rupp, 2009; Woehr & Arthur, 2003), and interviews (Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion, 2002), our purpose is to describe the state of SJT scientific research.”