IMPLICATIONS OF TRAIT‐ACTIVATION THEORY FOR EVALUATING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER RATINGS

By S. Haaland, Neil D. Christiansen. 2002

122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/925451de6492fc3e0b6ed4906b7cab690e037298

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

1. Long-Zeng Wu
2. R. Tett
3. T. Macan
4. Yongmei Liu
5. Dawn D. Burnett
6. C. Lance
7. Jun Liu
8. T. Judge

In Political Science and International Relations

1. T. Macan
2. C. Lance
3. R. Tett

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Long-Zeng Wu
2. T. Macan
3. Yongmei Liu
4. C. Lance
5. Jun Liu
6. R. Tett
7. H. Kwan

Citations in the corpus

• The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future research (2009, background): “Using trait activation theory may prove a fruitful direction as research investigating the construct validity of assessment centers has found (Haaland & Christiansen, 2002; Lievens, Chasteen, Day, & Christiansen, 2006).”
• Why Assessment Centers Do Not Work the Way They Are Supposed To (2008, background): “Although there is some support for these predictions (Haaland & Christiansen, 2002; Lievens, Chasteen, Day, & Christiansen, 2006), the effects of trait relevance on convergent and discriminant validity of AC PEDRs have admittedly been very small (Lievens et al.).”
• A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. (2003, background): “Regarding the first point, Haaland and Christiansen (2002) 511 TRAIT-BASED MODEL”
• Are You Willing and Able? Roles of Motivation, Power, and Politics in Career Growth (2010, background): “Derived from interactional psychology, trait activation theory (TAT; Haaland & Christiansen, 2002; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) appears to be a plausible theoretical framework that can be used to explain how perceptions of POPs may moderate the extent to which personal needs…”