A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS

By Winfred Arthur Jr., E. Day, Theresa L. McNelly, Pamela S. Edens. 2003

356 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.

The Validity of Assessment Centres for the Prediction of SupervisoryPerformance Ratings: A meta-analysis (2007, unknown): “2 Thus, although a recent meta‐analysis updated the validity of predictions made on the basis of assessment centre dimensions (Arthur et al., 2003), the results of Gaugler et al. (1987) still serve as the ‘gold standard’ of assessment centre validity estimation on the basis of the OAR. However, sinc”
Personnel selection. (2008, background): “In the assessment center domain, Arthur et al. (2003) reported a meta-analysis of the validity of final dimension ratings.”
Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum (2015, background): “Rather, predicting future jobperformance by sampling typical job tasks and assessing how well a candidate does represents a reliable and valid approach to identify job-person fit (Arthur et al., 2003).”
Why Assessment Centers Do Not Work the Way They Are Supposed To (2008, background): “Combined with reviews supporting the content validity of ACs (Thornton &Mueller-Hanson, 2004), metaanalytic evidence indicating that ACs have robust predictive validity of a wide variety of criteria (Arthur et al., 2003; Gaugler et al., 1987; Hardison & Sackett, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), the la”