Abstract

This study sought to add to the literature on the validity of Assessment centers (ACs) by first examining the factorial structure emerging from observers’ dimension ratings and then examining their predictive validity using a performance criterion often unavailable to researchers—performance-based bonus payment. A series of ACs specially designed for the selection of candidates for entry-mid tier management positions in a large financial corporate (n = 180) was used as the sampling frame. For candidates who were promoted to managerial position we gathered bonus information within 6 - 12 months of their promotion (n = 75). The dimension ratings and factorial structure of the AC were examined to reveal a 2-factor structure pertaining to cognitive and interpersonal aspects of performance. Both the original dimensions and the two factorial grades showed moderate predictive validity using performance-based bonus as the criterion: The ‘organizational commitment’ dimension best predicted bonus payment (r = .38; p < .01) and the interpersonal factorial grade best predicted bonus (standardized b = .22 p < .01), followed by the cognitive factor, after controlling for gender and tenure. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are briefly discussed.

Highlights

  • Assessment centers (AC) have earned a mixed bag of reviews and opinions as instruments of employee screening and selection

  • The current study tested two hypotheses: The first posited that AC dimension grades will reflect job criteria rather than a general impression or factors representing the various tasks in the AC

  • This hypothesis was supported by our analysis, suggesting 2 underlying factors accounting for 68% of the variance in the AC dimensions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Assessment centers (AC) have earned a mixed bag of reviews and opinions as instruments of employee screening and selection. Prominent authors view them as either highly effective, valid measures of predicting future job-related performance (e.g.: Cascio, 2010; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), or a problematic, unstable method yielding inconsistent content and construct validity indices (Bowler & Woehr, 2006; Melchers, Kleinmann & Prinz, 2010). Will dispute the impressive criterion-related validity of ACs. Persistent evidence gathered across time and various target populations point to the ability of AC-derived ratings to predict and correlate with a broad range of job-performance indices (Thornton & Gibbons, 2009). Despite abundant evidence some questions linger regarding the validity and relevance of the AC method in HR selection contexts. This paper depicts a field study aiming at two of them

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call