Assessment Center Exercise Factors Represent Cross-Situational Specificity, Not Method Bias

Abstract

We contrasted 2 competing interpretations of assessment center (AC) exercise effects on postexercise dimension ratings in 3 independent samples using a quasi-multitrait-multimethod framework. The (traditional) method bias interpretation is that exercise effects represent sources of systematic but invalid variance that compromise the construct validity of AC ratings. The situational specificity interpretation is that exercise effects reflect true cross-situational specificity in AC performance and thus, sources of valid variance in AC performance. Significant correlations between latent exercise factors and external correlates of AC performance supported the situational specificity interpretation. Findings are discussed as they help reconcile the apparently contradictory findings that ACs have demonstrated criterion-related but not construct validity.