King's College London

Research portal

Everything that you have ever been told about assessment center ratings is confounded

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Duncan J. R. Jackson, George Michaelides, Chris Dewberry, Young-Jae Kim

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)976-994
JournalJournal of Applied Psychology
Volume101
Issue number7
Early online date10 Mar 2016
DOIs
Accepted/In press5 Feb 2016
E-pub ahead of print10 Mar 2016
Published1 Jul 2016

Documents

Links

King's Authors

Abstract

Despite a substantial research literature on the influence of dimensions and exercises in assessment centers (ACs), the relative impact of these 2 sources of variance continues to raise uncertainties because of confounding. With confounded effects, it is not possible to establish the degree to which any 1 effect, including those related to exercises and dimensions, influences AC ratings. In the current study (N = 698) we used Bayesian generalizability theory to unconfound all of the possible effects contributing to variance in AC ratings. Our results show that ≤1.11% of the variance in AC ratings was directly attributable to behavioral dimensions, suggesting that dimension-related effects have no practical impact on the reliability of ACs. Even when taking aggregation level into consideration, effects related to general performance and exercises accounted for almost all of the reliable variance in AC ratings. The implications of these findings for recent dimension- and exercise-based perspectives on ACs are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454