King's College London

Research portal

Reliability in assessment centres depends on general and exercise performance, but not on dimensions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Duncan J.R. Jackson, George Michaelides, Chris Dewberry, Jo Nelson, Catherine Stephens

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)739-757
Number of pages19
JournalJOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume95
Issue number4
Early online date15 Jun 2022
DOIs
Accepted/In press17 May 2022
E-pub ahead of print15 Jun 2022
PublishedDec 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The British Psychological Society.

King's Authors

Abstract

This study contributes to the literature on assessment centre (AC) measurement structure by evaluating whether dimension, exercise or mixed-model theoretical perspectives are supported by reliability outcomes. In a large-scale study (Ncandidates = 2917) utilizing Bayesian generalizability theory, we tested reliability estimates configured to conform to dimension, exercise or mixed-model perspectives. Our findings reveal that reliability outcomes for AC ratings greatly depend on the measurement intentions of the researcher. When this intent aligned with the traditional dimension perspective, we found evidence that reliability was unacceptably low (mean reliability =.38, SD =.15). However, when the intent aligned with the exercise perspective, we found evidence that reliability exceeded acceptable criteria (mean reliability =.91, SD =.09). The addition of dimension- to exercise-related effects to reflect a mixed-model perspective did not make an appreciable difference to reliability.

View graph of relations

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