I can see how the dimensions assessed in the assessment center might be very important skills and abilities needed to perform a job on day one and, thus, should be selected for. However, many companies may not be able to afford the costs of developing an assessment center. How might we measure the assessment center dimensions (e.g. problem solving, etc.) in a predictor other than an assessment center?
This article didn't seem to take into account that assessment centers are best for more complex jobs that require complex performance criterion measures. I feel this is something that needs to be taken into consideration.
I found it interesting that the one of the reasons for great use of ACs in development (as well as selection) is the apparent objectivity relative to other alternatives (360 feedback) and more favorable applicant reactions. I would like to know more about its use in developmental contexts.
I thought it was interesting that the authors found "troubling levels of construct-related validity". My perception of AC before these readings were that they were the most recommended or preferred, but that they were expensive. Keeping in mind the cost aspect of AC's and the lack of construct-related validity found in this study, are AC's still recommendable?
I am pleased to read that a selection procedure that in my opinion offers a more dignified assessment of individuals instead of treating them like dehumanized test scores also offers substantial incremental validity above and beyond cognitive ability and personality assessments. Cost remains the prohibitive factor. I wonder how a cost per hire evaluation could be done so that companies could evaluate whether the number of individuals they needed to hire justified the cost of using an AC. Also, how does one quantify the impact of face validity on subsequent qualitative variables such as trust for the organization?
I can see how the dimensions assessed in the assessment center might be very important skills and abilities needed to perform a job on day one and, thus, should be selected for. However, many companies may not be able to afford the costs of developing an assessment center. How might we measure the assessment center dimensions (e.g. problem solving, etc.) in a predictor other than an assessment center?
ReplyDeleteThis article didn't seem to take into account that assessment centers are best for more complex jobs that require complex performance criterion measures. I feel this is something that needs to be taken into consideration.
ReplyDeleteGiven the dimensions that ACs tap into, what types of jobs might assessment centers be best for?
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that the one of the reasons for great use of ACs in development (as well as selection) is the apparent objectivity relative to other alternatives (360 feedback) and more favorable applicant reactions. I would like to know more about its use in developmental contexts.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that the authors found "troubling levels of construct-related validity". My perception of AC before these readings were that they were the most recommended or preferred, but that they were expensive. Keeping in mind the cost aspect of AC's and the lack of construct-related validity found in this study, are AC's still recommendable?
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that the incremental variance accounted for by assessment centers is worth the extra expense?
ReplyDeleteI am pleased to read that a selection procedure that in my opinion offers a more dignified assessment of individuals instead of treating them like dehumanized test scores also offers substantial incremental validity above and beyond cognitive ability and personality assessments. Cost remains the prohibitive factor. I wonder how a cost per hire evaluation could be done so that companies could evaluate whether the number of individuals they needed to hire justified the cost of using an AC. Also, how does one quantify the impact of face validity on subsequent qualitative variables such as trust for the organization?
ReplyDelete