If there is so much overlap between assessment centers and other individual differences (e.g., personality, GCA) then why would we use them when they are relatively expensive ways to predict behavior?
The authors suggested that practitioners could supplement personality or cognitive ability measures with one or more assessment center dimensions. How would they assess these dimensions without using an assessment center to do so? Would the incremental validity change because of methodological differences? (although we would hope it would not).
This is an interesting article in light of our discussion Monday about the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability. Did you get the part where they felt it was good to have more than one measure of a construct (e.g. conscientiousness)? Other times it seemed to be saying what Roni was saying that we don't want to overlap. I was confused a bit.
Is there added pressure for AC's to make sure their validity is on point and well tested, because of the costs associated with them? Is there such thing as a cheap AC?
ACs appear to contribute validity to the selection procedure. Do you think we group differences will be as much of a factor with ACs as they are with other selection procedures such as cognitive ability tests?
Practicality is a big issue preventing use of ACs and I have wondered whether the lack of practicality in use of ACs is worth the information that we gain from them. Similar to my comment about Meriac 2008, do you think the authors’ findings justify the use of ACs?
If there is so much overlap between assessment centers and other individual differences (e.g., personality, GCA) then why would we use them when they are relatively expensive ways to predict behavior?
ReplyDeleteThe authors suggested that practitioners could supplement personality or cognitive ability measures with one or more assessment center dimensions. How would they assess these dimensions without using an assessment center to do so? Would the incremental validity change because of methodological differences? (although we would hope it would not).
ReplyDeleteWhy are biodata not considered when talking about cognitive ability measures as being replacements?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting article in light of our discussion Monday about the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability. Did you get the part where they felt it was good to have more than one measure of a construct (e.g. conscientiousness)? Other times it seemed to be saying what Roni was saying that we don't want to overlap. I was confused a bit.
ReplyDeleteIs there added pressure for AC's to make sure their validity is on point and well tested, because of the costs associated with them? Is there such thing as a cheap AC?
ReplyDeleteACs appear to contribute validity to the selection procedure. Do you think we group differences will be as much of a factor with ACs as they are with other selection procedures such as cognitive ability tests?
ReplyDeletePracticality is a big issue preventing use of ACs and I have wondered whether the lack of practicality in use of ACs is worth the information that we gain from them. Similar to my comment about Meriac 2008, do you think the authors’ findings justify the use of ACs?
ReplyDelete