I like how these authors combined the exercise and dimension ratings to examine the criterion-related and construct validity in one study. Given their conclusion that exercises seemed to account for more variance in their criterion than dimensions, how might organizations structure their assessment centers in the future? Would the specific type of exercise used change these conclusions? On the downside, I really disliked how the authors used salary as their indicator of job performance, stated that this was not really the best way to measure job performance, and then continued to use it anyway!
I agree Vicki! They kept patting themselves on the back for having an external criterion, yet in the middle of the paper they talked about how poor it is!
What are some other external criterion variables the authors could have used that would be better predictors of performance?
Of the five types of exercises (I think I'm getting that this is in contrast to latent dimensions), oral presentation and in-basket were the two that explained the most variance in ratings - and were more predictive of salary. Any thoughts on why these two would be more effective than case analysis, role plays or group discussion?
I really like the exercise where the participants tried to influence their "subordinates" to adopt a sales position. This seems like an emotional intelligence-type trait. How do researchers typically assess that? Also, I really don't like the fact that they used salary as their criterion measure. Doesn't this seem particularly negative considering they were looking at validity? What else should they have used?
Exercises explain more variance than dimensions in AC ratings. Exercises also provide"a broader evidential basis to establish exercises as the main cornerstones of ACs. Why might this be the case?
For those of you who will probably end up designing ACs in the future, are you somewhat relieved that exercises account for more variance than dimensions? To me, this findings makes designing ACs slightly more practical because it protects against the need to pay close attention to details. What do you think?
I like how these authors combined the exercise and dimension ratings to examine the criterion-related and construct validity in one study. Given their conclusion that exercises seemed to account for more variance in their criterion than dimensions, how might organizations structure their assessment centers in the future? Would the specific type of exercise used change these conclusions? On the downside, I really disliked how the authors used salary as their indicator of job performance, stated that this was not really the best way to measure job performance, and then continued to use it anyway!
ReplyDeleteHow beneficial are intangible measures of performance when using Assessment centers?
ReplyDeleteI agree Vicki! They kept patting themselves on the back for having an external criterion, yet in the middle of the paper they talked about how poor it is!
ReplyDeleteWhat are some other external criterion variables the authors could have used that would be better predictors of performance?
Of the five types of exercises (I think I'm getting that this is in contrast to latent dimensions), oral presentation and in-basket were the two that explained the most variance in ratings - and were more predictive of salary. Any thoughts on why these two would be more effective than case analysis, role plays or group discussion?
ReplyDeleteI really like the exercise where the participants tried to influence their "subordinates" to adopt a sales position. This seems like an emotional intelligence-type trait. How do researchers typically assess that? Also, I really don't like the fact that they used salary as their criterion measure. Doesn't this seem particularly negative considering they were looking at validity? What else should they have used?
ReplyDeleteExercises explain more variance than dimensions in AC ratings. Exercises also provide"a broader evidential basis to establish exercises as the main cornerstones of ACs. Why might this be the case?
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who will probably end up designing ACs in the future, are you somewhat relieved that exercises account for more variance than dimensions? To me, this findings makes designing ACs slightly more practical because it protects against the need to pay close attention to details. What do you think?
ReplyDelete