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

D. Jackson, G. Michaelides, C. Dewberry, Young-Jae Kim
{"title":"Everything that you have ever been told about assessment center ratings is confounded.","authors":"D. Jackson, G. Michaelides, C. Dewberry, Young-Jae Kim","doi":"10.1037/apl0000102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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","PeriodicalId":169654,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of applied psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of applied psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

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
你曾经被告知的关于评估中心评级的一切都是混乱的。
尽管对评估中心(ACs)的维度和练习的影响有大量的研究文献,但由于混淆,这两种方差源的相对影响继续增加不确定性。在混杂效应的情况下,不可能确定任何一种效应,包括与运动和尺寸有关的效应,对交流额定值的影响程度。在当前的研究中(N = 698),我们使用贝叶斯泛化理论来解释导致交流额定值差异的所有可能影响。我们的研究结果表明,≤1.11%的交流评分差异可直接归因于行为维度,这表明维度相关效应对交流评分的可靠性没有实际影响。即使考虑到聚集水平,与一般表现和运动有关的影响也几乎占了交流额值的所有可靠方差。本文讨论了这些发现对最近基于维度和运动的ACs观点的影响。(PsycINFO数据库记录
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信