Perceptions of assessment center exercises: between exercises differences and interventions

Sylvia G. Roch
{"title":"Perceptions of assessment center exercises: between exercises differences and interventions","authors":"Sylvia G. Roch","doi":"10.1017/iop.2024.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Preliminary research has demonstrated that not all assessment center (AC) exercises are viewed as equally just or motivating. The current research builds upon this research and investigates the relationships between six AC exercises and perceptions of self-efficacy, motivation, assessor bias, and fairness. Using a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design (two informational justice interventions and one rating timing intervention), 286 working adults completed a survey designed to investigate differences between AC exercises and to investigate interventions designed to influence AC exercise perceptions. The results show not only significant perceptual differences between assessor-rated exercises and an ability test but also differences among the rated exercises. The results suggest that an ability test can be perceived as both among the most just and motivating exercises. Lastly, even though the experimental interventions did not have their anticipated effects, the results suggest benefits to having assessors rate recorded participant behaviors versus rating “live” behaviors, benefits that to a certain extent depend on whether participants had previously attended an assessment center.","PeriodicalId":515605,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology","volume":"290 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2024.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Preliminary research has demonstrated that not all assessment center (AC) exercises are viewed as equally just or motivating. The current research builds upon this research and investigates the relationships between six AC exercises and perceptions of self-efficacy, motivation, assessor bias, and fairness. Using a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design (two informational justice interventions and one rating timing intervention), 286 working adults completed a survey designed to investigate differences between AC exercises and to investigate interventions designed to influence AC exercise perceptions. The results show not only significant perceptual differences between assessor-rated exercises and an ability test but also differences among the rated exercises. The results suggest that an ability test can be perceived as both among the most just and motivating exercises. Lastly, even though the experimental interventions did not have their anticipated effects, the results suggest benefits to having assessors rate recorded participant behaviors versus rating “live” behaviors, benefits that to a certain extent depend on whether participants had previously attended an assessment center.
对评估中心练习的看法:练习之间的差异和干预措施
初步研究表明,并非所有的评估中心(AC)练习都被视为同样公正或具有激励作用。目前的研究以这项研究为基础,调查了六项评估中心练习与自我效能感、动机、评估者偏见和公平性之间的关系。采用 2 × 2 × 2 实验设计(两个信息公正干预和一个评分时间干预),286 名在职成人完成了一项调查,旨在调查交流练习之间的差异,并调查旨在影响交流练习感知的干预措施。结果表明,评估者评级的练习与能力测试之间不仅存在明显的感知差异,而且评级的练习之间也存在差异。结果表明,能力测试可被视为最公正、最具激励性的练习。最后,尽管实验干预没有达到预期效果,但结果表明,让评估员对记录的学员行为进行评分与对 "现场 "行为进行评分相比还是有好处的,这种好处在一定程度上取决于学员以前是否参加过评估中心的活动。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信