Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS
Do you wish to request the book?
A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A META-ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS
2003
Overview
We used meta‐analytic procedures to investigate the criterion‐related validity of assessment center dimension ratings. By focusing on dimension‐level information, we were able to assess the extent to which specific constructs account for the criterion‐related validity of assessment centers. From a total of 34 articles that reported dimension‐level validities, we collapsed 168 assessment center dimension labels into an overriding set of 6 dimensions: (a) consideration/awareness of others, (b) communication, (c) drive, (d) influencing others, (e) organizing and planning, and (f) problem solving. Based on this set of 6 dimensions, we extracted 258 independent data points. Results showed a range of estimated true criterion‐related validities from .25 to .39. A regression‐based composite consisting of 4 out of the 6 dimensions accounted for the criterion‐related validity of assessment center ratings and explained more variance in performance (20%) than Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, and Bentson (1987) were able to explain using the overall assessment center rating (14%).
