[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-639381-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-639381-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","a-review-of-the-content-criterion-related-and-construct-related-validity-of-assessment-center-exercises","A Review of the Content, Criterion-Related, and Construct-Related Validity of Assessment Center Exercises","","Meta-analysis and qualitative exercise-descriptor review evaluate the content, criterion-related, construct, and incremental validity of five commonly used assessment center (AC) exercise types. The analysis tests relationships with other exercise types, the five-factor personality model, general mental ability (GMA), and relevant criterion variables. Results show all exercise types relate significantly to criterion variables and display modest links to GMA, Extraversion, and limited associations with Openness, with little relation to Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-review-of-the-content-criterion-related-and-construct-related-validity-of-assessment-center-exercises/639381/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-review-of-the-content-criterion-related-and-construct-related-validity-of-assessment-center-exercises/639381.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Emma Wilson","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-22",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the study evaluate about assessment center exercises?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It assesses content, criterion-related, construct, and incremental validity of five commonly used AC exercise types.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which relationships with other constructs are found for the exercise types?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"All five types show significant relationships with criterion variables, and they tend to have modest associations with GMA and Extraversion, with limited links to Openness.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What does the content analysis suggest about exercise descriptions?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Exercise descriptors provide some evidence of complexity, ambiguity, interpersonal interaction, and fidelity, rather than clear interdependence.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},639381,1793092967,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},3848291630094,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers . This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly .  \nJournal of Applied Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association  \n2015, Vol. 100, No. 4, 1143–1168 0021-9010/15/$12.00 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038707](http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038707)  \nA Review of the Content, Criterion-Related, and Construct-Related Validity of Assessment Center Exercises  \nBrian J. Hoffman, Colby L. Kennedy, Alexander C. LoPilato, and Elizabeth L. Monahan  \nUniversity of Georgia  \nCharles E. Lance  \nOrganizational Research & Development, Lawrenceville, Georgia  \nThis study uses meta-analysis and a qualitative review of exercise descriptions to evaluate the content, criterion-related, construct, and incremental validity of 5 commonly used types of assessment center (AC) exercises. First, we present a meta-analysis of the relationship between 5 types of AC exercises with (a) the other exercise types,(b) the 5-factor model of personality,(c) general mental ability (GMA), and (d) relevant criterion variables. All 5 types of exercises were significantly related to criterion variables (􀀂 􀀃 .16–.19) . The nomological network analyses suggested that the exercises tend to be modestly associated with GMA, Extraversion and, to a lesser extent, Openness to Experience but largely unrelated to Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. Finally, despite sparse reporting in primary studies, a content analysis of exercise descriptions yielded some evidence of complexity, ambiguity, interpersonal interaction, and fidelity but not necessarily interdependence.  \nKeywords: assessment centers, exercises, personality, intelligence, meta-analysis  \nSubstantial research has investigated the validity of assessment center (AC) ratings. Past meta-analyses substantiate the criterionrelated validity of overall assessment ratings (OARs; Collins et al., 2003; Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987; Hermelin, Lievens, & Robertson, 2007) and dimension ratings (Arthur, Day, McNelly, & Edens, 2003; Meriac, Hoffman, Woehr, & Fleisher, 2008). Similarly, meta-analyses have addressed the overlap between various individual differences and OARs (Collins et al., 2003) and dimension ratings (Meriac, Hoffman, & Woehr, 2014). Yet, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the criterion-related validity and nomological network of AC exercises, in spite of the facts that (a) the use of high-fidelity simulations is a defining characteristic of the method (International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines, 2009), and (b) exercise effects tend to account for substantial variance in AC ratings (Bowler & Woehr, 2006; Lance, Lambert, Gewin, Lievens, & Conway, 2004; Lievens & Conway, 2001; Sackett & Dreher, 1982; Woehr & Arthur, 2003).  \nThe need to more closely attend to the psychometrics of simulation exercises is well-documented (Lance, 2008; Lievens, 2008;  \nThis article was published Online First March 23, 2015 .  \nBrian J. Hoffman, Colby L. Kennedy, Alexander C. LoPilato, Elizabeth L. Monahan, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia; Charles E. Lance, Department of Psychology, Organizational Research & Development, Lawrenceville, Georgia.  \nBrian J. Hoffman is currently a visiting professor in the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg.  \nThis research was partially funded by a Douglas W. Bray and Ann Howard Research Grant from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Foundation. We thank Ashley Sutton and Chelsea Rowe for their assistance in collecting the data reported in this study.  \nCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian J. Hoffman, 228 Psychology Building, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: [hoffmanb@uga.edu](hoffmanb@uga.edu)  \nNeidig & Neidig, 1984; Sackett & Dre","cbCaihS9rSWygyOQ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihS9rSWygyOQ","pdf",301595,26,"English","# Overview of the study\n# Meta-analysis: relationships across exercise types and key constructs\n# Nomological network findings\n# Content analysis of exercise descriptions\n# Research questions guiding the review","[{\"question\":\"What does the study evaluate about assessment center exercises?\",\"answer\":\"It assesses content, criterion-related, construct, and incremental validity of five commonly used AC exercise types.\"},{\"question\":\"Which relationships with other constructs are found for the exercise types?\",\"answer\":\"All five types show significant relationships with criterion variables, and they tend to have modest associations with GMA and Extraversion, with limited links to Openness.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the content analysis suggest about exercise descriptions?\",\"answer\":\"Exercise descriptors provide some evidence of complexity, ambiguity, interpersonal interaction, and fidelity, rather than clear interdependence.\"}]","A Review of the Content, Criterion-Related, and Construct-Related Validity of Assessment Center Exercises | PDF",1792703363,66]