Further Evidence for the Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions - A Meta-Analysis of the Incremental Criterion-Related Validity of Dimension Ratings

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by Logic

Investigates the incremental variance in job performance explained by assessment center (AC) dimensions beyond personality and cognitive ability. The study extends prior work by applying meta-analysis to test links among AC dimensions, personality, cognitive ability, and job performance. Findings show that the seven summary AC dimensions proposed by prior authors are distinguishable from common individual-difference constructs and account for a substantial share of variance beyond cognitive ability and personality.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Incremental and criterion-related validity of AC dimensions

The Validity of AC Dimension Ratings

Construct-related validity and postexercise dimension ratings (PEDRs)

Purpose and scope of the meta-analysis

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 93, No. 5, 1042–1052 0021-9010/08/$12 .00 DOI: 10 . 1037/0021-9010 .93.5.1042 Further Evidence for the Validity of Assessment Center Dimensions: A Meta-Analysis of the Incremental Criterion-Related Validity of Dimension Ratings John P. Meriac University of Tennessee, Knoxville Brian J. Hoffman University of Georgia David J. Woehr and Matthew S. Fleisher University of Tennessee, Knoxville This study investigates the incremental variance in job performance explained by assessment center (AC) dimensions over and above personality and cognitive ability. The authors extend previous research by using meta-analysis to examine the relationships between AC dimensions, personality, cognitive ability, and job performance. The results indicate that the 7 summary AC dimensions postulated by W. Arthur, Jr., E. A. Day, T. L. McNelly, & P. S. Edens (2003) are distinguishable from popular individual difference constructs and explain a sizeable proportion of variance in job performance beyond cognitive ability and personality. Keywords: assessment center, incremental validity, meta-analysis Managerial assessment centers (ACs) continue to be a popular assessment method in both administrative and developmental contexts (Howard, 1997; Woehr, 2006) . For administrative purposes, ACs have enjoyed continued use due in large part to their high fidelity (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005), strong criterion-related validity evidence (Arthur, Day, McNelly, & Edens, 2003), and a lack of subgroup differences in scores (Howard & Bray, 1988; Huck & Bray, 1976; Thornton & Rupp, 2006) . Further, ACs have seen increasing use in management and leadership development programs largely because of their apparent objectivity relative to other alternatives (e.g., 360° feedback), more favorable applicant reactions in comparison with other predictors (Macan, Avedon, Paese,& Smith, 1994), and the positive impact on feedback acceptance (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005) . Although the AC method is popular and frequently used, the construct-related validity of the performance dimensions assessed continues to be perceived as its Achilles heel (Lance, 2008) . However, two recent meta-analyses have demonstrated relatively favorable validity evidence for AC dimensions. Specifically, Arthur et al. (2003) proposed that the myriad of espoused AC dimensions found in the literature could be reliably collapsed into a smaller, conceptually distinct set of seven dimensions. Using this John P. Meriac, David J. Woehr, and Matthew S. Fleisher, Department of Management, University of Tennessee; Brian J. Hoffman, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia. A previous version of this article was presented at the 22nd annual conference of the Society for Industrial–Organizational Psychology, New York, April 2007 . Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Meriac, who is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Missouri—St. Louis, Stadler Hall, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, [MO 63121-4499. E-mail: meriacj@umsl.edu](MO 63121-4499. E-mail: meriacj@umsl.edu) seven-dimension taxonomy, they provided evidence for the criterion-related validity of individual AC dimensions with respect to job performance as opposed to an overall AC rating (OAR), as is typical in previous criterion-related validity studies (e.g., Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987) . Similarly, using the same seven-dimension taxonomy, Bowler and Woehr (2006) demonstrated that a model consisting of both dimension and exercise factors provided the best representation of AC dimension ratingsand that exercise effects were only slightly larger in magnitude than dimension effects. Another potential concern regarding the validity of AC ratings involves the extent to which they make an incremental contribution to the prediction of relevant criteria. Specifically, it has been

FAQs

What does the study aim to measure about assessment center dimensions?

It examines the incremental variance in job performance explained by assessment center dimensions beyond personality and cognitive ability.

How do the authors treat the relationship between AC dimensions and other individual-difference constructs?

The results indicate the seven summary AC dimensions are distinguishable from popular individual difference constructs.

What validity evidence does the study provide regarding criterion-related and incremental prediction?

The study’s meta-analytic findings show that AC dimensions explain a sizeable proportion of job-performance variance beyond cognitive ability and personality.

Oct 3, 2026

Upload by Logic