Topic: Assessment
Publication: Human Resource Management Review (September,
2009)
Article: Validity of assessment centers
for personnel selection
Authors: Thornton, G. C., & Gibbons, A.
M.
Reviewed By: Bobby Bullock
Assessment
centers (ACs) have
been used to aid the process of external and internal selection of employees
and high potentials, certification, and promotion for over 50 years. At ACs, multiple assessors observe the
behavior of assesses as they engage in organizational simulations designed to
test their ability to perform new, relevant assignments. Historically, overall assessment
ratings (OARs) and
dimensional scores have been shown to predict a range of relevant selection
outcomes.
Compared
with other selection tools (such as cognitive ability or personality), ACs are
stronger predictors of future effectiveness. OARs
have been found to predict promotion rates, salary progress, job performance
ratings, performance in training, and other performance criteria. ACs exhibit less group bias (in terms of sub-group differences)
compared to cognitive ability test scores, but their fairness should not be
blindly assumed. Also, although
the use of an AC can be fairly expensive, their overall utility is positive. In fact, some studies have found the value of using an AC
can range from thousands of dollars per hire to over 1 million overall!
Although
ACs have been found to be generally effective and worthwhile, research over the
past few decades has highlighted various controversies and conflicting
recommendations. Thornton and
Gibbons (2009) have suggested that more research needs to be undertaken in
order to shed some light on various issues such as: which type of dimensions to assess (i.e., cognitive,
interpersonal, etc.), the use of dimension-based ACs vs. exercise-based ACs
(which they believe depends on the target position), participant impression
management and faking, and how to integrate ratings from multiple raters and
exercises. However, the authors
noted that certain best practices can improve the AC process. These include:
·
Highly
trained assessors (using psychologists is particularly effective)
·
Clear
and easy to use assessment tools
·
Use of
exercises identified through thorough job analysis to be relevant to the target job
·
Proper
thought given to: the participant
rating system, insight into the variance of possible responses to exercises,
and even the very instructions given to participants
Not all
hope is lost! The authors
summarized their findings best by stating that “research and practice suggest
that ACs are valid, fair, legally defensible, and acceptable to candidates and
other stakeholders in a wide variety of jobs” (Thornton & Gibbons, 2009, p. 183).
