Meta-analysis (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982) of SO assessment center studies containing 107 validity coefficients revealed a corrected mean and variance of .37 and .017, respectively. Validities were sorted into five categories of criteria and four categories of assessment purpose. Higher validities were found in studies in which potential ratings were the criterion, and lower validities were found in promotion studies. Sufficient variance remained after correcting for artifacts to justify searching for moderators. Validities were higher when the percentage of female assessees was high, when several evaluation devices were used, when assessors were psychologists rather than managers, when peer evaluation was used, and when the study was methodologically sound. Age of assessees, whether feedback was given, days of assessor training, days of observation, percentages of minority assessees, and criterion contamination did not moderate assessment center validities. The findings suggest that assessment centers show both validity generalization and situational specificity.

Two hundred fifteen organizations in the United States provided information about multiple aspects of their assessment centers, including design, usage, and their adherence to professional guidelines and research‐based suggestions for the use of this method. Results reveal that centers are usually conducted for selection, promotion, and development purposes. Supervisor recommendation plays a sizable role in choosing center participants. Most often, line managers act as assessors; they typically arrive at participant ratings through a consensus process. In general, respondents indicate close adherence to recommendations for center design and assessor training. Recommendations involving other practices (e.g., informing participants, evaluating assessors, validating center results) are frequently not followed. Furthermore, methods thought to improve predictive validity of center ratings are underutilized. Variability in center practices according to industry and center purpose was revealed. We encourage practitioners to follow recommendations for center usage, and researchers to work to better understand moderators of center validity.

Undergraduates (N= 131) were trained as assessors, who evaluated the performance of confederates in an assessment center simulation on 3, 6, or 9 dimensions. Number of dimensions significantly affected some assessment center judgments but not others. Ss who rated a small number of dimensions classified behaviors more accurately and made more accurate ratings than did Ss who rated a large number of dimensions. Number of dimensions did not affect the accuracy of assessors' observations nor the discriminant validity of their dimension ratings. Given these results and the findings of others (

Assessors evaluated assessees’performances in one of three performance conditions in an assessment center simulation: a consistent performance condition, a within‐assessee performance variation condition, or a between‐assessee performance variation condition. Contrast effects influenced ratings of assessees when there was variation in performance within assessees. For each assessee, the low target performance was rated lower when the assessee's prior performance had been dissimilar (high) than when the assessee's prior performance had been similar (low). Contrast effects also infiuenced assessors’ratings of the target assessee when there was variation in performance among assessees. The low performing target assessee was rated significantly lower when he was evaluated with two high performers than when he was evaluated with two low performers. In addition, ratings obtained when there was performance variation among assessees were more accurate than those obtained when there was no performance variation, suggesting that under some circumstances contrast effects may not lead to inferior judgments.

No abstract