A test of the generalizability of a recently suggested conceptual model for assessment center ratings

Меркулова, Наталья Игоревна; Melchers, Klaus G.; Kleinmann, Martin; Annen, Hubert; Tresch, Tibor Szvircsev

doi:10.1080/08959285.2016.1160093

Cited by 9 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, exercise factors, dimension factors, and the GPF were specified as uncorrelated with each other. Even though this is in line with previous research (e.g., Lance et al, 2004b;Hoffman et al, 2011;Monahan et al, 2013;Merkulova et al, 2016), it might be argued that it makes little conceptual sense that a general performance construct is unrelated to performance on dimension constructs. In this regard, however, we first want to stress that AC dimensions do not represent constructs, and second, that the introduction of additional correlations between the GPF and the dimension and/or the exercise factors would have increased estimation problems.…”

Section: General Analytic Approachsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…This finding therefore adds to the existing literature investigating a GPF as part of the internal structure of AC ratings (Lance et al, 2004b;Siminovsky et al, 2015;Jackson et al, 2016). This is an important finding since previous studies suggest that a GPF explains additional, useful information not explained by narrow dimensions and exercises (Lance et al, 2000(Lance et al, , 2004aMerkulova et al, 2016). Even in these models, using parcels seems to lead to better model fit and model termination.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

“…First, in line with the mixed-model approach, by grouping conceptually related dimensions together to form broader dimension categories, Hoffman et al (2011) were able to find support for latent dimension factors in addition to exercise factors and a general performance factor (GPF), which is conceptually similar to findings of a GPF in job performance ratings (Viswesvaran et al, 2005). In addition, Hoffman et al also found that these broad dimension factors had incremental criterion-related validity over and above exercises and the GPF (also see Merkulova et al, 2016, for additional evidence). Furthermore, this structure supports contemporary views that candidate behavior also represents situation-specific variance when the exercises are chosen accordingly (Lance et al, 2007) and additionally reflects the general efficacy of candidates when completing management tasks (Thornton et al, 2015).…”

Section: Recent Developments Concerning the Construct-related Validity Of Ac Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How Different Indicator-Dimension Ratios in Assessment Center Ratings Affect Evidence for Dimension Factors

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on the construct validity of assessment center (AC) ratings has usually struggled to find support for dimension factors as an underlying source of variance of these ratings. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) remains the most widely used method to specify and validate the internal structure of AC ratings. However, the research support for dimension effects in AC ratings remains mixed. In addition, competing CFA models (e.g., correlated dimensions-correlated exercises models) are often plagued by non-convergence and estimation problems. Recently, it has been proposed that increasing the number of indicators per dimension and exercise combination might help to find support for dimension factors, in addition to exercise factors, in CFAs of AC ratings. Furthermore, it was also suggested that the increased ratio of indicators to dimensions may also solve some of the methodological problems associated with CFA models used to model AC ratings. However, in this research it remained unclear whether the support for dimension factors was solely due to the use of a larger indicator-dimension ratio or due to parceling that combines several behavioral indicators per dimension and exercise combination into more reliable measures of the targeted dimension. These are important empirical questions that have been left unanswered in the literature but can be potentially meaningful in seeking more balanced support for dimension effects in AC research. Using data from N = 213 participants from a 1-day AC, we aimed to investigate the impact of using different indicator-dimension ratios when specifying CFA models of AC ratings. Therefore, we investigated the impact of using different indicator-dimension ratios in the form of item parcels with data from an operational AC. On average, using three parcels eventually led to support for dimension factors in CFAs. However, exercise-based CFA models still performed better than dimension-based models. Thus, the present results point out potential limits concerning the generalizability of recent results that provided support for dimension factors in ACs.

show abstract

Section: General Analytic Approachsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Recent Developments Concerning the Construct-related Validity Of Ac Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Different Indicator-Dimension Ratios in Assessment Center Ratings Affect Evidence for Dimension Factors

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Agreeable individuals are more likely to interpret events and cues in more positive ways, resulting in maintaining positive perceptions throughout the process, whereas longer exposure to the selection system may reduce the perception among conscientious individuals that due process is being followed. Merkulova, Melchers, Kleinmann, Annen, and Szvircsev Tresch () have completed work related to this issue. They found that a variety of personality characteristics (core self‐evaluations, the Big Five, and trait affectivity) were related to applicant reactions regarding experiences at an assessment center.…”

Section: The Dynamic Nature Of Applicant Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Change in Fairness Perceptions During the Hiring Process

Konradt

Garbers

Erdoğan

et al. 2016

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The justice literature, to date, shows that changes in fairness perceptions over time are consequential for job attitudes. However, few studies have been directed at explicating how fairness perceptions change over time or individual differences in patterns of change. The present research attempts to fill this gap by exploring patterns of temporal changes in fairness perceptions toward the selection process during a hiring process and potential determinants for such change. In a 3‐wave longitudinal study of the entire hiring process (pre‐, in‐, and post‐process) using a latent growth mixture modeling approach, different patterns of change in perceived fairness were modeled. In addition, the role of Big Five personality factors to predict classes of temporal patterns was examined. Results suggest that, on average, fairness perceptions declined in a non‐linear way over time, with high initial levels of fairness perception corresponding to a lower rate of decline, and vice versa. Four unique classes of applicants exhibiting different initial scores and growth of fairness perceptions were identified, which were predicted by the personality factors of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for fairness theory and future research.

show abstract

“…Positive and negative affectivity also have been found to affect the relationship between justice and outcomes such as recommendations and litigation intentions . In one of the most comprehensive examinations of the effects of such individual differences on reactions, Merkulova, Melchers, Kleinmann, Annen, and Tresch (2014) found that Big Five personality factors, core self-evaluations, trait affectivity, and cognitive ability affected perceptions of an assessment center even after controlling for applicants' perceived and actual assessment center performance. This emerging recognition that applicants' personality can affect their reactions and, thus, the relative effects of selection procedures themselves is a key factor in understanding how applicant reactions work.…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicant Perspectives During Selection: A Review Addressing “So What?,” “What’s New?,” and “Where to Next?”

McCarthy

Bauer²,

Truxillo

et al. 2017

Journal of Management

150

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A test of the generalizability of a recently suggested conceptual model for assessment center ratings

Cited by 9 publications

References 62 publications

How Different Indicator-Dimension Ratios in Assessment Center Ratings Affect Evidence for Dimension Factors

How Different Indicator-Dimension Ratios in Assessment Center Ratings Affect Evidence for Dimension Factors

Patterns of Change in Fairness Perceptions During the Hiring Process

Applicant Perspectives During Selection: A Review Addressing “So What?,” “What’s New?,” and “Where to Next?”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About