Changes in self‐perceived ability as a function of performance in an assessment centre

Schmitt, Neal; Ford, J. Kevin; Stults, Daniel M.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1986.tb00233.x

Cited by 32 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Support for this proposition can be found in a study by Gilliland (1993). Additionally, Schmitt, Ford, and Stults (1986) found that self-perceived ability changed as a result of participation in an assessment center. Self-efficacy was not influenced by the hiring decision when the selection procedure was low in job relatedness.…”

Section: Proposition 22;mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective

Gilliland

1993

AMR

761

1,020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A justice model of applicants' reactions to employment-selection systems is proposed as a basis for organizing previous findings and guiding future research. Organizational justice literature is briefly reviewed, and key findings are used to provide a framework lor the proposed model and to support hypotheses. The procedural justice oi selection systems is examined in terms of It] procedural rules, wherein the satisfaction and violation of these rules provide the basis for fairness reactions. Distributive justice of hiring decisions is examined with respect to equity, equality, and needs. The model also includes the interaction of procedural and distributive justice and the relationship of fairness reactions to individual and organizational outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Proposition 22;mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective

Gilliland

1993

AMR

761

1,020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the purpose of this article, self-rating is defined as any evaluation procedure in which professionals rate their own skills, knowledge, or effectiveness in some aspect of their work. Numerous terms have been used to describe this process, including self-evaluation (Arnold, Willoughby, & Calkins, 1985;Mabe 8c West, 1982), self-report (Koziol 8c Burns, 1986;Laing, 1988), selfexpressed competence (Gretes & Wolfe, 1987), self-perceived ability (Schmitt, Ford, &Stults, 1986), self-adequacy (Fuller, 1969), self-assessment (Cox, 1987;Heneman, 1980;Levine, Flory, 8c Ash, 1977), and self-efficacy (Guskey, 1988;Stein 8c Wang, 1988). …”

Section: Self-ratingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Ratings Of Professional Knowledge And Skills In Early Intervention

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes the development and use of a 32-item self-rating of professional knowledge and skills in the context of early intervention for infants and toddlers with handicaps. Participants in a series of workshops designed to teach familyfocused skills completed the form prior to training. Although items on the scale differentiated knowledge and skills in 16 areas of competence, professionals did not make that distinction in rating themselves, with 73% of the knowledge items rated exactly the same as the skill items. A factor analysis revealed three clusters of items: family-focused ratings, child-focused ratings, and team-focused ratings. Cronbach's coefficient alpha indicated high internal consistency for each factor. Changes in participants' ratings over time are described, and implications of these findings for self-rating procedures in general and for evaluating inservice experiences in early intervention are discussed.Inservice education is widely accepted as a mechanism for helping professionals keep abreast of new knowledge about effective teaching or therapeutic practices. Workshops, institutes, conferences, university coursework, expert consultation, and independent study activities all form the core of typical inservice experiences. Although the need for inservice has been well established, serious questions about the effectiveness of traditional inservice experiences (Guskey, 1986) mean that some form of evaluation is essential.Most evaluation efforts address the extent to which participants are satisfied with the training experience. Ultimately, however, the providers of inservice education must ask whether the training actually influences professional practice. Unfortunately, the time and expense required to document change in professional practice serve as substantial barriers to meaningful evaluation. The lack of feasible alternatives often means that no evaluation is done.One economical alternative is to have the recipients of training rate their own professional skills. In the present article, we review the research on self-ratings and discuss issues regarding their usefulness in evaluating the effects of inservice experiences. An instrument designed to assess the skills of professionals working with young children with handicaps and their families is described, and data are presented in support of its use as an evaluation procedure. Issues unique to inservice education in the context of early intervention are described, and implications for future research and training are discussed.

show abstract

“…Schmitt, Ford, and Stults (1986) also showed the effect of taking part in an assessment centre on self-ratings for a large group of participants (n = 1693) was small but significant. That particular investigation, however, involved self-ratings of skill dimension.s, not overall future job performance or specific exercise performance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

An Empirical Comparison of Self-Assessment and Organizational Assessment in Personnel Selection

George¹,

Smith²

1990

Public Personnel Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it can be accepted that we as human beings are capable of knowing and assessing ourselves, it is not clear whether such self-assessment information can be accurately reported and used in a predictive role. Self-assessment information was requested of 85 applicants before and after an assessment centre selection program. Those applicants em ployed provided self-assessments of job performance after 12 months on the job. Self-assessments were com pared with organizational evaluations of performance at selection and after 12 months employment. The moderating effects of age, gender, intelligence, social desirability, work experience, and education were considered for each relationship. Resu Its showed that general ly self-assessment was unrelated to organizational assessments. Post-assessment centre selfassessments were significantly lower than self-assessments requested prior to the centre. Dave George is an In dustrial/Organizational PsyctiologisI in Itie Manage ment Services Department of Peat Mar%vick, in Wcllmgtot\,Nortti, New Zealand. He has published articles in the areas ot personnel selection and as sessment. 1-te has lectured in Industrial /Organizational Psychotogy al Massey Univer sity and has been involved in the design of selection and ap praisal programs, sur\'ey and research projects for a range of government and private sector organizations. continuiä A number of recent review^s have shown that self-assessment is a valid source of predictor information. Shrauger and Osberg (1981) considered those studies which compared self-a.ssessment with other assessment pro cedures in a range of settings and concluded that other assessment methods did not show clearly superior validity when compared to self-assessment. Mabe and West (1982) focused on the effects of individual characteristics and measurement conditions on the relationship between various ability and performance measures and self-assessment. Potential individual char acteristics associated with accurate self-evaluation included relatively higher intelligence, high achievement status, and internal locus of control. In general terms, accurate self-evaluator tended to be the more intelligent subjects, individuals high in achievement status, and those with an internal locus of control. In addition, Mabe and West (1982) showed that when certain favorable conditions of measurement were present there was a substantial increase in the mean validity coefficient. The measurement conditions which were the main contributors to explained variance were relative self-evaluation, expectations of validation, anonymity instruction and self-evaluation experience. The increase from .00 (no measurement conditions present), to .64 (any four measurement conditions) implied that many of the finding reported in the literature may be affected by the way in which .self-assessment data were collected.A recent review by Harris and Schaubroek (1988) focused on the relationship between self, peer, and supervisory assessments in mainly work settings. They reported a relative...

show abstract

Changes in self‐perceived ability as a function of performance in an assessment centre

Cited by 32 publications

References 10 publications

The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective

The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective

Self-Ratings Of Professional Knowledge And Skills In Early Intervention

An Empirical Comparison of Self-Assessment and Organizational Assessment in Personnel Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About