The Transparent Assessment Centre: The Effects of Revealing Dimensions to Candidates

Kolk, Nanja J.; Born, Marise Ph.; Flier, H. van der

doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00156

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the lack of research on the influence of interview transparency on interviewees' performance and the mixed findings reported in the related literature on ACs (Kleinmann, 1997;Kleinmann et al, 1996;Kolk et al, 2003;Smith-Jentsch, 1996), our study's finding of increased performance in the transparent condition highlights the difference between high-and low-fidelity simulations. Although interviews are usually more practicable and cost-efficient than ACs and are widely accepted among hiring organizations, they represent only low-fidelity simulations in which actual behavior needs to be inferred from interviewees' answers without interviewees proving that they are truly capable of enacting the required behavior (Motowidlo et al, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Transparency was manipulated in the same way as it had been done in earlier studies (Kleinmann, 1997;Kleinmann et al, 1996;Kolk et al, 2003). Participants in the transparent condition received an introduction and a handout with defini-tions of each dimension.…”

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For assessment centers (ACs), both Kleinmann, Kuptsch, and Köller (1996) and Smith-Jentsch (1996) reported that applicants performed better if they were informed about the targeted dimensions than if they were not informed (but see Kolk, Born, & van der Flier, 2003). Transparency should be more likely to influence results in interviews than in ACs, as interviewees only have to state the respective behavior.…”

Section: Consequences Of Interview Transparency On Interviewee Performentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Transparency in Structured Interviews: Consequences for Construct and Criterion-Related Validity

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although researchers agree on the use of structured interviews in personnel selection, past research has been undecided on whether these interviews need to be conducted nontransparently (i.e., without giving interviewees any indication of the evaluated criteria) or transparently (i.e., by revealing to interviewees the dimensions assessed in the interview). This article presents two independent studies examining the effects of interview transparency on interviewees' performance and on the interview's construct and criterion-related validity in the context of an application training program. Results from both Study 1 (N = 123) and Study 2 (N = 269) indicate an improvement in interviewees' performance under transparent interview conditions. Both studies further support the assumption that transparent interviews show satisfactory construct validity, whereas nontransparent interviews do not. Moreover, Study 2 showed no significant difference between the interview's criterion-related validity under transparent versus nontransparent conditions. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consequences Of Interview Transparency On Interviewee Performentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transparency in Structured Interviews: Consequences for Construct and Criterion-Related Validity

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, as past research has found that cognitive ability is correlated to candidates' ability to identify criteria (Kolk et al ; König et al, ; Melchers et al, ; Preckel & Schüpbach, ), the present research also offers an opportunity to further investigate reasons for this correlation. Specifically, we suggest that cognitive ability correlates with d′ but not with c .…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 76%

Assessment of Situational Demands in a Selection Interview: Reflective style or sensitivity?

Melchers

Bösser²,

Hartstein³

et al. 2012

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correctly understanding situational demands is necessary to handle social situations appropriately. Past selection research has shown that candidates who are better at identifying the targeted dimensions in an interview or an assessment center, in fact, perform better in these procedures. However, at least two different processes might be responsible for the obtained findings. First, candidates might differ in their ability to correctly interpret given cues, meaning that some candidates generate better (i.e., more accurate) ideas than others. Second, some candidates might generally reflect more upon potential demands and therefore generate more ideas concerning potentially targeted dimensions. The present study used signal detection theory to investigate to what degree these two processes are related to interview performance. The interview was administered during a selection simulation for university graduates (N = 147). Interviewees' assumptions concerning the targeted dimensions were assessed in a postinterview questionnaire in which they had to write down any hypotheses as to what a certain question was trying to assess. We found that generating better ideas was essential for candidates' interview performance and not the degree to which they generally generated ideas about targeted interview dimension.

show abstract

“…It may seem radical to disclose to respondents what is being measured in a personality inventory but some research suggests that such disclosure may yield better validity. For instance, there was an article in Applied Psychology: International Review (Kolk, Born & van der Flier, 2003) that examined the impact of making assessment center dimensions available to applicants versus not making them available. They found some improvement in construct validity when the applicants knew the dimensions on which they were being tested.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the Use of Personality Tests in Personnel Selection Contexts

Morgeson

Campion

Dipboye

et al. 2007

Personnel Psychology

513

472

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although long thought to be unrelated to job performance, research in the early 1990s provided evidence that personality can predict job performance. Accompanying this research was a resurgence of interest in the use of personality tests in high-stakes selection environments. Yet there are numerous potential problems associated with the current operational use of personality. As such, 5 former journal editors from Personnel Psychology and the Journal of Applied Psychology (2 primary outlets for such research), who have collectively reviewed over 7,000 manuscripts and who have no vested interest in personality testing, reconsider the research on the use of personality tests in environments where important selection decisions are made. Their comments are based on a panel discussion held at the 2004 SIOP conference. Collectively, they come to several conclusions. First, faking on self-report personality tests cannot be avoided and perhaps is not the issue; the issue is the very low validity of personality tests for predicting job performance. Second, as such, using published self-report personality tests in selection contexts should be reconsidered. Third, personality constructs may have value for employee selection, but future research should focus on finding alternatives to self-report personality measures. Psychology were assembled to discuss the issue of faking in personality testing. The resulting discussion evolved from a focus on faking to a focus on the broader issue of whether the use of personality tests to make high-stakes employment decisions could be justified. With the exception of one of the panelists, there was consensus that there are a number of significant problems associated with the use of self-report personality tests in selection contexts and that perhaps a reappraisal of this literature might be in order. This paper briefly describes the history of the use of personality tests in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology and specifically addresses the issue of fakability. The paper then summarizes and expands upon the points made during the panel discussion. A Brief History on the Use of Personality Tests in I-O PsychologyIn 1965, Guion and Gottier summarized 12 years (1952)(1953)(1954)(1955)(1956)(1957)(1958)(1959)(1960)(1961)(1962)(1963) of research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology on the use of personality tests in selection contexts. They concluded that "It is difficult in the face of this summary to advocate, with a clear conscience, the use of personality measures in most situations as a basis for making employment decisions about people" (Guion & Gottier, 1965, p. 160). This view prevailed for more than 25 years, until the 1991 publication of two meta-analyses on the validity of personality tests for personnel selection (Barrick & Mount, 1991;Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Although these two summaries found similar levels of validity as previous quantitative reviews (cf. Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984), they concluded that meta-a...

show abstract

The Transparent Assessment Centre: The Effects of Revealing Dimensions to Candidates

Cited by 27 publications

References 42 publications

Transparency in Structured Interviews: Consequences for Construct and Criterion-Related Validity

Transparency in Structured Interviews: Consequences for Construct and Criterion-Related Validity

Assessment of Situational Demands in a Selection Interview: Reflective style or sensitivity?

Reconsidering the Use of Personality Tests in Personnel Selection Contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About