Utility of the assessment center as a selection device.

Abstract

Psychometric evaluations of the assessment center method have consistently shown positive results. However, this "classical validity" approach ignores certain external parameters of the situation (e.g., selection ratio, cost of the procedure) that largely determine the overall utility of a selection device. Moreover, the classical validity approach ignores the systemic nature of the selection process. Utility theory attempts to overcome these deficiencies by placing primary emphasis on the outcomes of prediction rather than on measurement and prediction per se. The utility of the assessment center was evaluated by means of the Brogden-Cronbach-Gleser continuous variable utility model. After specifying several cost assumptions, six parameters were varied systematically: the validity and cost of the assessment center, the validity of the ordinary selection procedure, the selection ratio, the standard deviation of the criterion, and the number of assessment centers. The largest impacts on assessment center payoffs were exerted by the size of the criterion standard deviation, the selection ratio, and the difference in validity between the assessment center and the ordinary selection procedure. Even assessment centers with validities as low as .10 showed positive gains in utility over random selection.

The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.

“…Readers who would like more detail are referred to the research articles cited above and to Boudreau (1983aBoudreau ( , 1983bBoudreau ( , 1984, Cascio and Silbey (1979), Cronshaw and Alexander (1985), Hunter, Schmidt, and Coggin (1988), Schmidt (1982a, 1982b), Schmidt and Hunter (1983), Schmidt, Hunter, Outerbridge, and Tratmer (1986), Schmidt, Hunter, and Pearlman (1982), and Schmidt et al (1984). Our purpose here is to make three important points: (a) the economic value of gains from unproved hiring methods are typically quite large, (b) these gains are directly proportional to the size of the increase in validity when moving from the old to the new selection methods, and (c) no other characteristic of a personnel measure is as important as predictive validity.…”

Improving the Selection, Classification, and Utilization of Army Enlisted Personnel: Technical Appendix to the Annual Report

“…This technique was used by Cascio and Silbey (1979) with second level managers in food and beverage sales (Mean = $30,000, SD$ = $9,500); by Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, and Muldrow (1979) with computer programmers (SD$ = $10,413); by Hunter and Schmidt (1982) with budget analysts (SD$ $11,327); and by Bobko, Karren, and Parkington (1983) with insurance counselors (Median = $96,000, SD$ = $56,950).…”

“…Both Cascio and Silbey (1979) and Bobko et al (1983) framed questions in terms of performance value and estimates of total yearly dollar sales. Hunter and Schmidt (1982) reviewed performance value and SD$ estimation work and looked at SD$ in relation to annual employee salary.…”

Dependence of the Relative Productivity Gains of Two Personnel Selection Tests on the Applicant Pool Size

“…This model allows estimation of the utility, in dollars, of personnel selection procedures. Recently the Brogden-1980;Cascio & Silbey, 1979;Holgarth & Einhom, 1976, Hunter, Schmidt, & Rauschenberger, 1977Landy, Farr, & Jacobs, 1982;Schmidt, Hunter, & Pearlman, 1982). The resurgence of interest in this utility model (which measures utility in dollars) is perhaps due to the &dquo;decline in the rate of economic growth in the United States&dquo; (Bobko et al , 1983) and the consequent importance to both organizations and consumers of economically productive personnel selection strategies (see Landy et al, 1982).…”

“…28-31). In any case, it should be noted that the term &dquo;utility,&dquo; in the context of the BrogdenCronbach-Gleser model and most current discussions and applications of this model (Bobko et al, 1983;Cascio, 1980;Cascio & Silbey, 1979;Holgarth & Einhom, 1976;Hunter et al, 1977;Landy et al, 1982;Schmidt et al , 1982), refers to &dquo;monetary,&dquo; &dquo;productivity,&dquo; &dquo;economic,&dquo; or &dquo;job performance&dquo; 9 variables or to linear functions of these variables.…”