Toward a Better Understanding of Assessment Centers: A Conceptual Review

Literature Cited

1. Ang S, Van Dyne L, Koh C, Ng KY, Templer KJ et al. 2007. Cultural intelligence: its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Manag. Organ. Rev. 3:335–71
   [Google Scholar]
2. Arthur W, Day EA, McNelly TL, Edens PS 2003. A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Pers. Psychol. 56:125–54
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barrick MR, Shaffer JA, DeGrassi SW 2009. What you see may not be what you get: relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:1394–411
   [Google Scholar]
4. Becker N, Höft S, Holzenkamp M, Spinath FM 2011. The predictive validity of assessment centers in German-speaking regions: a meta-analysis. J. Pers. Psychol. 10:61–69
   [Google Scholar]
5. Blacksmith N, Wilford JC, Behrend TS 2016. Technology in the employment interview: a meta-analysis and future research agenda. Pers. Assess. Decis. 2:12–20
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bowler MC, Woehr DJ 2006. A meta-analytic evaluation of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:1114–24
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bozeman DP, Kacmar KM 1997. A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 69:9–30
   [Google Scholar]
8. Brummel BJ, Rupp DE, Spain SM 2009. Constructing parallel simulation exercises for assessment centers and other forms of behavioral assessment. Pers. Psychol. 62:137–70
   [Google Scholar]
9. Earley PC, Peterson RS 2004. The elusive cultural chameleon: cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 3:100–15
   [Google Scholar]
10. Emrich M, Diehl M 2007. Flexibel versus charakterstark: Die Effekte situativen und dispositionellen Self-Monitorings im Assessment Center [Flexibility versus strength of character: effects of situational and dispositional self-monitoring in the assessment center]. J. Pers. Psychol. 6:2–11
    [Google Scholar]
11. Evans JS 2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:255–78
    [Google Scholar]
12. Evans JS, Stanovich KE 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8:223–41
    [Google Scholar]
13. Fiske ST, Taylor SE 1991. Social Cognition New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
14. Funder DC 1995. On the accuracy of personality judgment: a realistic approach. Psychol. Rev. 102:652–70
    [Google Scholar]
15. Funder DC 2012. Accurate personality judgment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21:177–82
    [Google Scholar]
16. Gaugler BB, Rosenthal DB, Thornton GC, Bentson C 1987. Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 72:493–511
    [Google Scholar]
17. Goffman E 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life New York: Doubleday
    [Google Scholar]
18. Griffin B 2014. The ability to identify criteria: its relationship with social understanding, preparation, and impression management in affecting predictor performance in a high-stakes selection context. Hum. Perform. 27:147–64
    [Google Scholar]
19. Guidry B 2017. Using new sources of assessment center data to explore decision-making Presented at Annu. Conf. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol, 32nd Orlando, FL:
    [Google Scholar]
20. Haaland S, Christiansen ND 2002. Implications of trait activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Pers. Psychol. 55:137–63
    [Google Scholar]
21. Hermelin E, Lievens F, Robertson IT 2007. The validity of assessment centres for the prediction of supervisory performance ratings: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 15:405–11
    [Google Scholar]
22. Highhouse S, Harris MM 1993. The measurement of assessment center situations: Bem's template matching technique for examining exercise similarity. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23:140–55
    [Google Scholar]
23. Hoffman BJ, Kennedy CL, LoPilato AC, Monahan EL, Lance CE 2015. A review of the content, criterion-related, and construct-related validity of assessment center exercises. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1143–68
    [Google Scholar]
24. Hofstede G 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values Newbury Park, CA: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
25. Ingold PV, Dönni M, Lievens F 2018. A dual-process theory perspective to better understand judgments in assessment centers: the role of initial impressions for dimension ratings and validity. J. Appl. Psychol. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000333
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
26. Ingold PV, Kleinmann M, König CJ, Melchers KG 2016. Transparency of assessment centers: Lower criterion-related validity but greater opportunity to perform. Pers. Psychol. 69:467–97
    [Google Scholar]
27. Jacksch V, Klehe UC 2016. Unintended consequences of transparency during personnel selection: benefitting some candidates, but harming others. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 24:4–13
    [Google Scholar]
28. Jackson DJR, Michaelides G, Dewberry C, Kim Y-J 2016. Everything that you have ever been told about assessment center ratings is confounded. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:976–94
    [Google Scholar]
29. Jansen A, Lievens F, Kleinmann M 2011. Do individual differences in perceiving situational demands moderate the relationship between personality and assessment center dimension ratings. Hum. Perform. 24:231–50
    [Google Scholar]
30. Jansen A, Melchers KG, Kleinmann M 2012. Der Beitrag sozialer Kompetenz zur Vorhersage beruflicher Leistung [The contribution of social competence to the prediction of job performance: incremental validity of social competence beyond assessment center and interview performance]. Z. Arb. Organ. 56:87–97
    [Google Scholar]
31. Jansen A, Melchers KG, Lievens F, Kleinmann M, Brändli M et al. 2013. Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:326–41
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kacmar MK, Delery JE, Ferris GR 1992. Differential effectiveness of applicant impression management tactics on employment interview decisions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22:1250–72
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kahneman D 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am. Psychol. 58:697–720
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kahneman D, Frederick S 2002. Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment T Gilovich, D Griffin, D Kahneman 49–81 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
35. Klehe U-C, Kleinmann M, Niess C, Grazi J 2014. Impression management behavior during assessment centers: Artificial behavior or much ado about nothing. ? Hum. Perform. 27:1–24
    [Google Scholar]
36. Kleinmann M 1993. Are rating dimensions in assessment centers transparent for participants? Consequences for criterion and construct validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:988–93
    [Google Scholar]
37. Kleinmann M 1997. Transparenz der Anforderungsdimensionen: Ein Moderator der Konstrukt- und Kriteriumsvalidität [Transparency of the required dimensions: a moderator of assessment centers’ construct and criterion validity]. Z. Arb. Organ. 41:171–81
    [Google Scholar]
38. Kleinmann M, Ingold PV, Lievens F, Jansen A, Melchers KG, König CJ 2011. A different look at why selection procedures work: the role of candidates’ ability to identify criteria. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 1:128–46
    [Google Scholar]
39. Kolk NJ, Born MP, van der Flier H 2003. The transparent assessment centre: the effects of revealing dimensions to candidates. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 52:648–68
    [Google Scholar]
40. König CJ, Fell CB, Steffen V, Vanderveken S 2015. Applicant reactions are similar across countries: a refined replication with assessment center data from the European Union. J. Pers. Psychol. 14:213–17
    [Google Scholar]
41. König CJ, Melchers KG, Kleinmann M, Richter GM, Klehe U-C 2007. Candidates’ ability to identify criteria in nontransparent selection procedures: evidence from an assessment center and a structured interview. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 15:283–92
    [Google Scholar]
42. Krause DE, Rossberger RJ, Dowdeswell K, Venter N, Joubert T 2011. Assessment center practices in South Africa. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 19:262–75
    [Google Scholar]
43. Krause DE, Thornton GC 2009. A cross-cultural look at assessment center practices: survey results from Western Europe and North America. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 58:557–85
    [Google Scholar]
44. Kuncel NR, Sackett PR 2014. Resolving the assessment center construct validity problem (as we know it). J. Appl. Psychol. 99:38–47
    [Google Scholar]
45. Lance CE 2008. Why assessment centers do not work the way they are supposed to. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 1:84–97
    [Google Scholar]
46. Lance CE, Foster MR, Gentry WA, Thoresen JD 2004.a Assessor cognitive processes in an operational assessment center. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:22–35
    [Google Scholar]
47. Lance CE, Lambert TA, Gewin AG, Lievens F, Conway JM 2004.b Revised estimates of dimension and exercise variance components in assessment center postexercise dimension ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:377–85
    [Google Scholar]
48. Lance CE, LaPointe JA, Stewart AM 1994. A test of the context dependency of three causal models of halo rater error. J. Appl. Psychol. 79:332–40
    [Google Scholar]
49. Lance CE, Newbolt WH, Gatewood RD, Foster MR, French NR, Smith DE 2000. Assessment center exercise factors represent cross-situational specificity, not method bias. Hum. Perform. 13:323–53
    [Google Scholar]
50. Leugnerova M, Vaculik M, Prochazka J 2016. The influence of candidate social effectiveness on assessment center performance ratings: a field study. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 24:150–60
    [Google Scholar]
51. Lievens F 2001. Assessor training strategies and their effects on accuracy, interrater reliability, and discriminant validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:255–64
    [Google Scholar]
52. Lievens F, Chasteen CS, Day EA, Christiansen ND 2006. Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:247–58
    [Google Scholar]
53. Lievens F, Harris MM, Van Keer E, Bisqueret C 2003. Predicting cross-cultural training performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:476–89
    [Google Scholar]
54. Lievens F, Schollaert E, Keen G 2015. The interplay of elicitation and evaluation of trait-expressive behavior: evidence in assessment center exercises. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1169–88
    [Google Scholar]
55. Lin Y-C, Chen AS-Y, Song Y-C 2012. Does your intelligence help to survive in a foreign jungle: the effects of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence on cross-cultural adjustment. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 36:541–52
    [Google Scholar]
56. McFarland LA, Ryan AM, Kriska SD 2003. Impression management use and effectiveness across assessment methods. J. Manag. 29:641–61
    [Google Scholar]
57. McFarland LA, Yun G, Harold CM, Viera L, Moore LG 2005. An examination of impression management use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: the role of competency demands. Pers. Psychol. 58:949–80
    [Google Scholar]
58. Meriac JP, Hoffman BJ, Woehr DJ 2014. A conceptual and empirical review of the structure of assessment center dimensions. J. Manag. 40:1269–96
    [Google Scholar]
59. Meriac JP, Hoffman BJ, Woehr DJ, Fleisher MS 2008. Further evidence for the validity of assessment center dimensions: a meta-analysis of the incremental criterion-related validity of dimension ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1042–52
    [Google Scholar]
60. Mischel W, Shoda Y 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 102:246–68
    [Google Scholar]
61. Mischel W, Shoda Y 1998. Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:229–58
    [Google Scholar]
62. Ng K-Y, Van Dyne L, Ang S 2009. From experience to experiential learning: cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 8:511–26
    [Google Scholar]
63. Oliver T, Hausdorf P, Lievens F, Conlon P 2016. Interpersonal dynamics in assessment center exercises: effects of role player portrayed disposition. J. Manag. 42:1992–2017
    [Google Scholar]
64. Povah N 2011. A review of recent international surveys into assessment centre practices. Assessment Centres and Global Talent Management N Povah, GC Thornton 329–50 Farnham: Gower
    [Google Scholar]
65. Povah N, Thornton GC 2011. Assessment Centres and Global Talent Management Farnham: Gower
    [Google Scholar]
66. Preckel D, Schüpbach H 2005. Zusammenhänge zwischen rezeptiver Selbstdarstellungskompetenz und Leistung im Assessment Center [Correlations between receptive self-presentation competence and performance in an assessment center]. Z. Personalpsychol. 4:151–58
    [Google Scholar]
67. Putka DJ, Hoffman BJ 2013. Clarifying the contribution of assessee-, dimension-, exercise-, and assessor-related effects to reliable and unreliable variance in assessment center ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:114–33
    [Google Scholar]
68. Rauthmann JF, Gallardo-Pujol D, Guillaume EM, Todd E, Nave CS et al. 2014. The situational eight diamonds: a taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107:677–718
    [Google Scholar]
69. Roch SG, Woehr DJ, Mishra V, Kieszczynska U 2012. Rater training revisited: an updated meta-analytic review of frame-of-reference training. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85:370–95
    [Google Scholar]
70. Rosch E 1999. Principles of categorization. Cognition and Categorization E Rosch, BB Lloyd 27–48 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
71. Rupp DE, Hoffman BJ, Bischof D, Byham W, Collins L et al. 2015. Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. J. Manag. 41:1244–73
    [Google Scholar]
72. Ryan AM, Daum D, Bauman T, Grisez M, Mattimore K et al. 1995. Direct, indirect, and controlled observation and rating accuracy. J. Appl. Psychol. 80:664–70
    [Google Scholar]
73. Sackett PR, Dreher GF 1982. Constructs and assessment center dimensions: some troubling empirical findings. J. Appl. Psychol. 67:401–10
    [Google Scholar]
74. Sackett PR, Shewach OR, Keiser HN 2017. Assessment centers versus cognitive ability tests: challenging the conventional wisdom on criterion-related validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:1435–47
    [Google Scholar]
75. Schleicher DJ, Day DV, Mayes BT, Riggio RE 2002. A new frame for frame-of-reference training: enhancing the construct validity of assessment centers. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:735–46
    [Google Scholar]
76. Schlenker BR 1980. Impression Management Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
    [Google Scholar]
77. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE, Outerbridge AN 1986. Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 71:432–39
    [Google Scholar]
78. Schollaert E, Lievens F 2012. Building situational stimuli in assessment center exercises: Do specific exercise instructions and role-player prompts increase the observability of behavior. ? Hum. Perform. 25:255–71
    [Google Scholar]
79. Scholz G, Schuler H 1993. Das nomologische Netzwerk des Assessment Centers: Eine Metaanalyse [The nomological network of the assessment center: a meta-analysis]. Z. Arb. Organ. 37:73–85
    [Google Scholar]
80. Shoda Y, Mischel W, Wright JC 1993. The role of situational demands and cognitive competencies in behavior organization and personality coherence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65:1023–35
    [Google Scholar]
81. Smith-Jentsch KA 2007. The impact of making targeted dimensions transparent on relations with typical performance predictors. Hum. Perform. 20:187–203
    [Google Scholar]
82. Speer AB, Christiansen ND, Goffin RD, Goff M 2014.a Situational bandwidth and the criterion-related validity of assessment center ratings: Is cross-exercise convergence always desirable. ? J. Appl. Psychol. 99:282–95
    [Google Scholar]
83. Speer AB, Christiansen ND, König CJ, Melchers KG, Kleinmann M 2014.b Establishing the cross-situational convergence of the ability to identify criteria: consistency and prediction across similar and dissimilar assessment center exercises. Hum. Perform. 27:44–60
    [Google Scholar]
84. Spychalski AC, Quinones MA, Gaugler BB, Pohley K 1997. A survey of assessment center practices in organizations in the United States. Pers. Psychol. 50:71–90
    [Google Scholar]
85. Stanovich KE, West RF 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. ? Behav. Brain Sci. 23:645–65
    [Google Scholar]
86. Strobel A, Lerche S, Hoppe K, Bolte E-A 2006. “Transparenz im AC - Aussagekraft ade?” Ein Beitrag zur Transparenzdiskussion im Assessment Center [Transparency in assessment centers—A farewell to quality? An essay about transparency and its consequences in assessment centers]. Wirtschaftspsychologie 8:48–57
    [Google Scholar]
87. Tett RP, Burnett DD 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:500–17
    [Google Scholar]
88. Tett RP, Guterman HA 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. J. Res. Pers. 34:397–423
    [Google Scholar]
89. Thornton GC, Krause DE 2009. Selection versus development assessment centers: an international survey of design, execution, and evaluation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 20:478–98
    [Google Scholar]
90. Thornton GC, Rupp DE, Hoffman BJ 2014. Assessment Center Perspectives for Talent Management Strategies New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
91. Woehr DJ, Arthur W 2003. The construct-related validity of assessment center ratings: a review and meta-analysis of the role of methodological factors. J. Manag. 29:231–58
    [Google Scholar]
92. Woehr DJ, Huffcutt AI 1994. Rater training for performance-appraisal: a quantitative review. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 67:189–205
    [Google Scholar]