1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
  4. Volume 6, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 6, 2019

Toward a Better Understanding of Assessment Centers: A Conceptual Review

Abstract

Assessment centers (ACs) are employed for selecting and developing employees and leaders. They are interpersonal at their core because they consist of interactive exercises. Minding this perspective, this review focuses on the role of the assessee, the assessor, and the AC design, as well as their interplay in the interpersonal situation of the AC. Therefore, it addresses which conceptual perspectives have increased our understanding of ACs in this context. Building on this, we review relevant empirical findings. On this basis, the review contributes to an empirically driven understanding of the interpersonal nature of ACs and provides directions for practice and future research avenues on this topic as well as on technology in ACs and cross-cultural applications.

Keyword(s): AC design, assessment center, assessor, interpersonal situation, personnel selection, review
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-014955
2019-01-21
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/6/1/annurev-orgpsych-012218-014955.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-014955&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

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
  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
  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:
  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
  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]
  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
  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
  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
  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]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-014955
Loading
Toward a Better Understanding of Assessment Centers: A Conceptual Review
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6, 349 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-014955
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-014955
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-014955
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error