A Triadic Approach to the Construct Validity of the Assessment Center: The Effect of Categorizing Dimensions into a Feeling, Thinking, and Power Taxonomy

This study examined the influence on construct validity of implementing the triad Feeling, Thinking, and Power as a taxonomy for behavioral dimensions in assessment center (AC) exercises. A sample of 1567 job applicants participated in an AC specifically developed according to this taxonomy. Each exercise tapped three dimensions, one dimension from each cluster of the taxonomy. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix showed evidence for construct validity. Thus, the ratings matched the a priori triadic grouping to a good extent. Practical implications are discussed

Impact of common rater variance on construct validity of assessment center dimension judgements

In an assessment center (AC), assessors generally rate an applicant's performance on multiple dimensions in just 1 exercise. This rating procedure introduces common rater variance within exercises but not between exercises. This article hypothesizes that this phenomenon is partly responsible for the consistently reported result that the AC lacks construct validity. Therefore, in this article, the rater effect is standardized on discriminant and convergent validity via a multitrait-multimethod design in which each matrix cell is based on ratings of different assessors. Two independent studies (N = 200, N = 52) showed that, within exercises, correlations decrease when common rater variance is excluded both across exercises (by having assessors rate only 1 exercise) and within exercises (by having assessors rate only 1 dimension per exercise). Implications are discussed in the context of the recent discussion around the appropriateness of the within-exercise versus the within-dimension evaluation method