Assessment Centers (ACs) are a fantastic method to measure behavioral indicators of job performance in multiple diverse scenarios. Based upon a thorough job analysis, ACs have traditionally demonstrated very strong content and criterion-related validity. However, researchers have been puzzled for over three decades with the lack of evidence concerning construct validity. ACs are designed to measure critical job dimensions throughout multiple situational exercises. However, research has consistently revealed that different behavioral ratings within these scenarios are more strongly related to one another (exercise effects) than the same dimension rating across scenarios (dimension effects). That is, results from ACs suggest that we are unsure of what these behavioral measures represent. Over the last three decades, researchers have sought to illuminate why same dimension ratings are inconsistent across scenarios. However, these investigations have been limited to changes influencing the source of the ratings (e.g., assessors, trained raters). No approach has been taken to change the structure of the AC. This study breaks with tradition and introduces a structurally different AC: A Day-In-The Life AC (DITLAC). A DITLAC structure is designed to mimic that of a normal day on the job. In the present study, the construct validity between a DITLAC and a traditionally structured AC is compared with the argument that the DITLAC will demonstrate stronger construct validity evidence. In several cases, this was found to be true.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ucf.edu/oai:stars.library.ucf.edu:etd-1732 |
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| Creators | Wiese, Christopher |
| Publisher | STARS |
| Source Sets | University of Central Florida |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | Electronic Theses and Dissertations |
Page generated in 0.0057 seconds