Center Ratings (center + rating)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Psychology100%

Kinds of Center Ratings

  • assessment center rating
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    SELF- VERSUS OTHERS' RATINGS AS PREDICTORS OF ASSESSMENT CENTER RATINGS: VALIDATION EVIDENCE FOR 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PROGRAMS

    PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 4 2002
    Paul W. B. Atkins
    Although 360-degree feedback programs are rapidly increasing in popularity, few studies have examined how well ratings from these programs predict an independent criterion. This study had 2 main aims: First, to examine the validity of ratings from a 360-degree feedback program using assessment center ratings as an independent criterion and to determine which source (i.e., self, supervisor, peers, or subordinates) provided the most valid predictor of the criterion measure of competency. Second, to better understand the relationship between self-observer discrepancies and an independent criterion. The average of supervisor, peer, and subordinate ratings predicted performance on the assessment center, as did the supervisor ratings alone. The self-ratings were negatively and nonlinearly related to performance with some of those who gave themselves the highest ratings having the lowest performance on the assessment center. Supervisor ratings successfully discriminated between overestimators but were not as successful at discriminating underestimators, suggesting that more modest feedback recipients might be underrated by their supervisors. Peers overestimated performance for poor performers. Explanations of the results and the implications for the use of self-ratings in evaluations, the design of feedback reports, and the use of 360-degree feedback programs for involving and empowering staff are discussed. [source]

    IMPLICATIONS OF TRAIT-ACTIVATION THEORY FOR EVALUATING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER RATINGS

    PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2002
    STEPHANIE HAALAND
    Assessment centers have often been criticized for lacking evidence supporting the construct validity of dimension ratings. This study examines whether the poor convergence of assessment center ratings is a result of correlating ratings from exercises that differ in the extent that behavior relevant to personality traits can be observed. Using data from a promotional assessment center for law enforcement officers (n= 79), the convergence of assessment center ratings was evaluated within the context of the five factor model by comparing the average within-dimension correlation of ratings from exercises that allowed for more opportunity to observe trait-relevant behavior to the average of those involving exercises where there was less opportunity. For each personality trait, ratings from exercises judged by experts to be high in trait-activation potential displayed stronger convergence (mean r= .30) than did ratings from exercises that were low in activation potential for that trait (mean r= .15). Implications for evaluating the construct validity of assessment centers are discussed along with future directions for classifying exercises based on situational similarity. [source]

    SELF- VERSUS OTHERS' RATINGS AS PREDICTORS OF ASSESSMENT CENTER RATINGS: VALIDATION EVIDENCE FOR 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PROGRAMS

    PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 4 2002
    Paul W. B. Atkins
    Although 360-degree feedback programs are rapidly increasing in popularity, few studies have examined how well ratings from these programs predict an independent criterion. This study had 2 main aims: First, to examine the validity of ratings from a 360-degree feedback program using assessment center ratings as an independent criterion and to determine which source (i.e., self, supervisor, peers, or subordinates) provided the most valid predictor of the criterion measure of competency. Second, to better understand the relationship between self-observer discrepancies and an independent criterion. The average of supervisor, peer, and subordinate ratings predicted performance on the assessment center, as did the supervisor ratings alone. The self-ratings were negatively and nonlinearly related to performance with some of those who gave themselves the highest ratings having the lowest performance on the assessment center. Supervisor ratings successfully discriminated between overestimators but were not as successful at discriminating underestimators, suggesting that more modest feedback recipients might be underrated by their supervisors. Peers overestimated performance for poor performers. Explanations of the results and the implications for the use of self-ratings in evaluations, the design of feedback reports, and the use of 360-degree feedback programs for involving and empowering staff are discussed. [source]

    IMPLICATIONS OF TRAIT-ACTIVATION THEORY FOR EVALUATING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER RATINGS

    PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2002
    STEPHANIE HAALAND
    Assessment centers have often been criticized for lacking evidence supporting the construct validity of dimension ratings. This study examines whether the poor convergence of assessment center ratings is a result of correlating ratings from exercises that differ in the extent that behavior relevant to personality traits can be observed. Using data from a promotional assessment center for law enforcement officers (n= 79), the convergence of assessment center ratings was evaluated within the context of the five factor model by comparing the average within-dimension correlation of ratings from exercises that allowed for more opportunity to observe trait-relevant behavior to the average of those involving exercises where there was less opportunity. For each personality trait, ratings from exercises judged by experts to be high in trait-activation potential displayed stronger convergence (mean r= .30) than did ratings from exercises that were low in activation potential for that trait (mean r= .15). Implications for evaluating the construct validity of assessment centers are discussed along with future directions for classifying exercises based on situational similarity. [source]

    Assessment Center for Pilot Selection: Construct and Criterion Validity and the Impact of Assessor Type

    APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 2 2003
    Marc Damitz
    Cette recherche a examiné la validité d'un centre d'évaluation pour la sélection de pilotes. Les scores de N = 1,036 participants ont été utilisés pour étudier la validité de construit. Un sous-échantillon de participants performants a été suivi et les évaluations des pairs ont été retenus comme mesures du critère. Les résultats démontrent une première évidence de validité de construit et de critère pour cet outil d'évaluation des compétences interpersonnelles et liées à la performance. Par ailleurs, les résultats ont aussi montré que le type d'évaluateur (psychologue vs pilote) modère la validité prédictive des scores du centre d'évaluation. Cet effet "type d'évaluateur" dépend de la sorte de variables prédictives. Les résultats sont discutés et des implications pratiques sont suggérées. This study examined the validity of an assessment center in pilot selection as a new field of application. Assessment center ratings of N= 1,036 applicants were used to examine the construct validity. A subsample of successful applicants was followed up and peer ratings were chosen as criterion measures. The results provide first evidence of the construct and criterion validity of this assessment center approach for rating interpersonal and performance-related skills. Furthermore the type of assessor (psychologist versus pilot) moderates the predictive validity of the assessment center ratings. This type-of-assessor effect depends on the kind of predictor variables. The results are discussed and practical implications are suggested. [source]