A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER DIMENSIONS
verifiedthin profile · Personnel Psychology · 2003
ARTHUR, WINFRED; DAY, ERIC ANTHONY; MCNELLY, THERESA L.; EDENS, PAMELA S.
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
We used meta‐analytic procedures to investigate the criterion‐related validity of assessment center dimension ratings. By focusing on dimension‐level information, we were able to assess the extent to which specific constructs account for the criterion‐related validity of assessment centers. From a total of 34 articles that reported dimension‐level validities, we collapsed 168 assessment center dimension labels into an overriding set of 6 dimensions: (a) consideration/awareness of others, (b) communication, (c) drive, (d) influencing others, (e) organizing and planning, and (f) problem solving. Based on this set of 6 dimensions, we extracted 258 independent data points. Results showed a range of estimated true criterion‐related validities from .25 to .39. A regression‐based composite consisting of 4 out of the 6 dimensions accounted for the criterion‐related validity of assessment center ratings and explained more variance in performance (20%) than Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, and Bentson (1987) were able to explain using the overall assessment center rating (14%).
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
No open-access quotations have been captured yet.
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.