AssessmentintheWorkplace

1、Assessment in the WorkplacePsychometric Testing Assessment CentresTo insert your company logo on this slideFrom the Insert MenuSelect “Picture”Locate your logo fileClick OKTo resize the logoClick anywhere inside the logo. The boxes that appear outside the logo are known as “resize handles.” Use thes

2、e to resize the object. If you hold down the shift key before using the resize handles, you will maintain the proportions of the object you wish to resize.1OverviewPsychometric tests: Cognitive Ability Tests & Personality Inventoriesbasic conceptspredictive validityadvantages & disadvantagesAssessme

3、nt Centres : History of the AC technique; what is an Assessment Centre ?Do ACs work ? Predictive validity and the construct validity problemCandidate reactions to ACsFuture directions for the AC technique2Cognitive Ability TestsThe Theory (the concept of intelligence)Spearman (1904, 1927)Burt (1949,

4、 1955) & Vernon (1950)Guildford (1959, 1967)Horn & Cattell (1967, 1982)The Practice (case-studies, meta-analyses)Hunter & Hunter (1984)cognitive ability and training success : r = 0.55predictive validity of cog. ability increases with increasing complexity of job requirementscog. ability and job pro

5、ficiency : r = 0.453Cognitive Ability TestsAdvantageshigh predictive validitynot as susceptible to impression management as other selection techniques (interview, personality inventories)can process large numbers of candidates at a time (therefore cost-effective)objective, standardised measureDisadv

6、antagesConcept of cognitive ability leads to extrinsic test bias toward certain ethnic & cultural groups.4Personality InventoriesThe Theorythose relatively stable and enduring aspects of an individual which distinguish them from other people, making them unique, but which at the same time permit a c

7、omparison between individualsApproachesNomothetic (ind. diffs) vs Idiographic (unique indvs) Psychometric vsNon-Psychometric (quantifiable)(non-quantifiable)Psychometric TheoriesEysenck (1947, 1952) - Type TheoryCattell (1943-1948) - Trait Theory Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963), et al: The

8、Big Five Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Culture5The PracticeBig 5 most commonly accepted model. Examples of big 5 inventories include NEO-PIIR & OPQ.Personality as a Predictor of Work Performance : Barrick & Mount (1991)Meta-analysis of 117 studies conducted bet

9、ween 1952-1988 (N = 23,994)5 Occupational groupings : 5% professionals, 17% sales, 13% police, 41% managers, 24% skilled/semi-skilledPerformance Criteria : job proficiency, training proficiency, personnel data6Barrick & Mount (1991) : findingsConscientiousness = valid predictor for ALL occ.groups an

10、d ALL criterion measuresExtraversion = valid predictor for sales and managers across all criterion measures.Culture (Open to Experience) : valid predictor of training proficiency across all occ. GroupsEmotional Stability : low predictive validity for all three criterionAgreeableness = low predictive

11、 validity of job performance7Personality InventoriesAdvantagespredictive validityobjective, standardised techniquecost-effective way of screening applicantsDisadvantagesSelf-report - Response Bias (impression management, acquiescence, deviation, central tendency)Privacy (test takers attitudes) : e.g

12、. Rosse, Miller and Stecher (1994). A field study of job applicants reaction to Personality and Cognitive Ability TestingJournal of Applied Psychology, 79, 6, 987-992. 8The Assessment Centre TechniqueOrigins : military purposes in WWII, then Bray and Byham (1950s) first commercial AC (AT&T). 26 dime

13、nsions assessed in 3 exercises, 1 interview, psychometrics.Use : Bray (1997) : 80% of Fortune 5000 companies use ACs somewhere in the organisation; Shackleton (1991) : 21% of major UK orgs used ACs in 1986; 59% by 1991Description : Multi-method, multi-trait assessmentGuidelines : 17th International

14、Congress on the Assessment Centre Method (1989)dimensionstechniquesassessorsgathering data9Candidate Reactions (face validity)Dulewicz (1991); Thornton (1992) : candidate, assessors and management all hold positive attitudes toward ACs : Candidates find exercises difficult and challenging - but beli

15、eve measure job relevant behaviours and are fair.Macan, Avedan, Pease & Smith (1994). AC vs tests : ACs more acceptable, face valid and fairNB. Candidate anxiety (Iles, Robertson and Rout, 1989) : 18%-32% of candidate said AC is stressful; Teel and DuBois, 1983 : 50% felt performance affected by str

16、ess.10Candidate AnxietyFletcher, Lovatt & Baldry (1997) : state, trait and test anxiety to AC performance38 candidates of an AC (8 dimensions, 7 exercises)ResultsState anxiety had a curvilinear relationship to several AC measures, with low and high anxiety related to poor performanceTest anxiety sig

17、 -vely correlated to scores on a numerical test and a written exerciseHigh trait anxiety associated with better assessment ratings.11Do ACs work ? Criterion ValidityGaugler et al (1987) : meta-analysis of AC validity : criteria = (1) career progress; (2) overall performance ratings (3) dimensional p

18、erformance ratings (4) ratings of potential (5) wages (6) training performanceAverage r = 0.40 (variance due to variation in components)Higher validities reported for ACs with :(1) wider range of exercises (2) psychologists & managers as assessors (3) included peer ratings in OAR (4) have more femal

19、e candidates.Can cheaper measures substitute ?Lowry (1994) : AC and Personnel Records : AC strength = assessment of interpersonal skills.12The Construct Validity Problem= although AC does show convergent validity, discriminant validity is usually poor.E.g. Interview : Communication skills, motivatio

20、n, personal impact.Group Discussion : Personal Impact, Communication Skills, Strategic ThinkingIn-Tray Exercise : Strategic Thinking, Motivation.Practical ExerciseLeaderless Group Discussion13Improving the discriminant validity of ratingsAC constructionselect fewer but more observable dimensionsDefi

21、ne dimensions clearly and unambiguouslyDont expect sharp differentiations of dimensions that are subtle variations on the same theme (e.g. leadership versus management skills)Training Assessors Familiarisation with dimensions, behavioural indicators rating/response scalesMaximum 2 candidates per assessorRate dimensions only A