Effective utilization of post-assessment center data of organizations in India.
Assessment Center is a popular assessment tool and is used for many purposes from identification of high potential managers to building and developing leaders in an organization. Gaugler & Thornton (1989) describe assessment center as "a process where job analysis and competency modeling are typically used to study the performance domain of target jobs. Results of these analyses identify the dimensions to be assessed and content of assessment exercises. Multiple assessors observe overt behavior in exercises simulating important job situations. Ratings of dimensions and overall performance relate to a variety of criteria, including measures of comparable constructs and job performance". Although, Assessment Centers are expensive, there are many advantages. According to Joiner (2004) return on investment (ROI) of conducting an AC can be very high. ACs are generally predictive of performance (Lievens & Thornton, 2005; Thornton & Rupp, 2006). ACs are legally defensible if they are developed following professional guidelines (Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations, 2009). Byham (1971) has given approximately eleven necessary steps in the design and conduct of an AC. These steps closely resemble the recommendations given in the Professional Guidelines like determining program objectives, defining dimensions to be assessed, selecting exercises that bring out the dimensions, designing assessor training and assessment center program, announce programs, inform participants and assessors, handle administrative details, train assessors, conduct assessment center, write summary reports on participants, provide feedback to participants, evaluate the center and set up procedures to validate center against a criterion of job success.
An Assessment Center starts with defining the objectives and finally it has to be validated against a criterion of job success. There are six important preparatory steps before conducting an AC called pre-AC steps. Four post-AC steps (8, 9, 10 and 11) are critical to taking the findings to a logical conclusion and for utilization of data thereafter. If organizations do not handle the last four steps efficiently, the whole process becomes meaningless. Hence it is important to understand how organizations utilize post-AC data.
Alexander (1979) in a study of 65 organizations found that they mostly focused on immediate feedback processes rather than on long-term utilization of assessment center results. Issues that concern subsequent utilization of results are followed by fewer organizations. Only 34 to 57 percent organizations carry out long-term processes such as: 1) Providing evaluations to higher management, 2) Coaching of employees by immediate supervisor, 3) Discussing assessee's training and development needs with the supervisor, 4) Discussing career plans in feedback process, 5) Reassessing employees later, who performed poorly, 6) Telling assessees whether they have potential for advancement, 7) Initiating developmental plans, 8) Assessment center staff monitoring development of assessee and 9) Evaluation becoming a part of the employee's personnel file.
Vloeberghs and Berghman (2003) emphasize that there should be procedures and strategies laid out to follow-up on results obtained from Assessment Development Centers (ADCs) and should be utilized. Gupta (2010) in a research on "relevance of assessment centers in competency assessment" concluded that, ACs are essential for assessing competencies despite their high costs and the benefits of doing ACs are far greater than not doing them. Follow-up action on the outcomes/developmental plans emerging from ACs is critical and if not carried out then the entire process becomes redundant. Byham (1987) suggests that role of any AC needs to be clearly defined with respect to follow-up procedures and to using results effectively. Similarly Bender (1973) recommends that early decision should be made on how the results of ACs would be utilized in the organization.
The importance of having follow-up procedures to effectively utilize results has been emphasized by many researchers and according to the Guidelines, all eleven steps are important for having a legally defensible AC. However, there are noteworthy gaps in what is prescribed and practiced. Research has repeatedly shown that globally the last two steps (i.e. evaluation and validation) are largely ignored areas. Guidelines specify that in 'writing summary reports on participants' (step 8) statistical integration of data should happen amongst assessors. Spychalski, Quinones, Gaugler and Pohley (1997) however, report that only 14% American ACs use statistical analysis in an assessors' conference compared to judgmental decisions. Similarly there may be gaps in giving 'Feedback' (step 9). Existing research was reviewed to understand what each post-AC steps entail and how organizations can handle each step to effectively utilize AC data.
Summary Reports Writing in ACs
In writing summary reports on participants, a number of assessors discuss multiple independent evaluations made during an AC to generate a report on each participant. There are controversies regarding what combinations of 'discussion by consensus' and/or 'statistical integration' will lead to high correlations between overall assessment rating (OAR) and performance criteria (Gaugler& Thornton. 1989).
In the report writing stage, assessors have a very critical role and errors can sneak in and affect overall validity. Researchers have explored a number of variables to reduce assessor error (Lievens, 1998) by providing training to assessors, using alternate rating strategies, reduce assessor's cognitive load by reducing the number of dimensions and by providing check-lists to record behavior etc. Melchers, Kleinmann and Prinz (2010) also found that there was a detrimental effect on ratings when assessors had to simultaneously rate multiple individuals. Byham (1978) advocates certification of assessors in order to ensure a legally defensible AC.
Contents of assessor training have been found to affect predictive and construct validity(Krause & Thornton, 2009). Research shows that length of training is less important (Gaugler et al., 1987) vis-a-vis quality (Lievens, 2002). Schleicher, Day, Mayes & Riggio (2002) report that 'Frame-of-reference training' has very high positive impact on improving reliability, inter-rater reliability, discriminant validity and better rating accuracy. Kleinmann et al. (1996) found that disclosing dimensions to participants improved rating accuracy.
Feedback in ACs
Feedback to participants on overall summary of findings is the 2nd step post-AC, and many variables can impact the effectiveness of this process. Woo et al. (2008) found that assessor feedback can be a threat to participants as there is a positive relation between favorable feedback and behavioral engagement. Lievens (2008) suggests applying 'trait activation theory' for giving feedback. Woo et al. (2008) concluded that accuracy of assessor rating and perception of a 'due process' are critical factors, Abraham et al. (2006) posit that negative feedback needs to be given in a constructive manner; Bell and Arthur (2008) found that 'extraversion' and 'agreeableness' of participants need to be looked into for increasing feedback acceptance. Timing of feedback is also very important and Thornton & Rupp (2006) found that maximum learning takes place when feedback is given soon after an AC is over. Krause and Thornton (2009) found that only fifty percent organizations studied had an evaluation procedure but documentation was missing.
Validity of ACs
An Assessment Center needs to be "valid"; which means, does it measure what it purports? 'Validity' as defined by Professional Guidelines (2009) is "the extent to which a measurement tool or process, such as an Assessment Center, yields useful results. Multiple validities might be measured (e.g., 'construct,' 'content,' 'face,' 'predictive,' 'social') depending on the questions being explored and tools or process being investigated".
A critical aspect of any Assessment Center is its validity. It is one of the most researched topics in the AC domain; however, research findings show that this aspect is also the most ignored. Researchers have investigated the impact of different variables on validity and overall effectiveness of ACs. Pre-assessment center activities like job analysis, AC design, selection of dimensions and exercises, characteristics of assessors, content and methods of assessor training, etc. affect validity; individually and collectively.
Guidelines have specified that job analysis is mandatory for identifying the dimensions and exercises. ACs can be made defensible legally by having the content of an AC resemble that of a job. Eurich et al (2009) reports that job analysis is not carried out by 10% of US organizations.
Attributes measured are called 'dimensions' and the methods employed to measure them are 'exercises'. There is an ongoing debate on whether to structure ACs around 'exercises or dimensions' with the latter given preference by Thornton and Gibbons (2009). Connelly et al. (2008) concluded that 'dimensions' do and should continue to play a critical part in ACs.
Characteristics of assessors affect validity of ACs. One view suggests that 'cognitive overload' on assessors should be reduced by having lesser number of 'dimensions' using behavioral checklists, reducing assessor-assessee ratio and making 'dimensions' known to participants. The other view says that 'incorrect schemas may be used by assessors'; hence assessors should be psychologists, trained longer and on frame-of-reference training.
Conduct of an AC requires systematic rigor if an organization truly aims to reap benefits and the guidelines provide useful inputs on this. Three widely cited researches highlight some of the limitations of ACs related to evaluation and validity issues. Krause and Gebert (2003) from a study of 281 organizations in German speaking countries compared findings with practices in the United States and found that the extent to which organizations adhered to Guidelines was dissimilar in different countries and also that 'evaluation and validation' were not carried out to the extent required. Spychalski et al. (1997) in their research in two hundred and fifteen organizations in the United States found that, Assessment Centers adhere to recommendations on content of assessor training, but there were gaps on issues such as length of assessor training, evaluating assessors, giving information about AC to assessee and validating center results. Gaugler et al. (1987) in a review found that the range of validity coefficient in ACs was between -.25 and +.78. This large variation should be of serious concern to AC practitioners.
Some other concerns with ACs in America or other Western countries are also highlighted by Rao & Juneja (2007) in Asian organizations, e.g. 1) Implementation is complex, 2) Difficulty with describing competencies in behavioral terms, 3) Assessor availability and their training, 4) Inter-rater reliability, 5) Selection of tests, instruments and exercises. 6) Commitment of time and resources by organizations, 7) Role of line managers, 8) Giving feedback to participants and 9) Data Security. They further lament that although use of ACs is increasing in Indian organizations, not much research has been done on their effectiveness, reliability or predictive validity.
The foregoing section highlights the gaps between recommendations made by Guidelines and those practiced on post-AC steps, for example, evaluation and validation were not carried out to the required extent and there were concerns with giving feedback to participants, etc. It also reveals that different kinds of variables impact effectiveness of each of the post-AC steps but there seems to be no research, (except by Alexander, 1979) that comprehensively studies how organizations utilize data generated during an AC.
This study was conducted in organizations that carried out Competency Mapping & Assessment Centers. The authors interacted with HR leaders from various organizations in their respective organizations and at different workshops/forums. These HR leaders/executives provided further leads to other HR executives/managers and they were also included in the sample. Total number of respondents who participated in the study was twenty executives from different organizations. From among these twenty respondents, four who participated in the research were working for global HR consulting firms and had data on AC practices of a large number of organizations, which enriched the data obtained. In-depth interviews with all these twenty respondents (each lasted for roughly two hours) yielded rich qualitative data on how organizations were handling post-AC data, along with suggestions to improve the usage of the data. Detailed notes were taken at the time of the interviews and interview transcripts were subjected to content analyses for identifying patterns and themes that emerged from the data.
Qualitative results from interviews are given in bold/italics. The results of the questionnaire survey and interviews were complemented by recommendations from respondents during interviews and combined results are discussed in light of secondary data. Table 1 highlights that writing summary reports on participants is taking place to a moderate extent. 'Effectiveness of discussion between assessors' shows a mean score of 3.85. Table 4 reveals that 70% respondents rated between 4 and 5.
Respondents further emphasize that there is a need for objective and neutral discussion between internal and external assessors to eliminate subjectivity and bias because assessors' conference is a consensus building exercise and not simply for arriving at an average score.
'Effectiveness of data integration for the candidate' has a mean of 3.63. 55% respondents have rated between 4 and 5. Many researchers emphasize the need for data integration and Guidelines (International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines, 2008) specify that data integration should happen statistically.
In the present study reliance on statistical integration was moderate and this result is consistent with that of Eurich et al (2009) and Krause and Thornton (2009)that statistical integration of ratings is less common than judgmental combinations. Kudisch et al. (1999), from an international survey in 114 organizations reported two limitations of ACs: 1) 65% organizations had consensus based discussion and 2) only 15% organizations had statistical integration of data.
Use of data integration is supported by many researchers, e.g. Spychalski et al. (1997) found that greater integration of data enhances validity of an AC. Rao and Juneja (2007) emphasize that discussing discrepancies among assessors helped to get insights into data rather than simply reporting average ratings.
Respondents recommend that discussion between different assessors (assessor conference) can be made highly effective and meaningful by ensuring proper assessor training and by providing them with an assessor manual. Competency Dictionary should be well laid out with behavioral indicators to form the basis of evaluation. Audio-visual recordings would make the process more effective.
The above recommendations are in accordance with Lievens' (1998) suggestion that assessors should be trained on a 'frame-of-reference' which keeps assessors focused on behaviors given in check-lists and enhances construct validity. Importance of behavioral checklists is highlighted by Reilly, Henry & Smither (1990). Guidelines also recommend the use of audio-video recordings; however, Eurich et al. (2009) caution that technology should not compromise with the integrity of ACs.
Respondents point out that Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) and Indian organizations utilize services of consultants to a very large extent who bring their own assessors. Respondents caution that selection of external consultants should be done with due diligence so that the global model can be customized to the Indian milieu; wrong selection can cause irreparable damage. They further recommend that organizations should complement internal and external assessors in 60:40 or 70:30 ratios. Internal assessors understand company culture, job-fitment, etc. versus external assessors who bring in greater objectivity and industry best practices.
The above suggestions are similar to those by Krause and Thornton (2009) that organizations should improve on criteria when deciding on an assessor pool. Woehr and Arthur (2003) report that having 'professional assessors' yields better ratings than having managers as assessors. Guidelines quote that as policy, professional qualifications and training of internal and external consultants should be specified clearly, also when ACs are used in other countries, cultural accommodation needs to be considered.
Tables 2 and 4 highlight that 'feedback to participants' on performance at the center for development is done moderately well on most aspects. 'Effective overall use of post-AC data for feedback' has a mean of 3.63. 50% respondents rated between 4 and 5.They report that, some companies utilize data collected for development of assessees for coaching/mentoring/training, etc. with the help of consultants. Discussion on post AC data with assessees is however, very limited in the case of recruitment or promotion. This may be justified in the case of recruitment but may fall seriously short for promotion. They strongly assert that findings must be shared with assessees otherwise it becomes a redundant exercise.
Similar to present results, Eurich et al. (2009) found that organizations give feedback on issues such as behaviors observed during an AC. overall assessment ratings (OARs), etc. Alexander (1979), in a study of 65 organizations found that only five administrative practices were strictly followed by majority of organizations and four of these, concern immediate feedback of results to the assessee.
'Feedback to assessees and recommendations made' has a mean score of 3.45. 45% respondents rated between 4 and 5. They emphasize that a few organizations carry out follow-up training with the help of consultants and some also provide 360 degree data or data from Performance Management System (PMS) for combining with results from an AC, in order to make outcomes more effective. This combination gives participants a very holistic picture about themselves to generate individual development plans (IDP).
The above finding is in concordance with many other researches. Integrating additional diagnostic procedures to increase validity of ACs is suggested by Krause and Thornton (2009). Howard (1997) finds that 360-degree appraisal feedback has the strength to assess behaviors which cannot be easily assessed in ACs; this improves Overall Assessment Rating (OAR). Rao & Juneja (2007) also agree that ACs help to identify potential and 360 degree feedback helps to provide development inputs to individuals. Vloeberghs and Berghman (2003) strongly recommend that feedback should be given by using a combination of 360 degree data with data from ADCs. Bucalo (1974) suggests that an organization can make better future promotional decisions by clubbing AC data with past 'on-the-job' performance data for individuals.
45% respondents have rated between 4 and 5 on 'whether ACs are well utilized in the organization' with a mean score of 3.45. They specify that, some companies use data for carrying out 'trend analysis' by conducting ACs periodically and involve the same consulting firm to carry out all three activities, viz. developing the competency model, assessing competencies and providing feedback to participants. Resultant advantages that accrue are: 1) consulting organizations understand client's competency framework inside-out, 2) same reporting formats are used and 3) participants see similar reports and relate to them positively. In a few cases it is observed that some senior managers use data from Assessment Centers to validate their own decision-making process, without involving concerned participants/ managers, e.g. on issues like promotion and succession planning.
"Whether there are follow-up procedures to aid the assessee and his manager, to effectively use results" has a mean rating of 3.25. 40% respondents rated in between 4 and 5. This emerges as the least effective aspect of "feedback to participants". Respondents revealed during interviews that, since follow-up training in the organizations is done with the help of consultants, they often leave the data with HR, resulting in lack of meaningful follow-up action. Respondents strongly argue that, feedback is essential; not only for an individual but for the organization also and therefore, organizations should view results seriously and take ownership of processes to effectively utilize results constructively.
The importance of following up assessment centers with developmental activities has been highlighted by many researches. Jones and Whitmore (1995) found that those individuals who did a follow-up on developmental activities after the ADC had better future prospects. Cochran et al (1987) in an ADC found that, senior staff members served as mentors and their role was to assist participants in carrying out developmental plans once they were back on the job. Bucalo (1974) suggests that discussing results in front of supervisors further helps an assessee understand what is actually expected of him in the organization.
Results in Table 3 show that, mean score on 'evaluation and validation' is 2.5. Fifty percent respondents scored 'Never' (Score 1) or 'Sometimes' (Score 2) and only ten percent responded to 'Generally' (Score 4) and none to 'All the time' (Score 5). It thus emerges that, procedures to evaluate or validate ACs are woefully missing. Respondents have given reasons for lack of such procedures and some recommendations to overcome this glaring limitation. They specify that participants are rarely asked for evaluation, but it is essential that a post-assessment center session is conducted to summarize result as well as conclude the program meaningfully (this would make better sense to participants on their reports).
The above finding is in consonance with other researches which show that 'evaluation' and 'validity' are two issues that are overlooked in most organizations globally and this needs to be addressed to defend AC results legally, and for any meaningful return on investment (ROI). In a survey in 291 organizations Spychalski et al. (1997) found that reliability or validity was tested by not more than 50% organizations. Eurich et al. (2009) reported that systematic evaluation was conducted by only half the organizations, but they should have exhaustive documentation and validation in order to defend themselves against lawsuits, especially in cases of hiring and promotions.
Krause and Gebert (2003) report that, even at a global level there is only sporadic evaluation of Assessment Centers. Kudisch et al. (2001) also reported that two thirds of the programs did not have any evaluation. Thornton & Krause (2009) found that systematic procedures of documentation and evaluation from participants were rare. Krause & Thornton (2009) urge that participants' evaluation on parameters like 'fairness', 'transparency of the AC process' and 'stress perception' needs to be increased.
Respondents also revealed that many big and small Indian organizations conduct ACs as a 'one-off' activity. One reason for this could be budget constraints which define the limits and thus affect utilization of results and overall effectiveness of an AC. In many cases an AC was used as a "fad" hence evaluation or validation was not even considered. They strongly opine that AC's need to be a well thought out and continuous process and time needs to be invested in it.
Eurich et al. (2009) report similar results to say that organizational pressures such as rapid changes or the need to cut costs compel organizations to compromise on overall AC requirements. They caution that regardless of such pressures AC developers need to ensure minimally acceptable standards as given in the Guidelines. Alexander (1979) reported from his study that results from ACs were used for short-term promotion decisions, etc. as compared to long-term development of an individual.
Summary & Conclusions
The study shows that, assessors conference is an important aspect of 'Writing Summary Reports on Participants' as it determines the overall rating of a candidate's performance in the AC. Objectivity and neutrality of discussion between assessors and all efforts to eliminate biases come across as important aspects. The discussions between assessors can be improvised by proper assessor training, providing an assessor manual and competency dictionary with behavior indicators to assessors, having audiovisual recordings and by integrating candidate information rather than simply arriving at an average score.
Use of consultants is very popular in India as AC activity only picked up momentum after 1991 when the economy opened up. American and European MNCs started businesses in India and also provide consulting services to Indian MNCs. Many companies outsource AC activity to reputed consultants, with limited personal involvement for obtaining greater objectivity in their own decision making. Recommendations of consultants generally get accepted by senior management, who otherwise possibly might have questioned their own managers.
As India is culturally very different from the West, it is vital that global models be customized to the Indian milieu and external consultants are selected carefully. A combination of external and internal assessors is recommended for a happy marriage between best practices of the West and local cultural fit. It is, however, important that internal assessors do not get over-awed by reputations of consultants and conversely consultants do not impose themselves on local managements. It is strongly recommended that MNCs in India must also engage with local consulting organizations in conjunction with their existing foreign partners to better understand local demographics.
Many recommendations made by respondents for 'writing summary reports' are related to the first six steps in the AC process (see introduction). If these six activities are not done diligently, there will be direct repercussions on handling post-AC data. Hence, in the planning stage itself post-AC activities need to be well crafted. Most findings from this research are also in accordance with other researches.
Feedback to participants and follow-up training after an AC should be carried out with help of consultants. By involving them, client organizations would know to what extent gaps have been covered by each candidate annually. Some interesting trends emerge; a few organizations combine data from 360 degree feedback and Performance Management System (PMS) with data from AC's to make overall outcomes more effective. Others carry out year-on-year 'trend analysis' by involving the same consultants.
Respondents strongly emphasize that: i) findings must be shared with participants, ii) feedback should be given in a mature/holistic manner and individual development plans (IDP) should be made along with them and iii) organizations should involve participants as stake-holders and provide them adequate resources and support.
Evaluation and validation are overlooked in most organizations although there is awareness about it. Results show that procedures to 'evaluate' and 'validate' are largely missing. Participants are rarely asked for evaluation although it is understood in principle that, a post-AC session must be conducted to summarize results and bring meaningful closure to the program.
Companies that have long-term orientation opine that the end objective has to be clearly defined at the beginning itself, i.e. how organization wants to use the results, criteria of success of an AC, target audience, time at hand, budget, economic viability, etc. Continuous tracking of individuals who passed through ACs helps in validating the process. In the absence of certification of assessors, some companies conduct repeat ACs with same consultants (with a few repeat participants) as a check on reliability of their processes.
Organizations in the present study occupy extreme positions in the manner they use AC techniques. Some use it as a 'fad', while others have a continuous and long-term orientation and any AC conducted is linked to the next program. An investment of a minimum five years is suggested by them for getting meaningful benefits of the AC activity.
Research shows that very little work is done in India on reliability, validity and on overall evaluation of Assessment Centers. Global findings also reveal that this is an ignored area world-wide and definitely needs due attention from the initial stages of planning so that incremental validity is built in at every stage. "Validation process should be well thought out, carefully planned and implemented. Ideally it should begin at the outset of the assessment center activity. The initial steps would be important in establishing 'face validity' of the test instruments to accurately measure criteria of success" (Bucalo, 1974).
Limitations & Future Research
Sample size is small. Not many organizations are willing to participate in research on post-AC utilization of data. Utilization, evaluation and validation have not reached high levels of maturity, as AC activity in India has only gained momentum around the turn of century. Future research with larger sample sizes can ascertain greater generalizability.
1. This being an exploratory study, participants were questioned on only a few key issues (Table 4) on four steps. Most suggestions given by respondents can be modified and used to create a more detailed questionnaire. This will generate exhaustive quantitative data.
2. A review of AC practices in India / Asia Pacific region will help to evaluate the extent to which professional guidelines are followed. Eurich et al (2009) reviewed AC practices in the United States and report that 93% organizations wanted to use the Guidelines.
3. The use of consultants in emerging markets would progressively increase in order to capture best practices of the West. Research is needed on how consultants can effectively work along with client organizations to create scientifically valid ACs and also assist them in internal capacity building.
4. Growth in emerging markets: especially in South-east Asia is making AC a popular assessment tool. Research can be carried out on any of the limitations cited by Rao & Juneja (2007).
Abraham. J. D.. Morrison J.D. Burnett D.D. (2006), "Feedback Seeking among Developmental Assessment Centre Participants", Journal of Business and Psychology, Spring. 20 (3)
Alexander, L.D. (1979), "An Exploratory Study of the Utilization of Assessment Centre Results", Academy of Management Journal, 22(1): 152-57.
Bell, S. T & Arthur W. (Jr.) (2008), "Feedback Acceptance in Developmental Assessment Centers: the Role of Feedback Message, Participant Personality, and Affective Response to the Feedback Session". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 29: 681-703.
Bender. J.M. (1973), "What is 'Typical' of Assessment Centers", Personnel. 50: 50-57
Bucalo JP. (1974), "The Assessment Centre--A More Specified Approach", Human Resource Management, 2-13.
Byham, W.C. (1971), "The Assessment Center as an Aid in Management Development", Training and Development Journal, Dec: 10-22.
Byham, W. C. (1978), "How to Improve the Validity of an Assessment Center", Training and Development Journal, November: 4-6.
Byham, W. C. (1987), "Applying a Systems Approach to Personnel Activities" (Monograph IX). Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.
Cochran, D.S, Hinckle T.W & Dusenberry D. (1987), "Designing Developmental Assessment Centre in a Governmental Agency: A Case Study", Public Personnel Management, 16(2): 145-51.
Connelly. B. S., Ones D. O.. Ramesh A. & Goff M. (2008), "A Pragmatic View of Assessment Centre Exercises and Dimensions", Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 121-24.
Eurich, T.L, Krause D.E, Cigularov K & Thornton G.C III. (2009), "Assessment Centers: Current Practices in the United States ",Journal of Business Psychology, 24:387-407.
Gaugler, B.B, Rosenthal D.B, Thornton III G.C & Bentson C. (1987), "Meta-analysis of Assessment Centre Validity", Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 493-511.
Gaugler, B.B & Thornton G.C III (1989), "Number of Assessment Centre Dimensions as a Determinant of Assessor Accuracy", Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 611-18.
Guidelines & Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations (2009),International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17 (3): 243-53.
Gupta, S. (2010), "Relevance of Assessment Centers in Competency Assessment" Paper presented at the XXVII International Congress of Applied Psychology (ICAP)--Melbourne, Australia.
Howard A. (1997), "A Reassessment of Assessment Centers: Challenges for the 21st Century". Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(5): 13-52.
International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines (2008), Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations, Available at www.assessmentcenters.org
Joiner, D. A. (2004)," Assessment Center Trends: Assessment Center Issues and Resulting Trends", Paper presented at the 28th annual meeting of IPMAAC, Seattle. Washington.
Jones, R.G & Whitmore M.D (1995), "Evaluating Developmental Assessment Centers as Interventions". Personnel Psychology, 48: 377-88
Kleinmann, M.. Kuptsch, C.& Koller. O. (1996). "Transparency: A Necessary Requirement for the Construct Validity of Assessment Centers", Applied Psychology: An International Review. 45: 67-84.
Krause, D. E. & Gebert, D. (2003), "A Comparison of Assessment Center Practices in Organizations in German-Speaking Regions and the United States", International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11: 297-312.
Krause, D.E. & Thornton G.C. III. (2009), "A Cross-Cultural Look at Assessment Center Practices: Survey Results from Western Europe and North America", Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58 (4): 557-85.
Kudisch, J. D., Avis, J. M., Fallon, J. D.. Thibodeaux III, H. F., Roberts, F. E., Rollier, T. J. & Rotolo. C. T. (1999),"Benchmarking for Success: A Look at Today's Assessment Center Practices Worldwide", Paper presented at the 27th annual meeting of the international Congress on Assessment Center Methods, Orlando, FL.
Lievens F. (1998), "Factors which Improve the Construct Validity of Assessment Centers: A Review", International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(6), 141-52.
Lievens, F. (2002). "Trying to Understand the Different Pieces of the Construct Validity Puzzle of Assessment Centers: An Examination of Assessor and Assessee Effects", Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 675-86.
Lievens, F. (2008), "What Does Exercise-based Assessment Really Mean"? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1:117-20.
Lievens. F.& Thornton, G. C., III (2005)." Assessment Centers: Recent Developments in Practice and Research", in A. Evers, N. Anderson. & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Personnel Selection. Malden. MA: Blackwell.
Melchers, K. G., Kleinmann, M. & Prinz, M. A. (2010). "Do Assessors Have Too Much on Their Plates? The Effects of Simultaneously Rating Multiple Assessment Center Candidates on Rating Quality", International Journal of Assessment and Selection, 18, 329-41
Rao. TV & Juneja M. (2007), Is Past Performance a Good Predictor of Future Potential? A Study of Competency Assessment through Assessment Centers and 360 degree Tools. IIMA, Research & Publications
Reilley. R.R., Henry, S. & Smither, J.W. (1990), "An Examination of the Effects of Using Behavior Checklists on the Construct Validity of Assessment Centre Dimensions", Personnel Psychology, 43: 71-84.
Schleicher, D. J., Mayes. B.T., Day, D.V.& Riggio, R.E. (2002), "A New Frame for Frame-of-Reference Training: Enhancing the Construct Validity of Assessment Centers", Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4): 735-46.
Spychalski, A.C., Quinones, M.A.. Gaugler, B.B. & Pohley. K. (1997). "A Survey of Assessment Center Practices in Organizations in the United States". Personnel Psychology, 50: 71-90
Thornton. G.C III & Gibbons, A.M. (2009), "Validity of Assessment Centers for Personnel Selection", Human Resource Management Review, 19: 169-87
Thornton. G.C. III. & Rupp. D.R. (2006), Assessment Centers in Human Resource Management: Strategies for Prediction. Diagnosis. and Development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vloeberghs, D. & Berghman L. (2003), "Towards an Effectiveness Model of Development Centers", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18 (6): 511
Woehr, D.J & Arthur W. (2003), "The Construct-related Validity of Assessment Center Ratings: A Review and Meta-analysis of the Role of Methodological Factors". Journal of Management, 29: 231-58.
Woo, S.E. Sims C.S.. Rupp D.E & Gibbons A.M (2008). "Developmental Engagement within and Following Developmental Assessment Centers: Considering Feedback Favorability and Self-Assessor Agreement", Personnel Psychology, 61: 727-59
Seeta Gupta (E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org) & A.Uday Bhaskar (E-mail: email@example.com) are Associate Professors (HR&OB Area), IMT, Ghaziabad.
Table 1 Mean Scores & Standard Deviations on 'Writing Summary Report on Participants' I WRITING SUMMARY REPORTS ON PARTICIPANTS Mean S.D. 1 Discussion between different assessors 3.85 0.93 2 Integration of candidate information 3.63 1.01 Table 2 Mean Scores & Standard Deviations on 'Feedback to Participants' II FEEDBACK TO PARTICIPANTS--A SUMMARY OF Mean S.D. PERFORMANCE AT CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS 3 effective handling of post-Assessment-Centre data 3.63 0.78 for feedback 4 feedback to assesses and recommendations made 3.45 0.83 5 utilization of Assessment Centres in the 3.45 0.83 organization 6 follow-up procedures to aid both the assesses and 3.25 0.85 his/her managers to effectively use the results Table 3 Mean Scores & Standard Deviations on 'Evaluating and Validating the AC' III EVALUATE CENTER AND SET UP PROCEDURES Mean S.D. & TO VALIDATE CENTER AGAINST A CRITERION IV OF JOB SUCCESS 7 Procedures to evaluate and validate the 2.5 0.83 Assessment Centers Table 4 Percentage of Respondents on Aspects of Post-Assessment Center Utilization of Data Questionnaire Percentage of respondents in Questions response categories Post WRITING SUMMARY All Gene- In-bet Some Never AC REPORTS ON the rally ween times Step PARTICIPANTS time (4) (3) (2) (1) I (5) 1 How effective is the 25 45 20 10 0 discussion between different assessors? 2 How effectively does 20 35 30 15 0 integration of candidate information takes place during the integration session? Post FEDBACK TO 5 4 3 2 ' AC PARTICIPANTS-A SUMMARY Step OF PERFORMANCE AT II CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS 3 How effectively is 15 35 50 0 0 post-AC data used for feedback? 4 Do assesses receive 10 35 45 10 0 feedback on their performance at the center and are they informed of any recommendations made? 5 Are Assessment Centers 10 35 45 10 0 well utilized in the organization? How? 6 Are there follow-up 5 35 40 20 0 procedures to aid both the assessee and his/her managers to effectively use the results? Post EVALUATE CENTRE AND SET 5 4 3 2 1 AC UP PROCEDURES Step TOVALIDATE CENTRE III AGAINST A CRITERION OF & IV JOB SUCCESS 7 Are there procedures to 0 10 40 40 10 evaluate and validate the Assessment Centers?
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Gupta, Seeta; Bhaskar, A. Uday|
|Publication:||Indian Journal of Industrial Relations|
|Article Type:||Statistical data|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2015|
|Previous Article:||Trade unionism & contract workers in selected industries in Jamshedpur.|
|Next Article:||The evolving profile of human resource professionals in India.|