Extending the Nomological Network of Assessment Center Construct Validity: Prediction of Cross-Situationally Consistent and Specific Aspects of Assessment Center Performance

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to expand the nomological validity of assessment centers (ACs) by investigating predictors of cross-situationally consistent versus specific aspects of AC performance. Consistent with hypotheses, (a) Big Five personality factors predicted AC performance as it related to a cross-situationally consistent general performance factor but not as it related to exercise (i.e., situationally specific) factors, and (b) job knowledge predicted performance as it related to both the general performance factor and exercise-specific factors. Results are interpreted as they relate to the growing literature on AC construct validity.

Notes

¹We also note that the general correlated trait-correlated method CFA model for MTMM data (of which the 6D3E model tested here is an example) is also prone to empirical underidentification problems (see Brannick & Spector, 1990; Kenny & Kashy, 1992; Lance, Noble, & Scullen, 2002; Marsh & Bailey, 1991), but convergence and admissibility problems associated with it can be reduced somewhat by obtaining large sample sizes, analyzing larger MTMM matrices, and including reasonably independent measurement methods (Conway, Lievens, Scullen, & Lance, 2004).

²We elected not to correct for attenuation by fixing each variable's factor loading equal to the square root of its reliability and its uniqueness to one minus its reliability because (a) each variable's reliability was so high to begin with that invoking the correction led to a negligible correction, and (b) the standard error test statistic (t value) remains constant with or without the correction.

³We calculated mean rs by transforming the rs in Table 1 to z scores, averaging the zs, and back-transforming the mean z to an r.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

*p < .01.

⁴As one reviewer pointed out, job knowledge would be less likely to be related to a GP factor if the exercises are generic (“off-the-shelf”) exercises than if they are developed specifically from job analysis data as was the case here, as job knowledge by definition is job specific.

*p < .05.

**p < .01.