Four assessment centers were conducted using scoring and evaluation procedures patterned after the Nominal Group Technique. Assessors determined scores on performance dimensions after each exercise and just prior to and during the consensus discussions. These scores were never attributed to the assessor. No significant interassessor influence was found in any of the centers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CohenS.L., Standardization of assessment center technology: Some critical concerns. Journal of Assessment Center Technology, 1978, 1, 1–10.
2.
DelbecqA.L.Van de VenA.GustafsonD.H.Group Techniques for Program Planning. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1975.
3.
HuckS.W.CormierW.H.BoundsW.G.Jr.Reading Statistics and Research. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1974.
4.
HullC.H.NieN.SPSS Update, Versions7–9, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1981.
5.
JoinerDennisDiscussion upon completion of the presentation of the original version of this paper, IPMAAC Conference, Las Vegas, NV, June, 1988.
6.
SackettP.R.WilsonM.A., Factors Affecting the Consensus Judgment Process in Managerial Assessment Centers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67, 10–17.
7.
Task Force on Assessment Center Standards, Standards and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations. The Personnel Administrator, 1980, 25(2).
8.
ThorntonGeorge C.IIIByhamWilliam C.Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1982.
