The selection of a school principal is a very important personnel function in a school system. Considerable effort has been expended by school systems to improve the selection process. In an endeavor to establish objectivity in an apparently subjective procedure for principal selection, the National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP) developed an assessment process to enhance the identification and selection of potential school principals.
Research studies to date have been individually inconclusive in identifying the best criteria for assessment and selection of school administrators. The primary questions of this study centered on concerns about the criteria used for evaluating leadership potential. First, are NASSP-style assessment centers effective in evaluating desirable criteria for the principalship? Which criteria used in assessment are the most and least correlated with job performance criteria? If the criterion validity of current dimension estimators is relatively low, which alternate criteria might augment the current assessment process?
This study used a series of meta-analyses to integrate the factors identified within and outside of the NASSP assessment center process into a consistent theoretical framework for the improvement of principal preparation, assessment, selection and performance. A model for future assessment center programs is then proposed on the basis of this analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvyH. B.1983. “The Problems of New Principals,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Montana.
2.
AskSamInc1989. AskSam™ Software System.Perry, FL: AskSam, Inc.
3.
BlanckJ. I.1989. “Comparison of Five Role Groups of Michigan Participants in NASSP Assessment Centers,” Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University.
4.
BleyJ. E.1983. “Use of an Assessment Center for Selecting Administrators and Diagnosing Inservice Needs,” Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
5.
BreedR. D.1985. “Concurrent Validity of Two Administrator Selection Procedures,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
6.
BrittW. C.1976. “Assessment Center Ratings of School Administrators,” Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
7.
CrumptonS. L.1989. “The Importance of The National Association of Secondary School Principals Assessment Center Report to the Appointment of Public School Principals in South Carolina as Perceived by Superintendents and First-Time Principals,” Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina.
8.
DicksonK. G.1987. “The Oregon Assessment Center: Its Influence on Candidates’ Career Opportunities and Professional Development,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
9.
DouglasJ. R., and JohnsonM. C.“Interrater Reliability, Interrater Agreement, and Bias in a Nationally Sanctioned Assessment Center,” Report no. EA 020 233, Wichita State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 879.)
10.
DraperJ. M.1979. “A Comparative Study of Elementary School Principals On-the-Job Ratings and Their Ratings from an Assessment Center Designed to Identify Developmental Needs,” Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
11.
EhingerJ. M.1986. “The Validation of Selected Assessment Center Activities for Incumbent School Administrators Who Participated in the University of Tulsa Education Management Development Program,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa.
12.
EngelT. E.1989. “An Analysis of the Content and Methods of Instruction at Michigan Institutions that Prepare Principals,” Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University.
13.
FarmerN. T.1985. “An Analysis of the Effects of Participation in the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Assessment Center in Howard County, Maryland,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
14.
FordM. J.1987. “An Attitude Survey of NASSP Principal Assessment Center Candidates,” Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
15.
FriedmanM. J.1980. “Differences in Assessment Center Performance as a Function of the Race and Sex of Rates and the Race of Assessors,” Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee.
16.
HeaterJ. D.1989. “Teacher Morale as a Criterion of the Predictive Validity of the National Association of Secondary School Principals Assessment Center,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
17.
HolmanD. M.1986. “The Relationship of Participants Performance in the Nebraska Assessment Center to Participant Conceptual Level/Cognitive Complexity,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
18.
JacobsonB. J.1986. “Predictors of Success for School Administrators,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
19.
LightR. J., and PillemerD. B.1984. Summing Up, the Science of Reviewing Research.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
MicekT. J.1983. “Teacher Perceptions of Performance on the NASSP Assessment Center Behavior Dimensions as It Relates to the Conceptual Complexity of Principals,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
21.
MullenB.1989. Advanced Basic Meta-Analysis.New Jersey: Lawrence Berlaum Associates.
22.
OgawaR. T., and OxaalI.1986. “A Reexamination of NASSP Assessment Center Ratings: Research Notes,” Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
23.
PokornyN. G.1985. “Techniques Used in the Selection of Public School Principals in the United States,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.
24.
RosenthalR.1986. Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. Applied Social Research Method Series, Vol. 6.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
25.
SchmittN., NoeR., MerittR., FitzgeraldM., and JorgensenC.1982. “Criterion-Related Validity of the NASSP Assessment Center,” Unpublished report, Michigan State University, Department of Psychology, East Lansing, MI 48824.
26.
SchmittN., and CohenS. A.1990. “Criterion-Related Validity of the NASSP Assessment Center,” Unpublished report, Michigan State University, Department of Psychology, East Lansing, MI.
27.
SchollS. S.1980. “Criteria for Selection of Ohio Middle School Principals with Particular Attention to the Leadership Role in Curriculum Development,” Doctoral dissertation, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
28.
SchrupM. G.1989. “Role of Reflection on Administrative Job Performance Following National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Assessor Training and Assessment Center Service,” Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
29.
StorlienH. T.1983. “Recruitment and Selection of Secondary Principals in Alberta: An Analysis of Procedures, Criteria, and Identified Problems,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Montana.
30.
ThorntonG. C.III, and ByhamW. C.1982. Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance.New York: Academic Press.
31.
TravettoS. K.1990. “An Analysis of School System and Participant Use of Assessment Center Results for Professional Growth and Development,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
32.
TryjankowskiE. M.1990. “Reliability and Validity of the Assessment and Development Center of New Jersey,” Unpublished paper, New Jersey School Boards Association, Trenton.
33.
Van NewkirkC. J.1984. “A Study of the Assessment Center as a Process for Identifying Prospective School Principals and Assistant Principals,” Doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary.
34.
VoitL. B.1989. “Perceptions and Evaluations of University Principal Preparation Programs by Michigan Public School Principals,” Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University.
35.
WaldenD. L.1985. “The Effects of the NASSP Assessment Center Process on Self-Improvement of Assessees,” Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.
36.
WendelF. C., GappaL. R., and YustenC. R.1988. “Use of the Assessment Center Method in Administrator Preparation Programs,” Unpublished paper, Arizona State University, The University Council for Educational Administration, Tempe.
37.
Witters-ChurchillL. J.1988. “University Preparation of the School Administrator: Evaluations by Texas Principals,” Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
38.
WolfF. M.1987. “Meta-Analysis, Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis,” Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–059. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage University.
