Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 214–229 | Cite as

A further examination of the constructs underlying assessment center ratings

  • Paul R. Sackett
  • Michael M. Harris
Regular Articles


Previous factor analytic work (Sackett and Dreher, 1982) has found exercise factors, rather than the expected dimension factors, underlying ratings made in managerial assessment centers. The present paper responds to criticisms that inappropriate analyses were conducted and that unrepresentative assessment centers were studied. Exercise factors were found to predominate in two new sets of assessment data which we obtained and in three studies published by other authors, thus indicating that the results were not idiosyncratic to the three centers studied by Sackett and Dreher. Analyses using confirmatory, rather than exploratory, factor analysis also support the dominance of exercise factors. Although dimension factors were found in three of four data sets studied, variables loading on a dimension factor consistently loaded more highly on an exercise factor as well.


Social Psychology Social Issue Analytic Work Assessment Data Center Rating 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Archambeau, D.J. (1979). Relationships among skill ratings assigned in an assessment center. Journal of Assessment Center Technology, 2, 7–20.Google Scholar
  2. Endler, N.S., and Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
  3. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: 1. On predicting most the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 1097–1126.Google Scholar
  4. Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: 2. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 35, 790–806.Google Scholar
  5. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Neidig, R.D., Martin, J.C., and Yates, R.E. (1979). The contribution of exercise skill ratings to final assessment center evaluations. Journal of Assessment Center Technology, 2, 21–23.Google Scholar
  8. Neidig, R.D., and Neidig, P.J. (1984). Mutiple assessment center exercises and job relatedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 182–186.Google Scholar
  9. Norton, S.D. (1981). The assessment center process and content validity: a reply to Dreher and Sackett. Academy of Management Review, 6, 561–566.Google Scholar
  10. Rushton, J.P., Brainerd, C.J., and Pressley, M. (1983). Behavior development and construct validity: the principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18–38.Google Scholar
  11. Sackett, P.R., and Dreher, G.F. (1982). Constructs and assessment center dimensions: some troubling empirical findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 401–410.Google Scholar
  12. Schmitt, N., and Bedeian, A.G. (1982). A comparison of LISREL and two stage least squares analysis of a hypothesized life-job satisfaction reciprocal relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 806–817.Google Scholar
  13. Tenopyr, M.D. (1977). Content-construct confusion. Personnel Psychology, 30, 47–54.Google Scholar
  14. Turnage, J.J., and Muchinsky, P.M. (1982). Transituational variability in human performance within assessment centers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 174–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul R. Sackett
    • 1
  • Michael M. Harris
    • 2
  1. 1.Industrial Relations CenterUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis
  2. 2.University of Missouri-St. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations