Assessment in the Workplace

1. To insert your company logo on this slide • From the Insert Menu • Select “Picture” • Locate your logo file • Click OK • To resize the logo • Click anywhere inside the logo. The boxes that appear outside the logo are known as “resize handles.” • Use these to resize the object. • If you hold down the shift key before using the resize handles, you will maintain the proportions of the object you wish to resize. Assessment in the Workplace Psychometric Testing Assessment Centres

2. Overview • Psychometric ‘tests’: Cognitive Ability Tests & Personality Inventories • basic concepts • predictive validity • advantages & disadvantages • Assessment Centres : History of the AC technique; what is an Assessment Centre ? • Do AC’s work ? Predictive validity and the construct validity problem • Candidate reactions to AC’s • Future directions for the AC technique

3. Cognitive Ability Tests • The Theory (the concept of intelligence) • Spearman (1904, 1927) • Burt (1949, 1955) & Vernon (1950) • Guildford (1959, 1967) • Horn & Cattell (1967, 1982) • The Practice (case-studies, meta-analyses) • Hunter & Hunter (1984) • cognitive ability and training success : ‘r’ = 0.55 • predictive validity of cog. ability increases with increasing complexity of job requirements • cog. ability and job proficiency : ‘r’ = 0.45

4. Cognitive Ability Tests • Advantages • ‘high’ predictive validity • not as susceptible to impression management as other selection techniques (interview, personality inventories) • can process large numbers of candidates at a time (therefore cost-effective) • objective, standardised measure • Disadvantages • Concept of ‘cognitive ability’ leads to extrinsic test bias toward certain ethnic & cultural groups.

5. Personality Inventories • The Theory ‘those relatively stable and enduring aspects of an individual which distinguish them from other people, making them unique, but which at the same time permit a comparison between individuals’ Approaches Nomothetic (ind. diffs) vs Idiographic (unique indv’s) Psychometric vs Non-Psychometric (quantifiable) (non-quantifiable) Psychometric Theories • Eysenck (1947, 1952) - Type Theory • Cattell (1943-1948) - Trait Theory • Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963), et al: The ‘Big Five’ Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Culture

6. The Practice • ‘Big 5’ most commonly accepted model. • Examples of ‘big 5’ inventories include NEO-PIIR & OPQ. Personality as a Predictor of Work Performance : Barrick & Mount (1991) Meta-analysis of 117 studies conducted between 1952-1988 (N = 23,994) 5 Occupational groupings : 5% professionals, 17% sales, 13% police, 41% managers, 24% skilled/semi-skilled Performance Criteria : job proficiency, training proficiency, personnel data

7. Barrick & Mount (1991) : findings • Conscientiousness = valid predictor for ALL occ.groups and ALL criterion measures • Extraversion = valid predictor for sales and managers across all criterion measures. • Culture (Open to Experience) : valid predictor of training proficiency across all occ. Groups • Emotional Stability : low predictive validity for all three criterion • Agreeableness = low predictive validity of job performance

8. Personality Inventories Advantages • predictive validity • objective, standardised technique • cost-effective way of screening applicants Disadvantages • Self-report -> Response Bias (impression management, acquiescence, deviation, central tendency) • Privacy (test takers’ attitudes) : e.g. Rosse, Miller and Stecher (1994). ‘A field study of job applicants reaction to Personality and Cognitive Ability Testing’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 6, 987-992.

9. The Assessment Centre Technique Origins : military purposes in WWII, then Bray and Byham (1950’s)… first commercial AC (AT&T). 26 dimensions assessed in 3 exercises, 1 interview, psychometrics. Use : Bray (1997) : 80% of Fortune 5000 companies use AC’s somewhere in the organisation; Shackleton (1991) : 21% of major UK org’s used AC’s in 1986; 59% by 1991 Description : Multi-method, multi-trait assessment Guidelines : 17th International Congress on the Assessment Centre Method (1989) • dimensions • techniques • assessors • gathering data

10. Candidate Reactions (face validity) • Dulewicz (1991); Thornton (1992) : candidate, assessors and management all hold positive attitudes toward AC’s : Candidates find exercises difficult and challenging - but believe measure job relevant behaviours and are fair. • Macan, Avedan, Pease & Smith (1994). AC vs tests : AC’s more acceptable, face valid and fair • NB. Candidate anxiety (Iles, Robertson and Rout, 1989) : 18%-32% of candidate said AC is stressful; Teel and DuBois, 1983 : 50% felt performance affected by stress.

11. Candidate Anxiety Fletcher, Lovatt & Baldry (1997) : state, trait and test anxiety to AC performance 38 candidates of an AC (8 dimensions, 7 ‘exercises’) Results • State anxiety had a curvilinear relationship to several AC measures, with low and high anxiety related to poor performance • Test anxiety sig -vely correlated to scores on a numerical test and a written exercise • High trait anxiety associated with better assessment ratings.

12. Do AC’s work ? Criterion Validity • Gaugler et al (1987) : meta-analysis of AC validity : criteria = (1) career progress; (2) overall performance ratings (3) dimensional performance ratings (4) ratings of potential (5) wages (6) training performance Average ‘r’ = 0.40 (variance due to variation in components) Higher validities reported for AC’s with : (1) wider range of exercises (2) psychologists & managers as assessors (3) included peer ratings in OAR (4) have more female candidates. • Can cheaper measures substitute ? Lowry (1994) : AC and Personnel Records : AC strength = assessment of interpersonal skills.

13. The ‘Construct Validity Problem’ = although AC does show convergent validity, discriminant validity is usually poor. E.g. Interview : Communication skills, motivation, personal impact. Group Discussion : Personal Impact, Communication Skills, Strategic Thinking In-Tray Exercise : Strategic Thinking, Motivation. Practical Exercise Leaderless Group Discussion

14. Improving the discriminant validity of ratings AC construction • select fewer but more observable dimensions • Define dimensions clearly and unambiguously • Don’t expect sharp differentiations of dimensions that are subtle variations on the same theme (e.g. leadership versus management skills) Training Assessors • Familiarisation with dimensions, behavioural indicators rating/response scales • Maximum 2 candidates per assessor • Rate dimensions only AFTER have enough behavioural evidence to do so. • Assessor-exercise rather than assessor-candidate to minimise halo effects • Use of video • Ratings along rating scale, along with qualitative ‘summary of evidence’

15. Future of the AC technique DeVries (1993) : critique of AC method (incl. AC model takes an outdated view of the manager) Bray and Associates (1992) : evi. of changes in dimensions assessed. • AC exercises - reflect empowerment of employees • Global market (cultural differences) • Technology (videotapes, computer sim’s, CAT, etc) • Used increasingly for selection of employees and executives • Used for a variety of other functions : RJP’s, placement, development, org. development, career and succession planning.