Lievens Filip
Department of Personnel Management and Work and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium.
J Appl Psychol. 2002 Aug;87(4):675-86. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.675.
This study examined the effects of assessor-related factors (i.e., type of assessor) and assessee-related factors (i.e., type of assessee profile) on the construct validity of assessment center ratings. In particular, 3 types of assessors (26 industrial/organizational [I/O] psychologists, 20 managers, and 27 students), rated assessee performances that varied according to cross-exercise consistency (i.e., relatively inconsistent vs. relatively consistent) and dimension differentiation (relatively undifferentiated vs. relatively differentiated). Construct validity evidence was established for only one assessee profile and only in the I/O psychologist and managerial samples. More generally, these results indicate that 3 factors (poor design, assessor unreliability, and especially cross-situational inconsistent assessee performances) may explain why construct validity evidence is often not established in operational assessment centers.
本研究考察了评估者相关因素（即评估者类型）和被评估者相关因素（即被评估者概况类型）对评估中心评分结构效度的影响。具体而言，3种类型的评估者（26名工业/组织[I/O]心理学家、20名经理和27名学生）对根据交叉练习一致性（即相对不一致与相对一致）和维度区分（相对未分化与相对分化）而有所不同的被评估者表现进行了评分。仅在一种被评估者概况中以及仅在I/O心理学家和经理样本中建立了结构效度证据。更普遍地说，这些结果表明3个因素（设计不佳、评估者不可靠，尤其是跨情境不一致的被评估者表现）可能解释了为什么在实际操作的评估中心中常常无法建立结构效度证据。
