Lance Charles E, Lambert Tracy A, Gewin Amanda G, Lievens Filip, Conway James M
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013, USA.
J Appl Psychol. 2004 Apr;89(2):377-85. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.377.
The authors reanalyzed assessment center (AC) multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrices containing correlations among postexercise dimension ratings (PEDRs) reported by F. Lievens and J. M. Conway (2001). Unlike F. Lievens and J. M. Conway, who used a correlated dimension-correlated uniqueness model, we used a different set of confirmatory-factor-analysis-based models (1-dimension-correlated Exercise and 1-dimension-correlated uniqueness models) to estimate dimension and exercise variance components in AC PEDRs. Results of reanalyses suggest that, consistent with previous narrative reviews, exercise variance components dominate over dimension variance components after all. Implications for AC construct validity and possible redirections of research on the validity of ACs are discussed.
作者重新分析了评估中心（AC）的多特质-多方法（MTMM）矩阵，该矩阵包含F. 利文斯和J. M. 康威（2001年）报告的运动后维度评分（PEDR）之间的相关性。与使用相关维度-相关独特性模型的F. 利文斯和J. M. 康威不同，我们使用了一组不同的基于验证性因素分析的模型（1维相关运动模型和1维相关独特性模型）来估计AC PEDR中的维度和运动方差成分。重新分析的结果表明，与之前的叙述性综述一致，运动方差成分终究比维度方差成分占主导地位。文中讨论了对AC结构效度的影响以及AC效度研究可能的转向。
