2 FIELD-TESTS OF AN EXPLANATION OF ASSESSMENT-CENTER VALIDITY

Klimoski & Brickner (1987) described two sets of constructs underlying assessment centre ratings. The trait explanation holds that dimension al ratings capture a candidate's personal characteristics, skills and abilities. The performance consistency/role congruency explanation hol ds that dimensional ratings are predictions of how well the candidate will perform various tasks and/or roles in the target job. While past research has failed to find support for the trait explanation, no stud ies have explicitly examined the validity of assessment centres design ed to make task or role-based dimensional ratings. We report two field evaluations of this explanation. In Study 1 assessor training was mod ified to have assessors view traditional assessment dimensions as role requirements. Concurrent validation of assessor evaluations of retail store managers resulted in correlations ranging from .22 to .28 with superiors' performance appraisal ratings and .32 to .35 with store pro fit. Study 2 evaluated the criterion-related validity of ratings on bo th job requirements and traits. Findings indicate that task-based rati ngs demonstrate concurrent validity in a sample of entry level unit ma nagers while the traditional trait-based ratings do not. Implications for the construct validity and design of assessment centres are drawn.