THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT RATING PROCEDU RES ON THE CONSTRUCT-VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT-CENTER METHODS

Silverman, Dalessio, Woods and Johnson's (1986) results show that vari ous rating procedures can lead to an increase or decrease in the const ruct validity of assessment centers (AC) methods: a ''within-exercise method' in which all dimensions were rated directly after every exerci se led to less convergent validity than a ''within-dimension method' w here every dimension was rated for all exercises at the end of the AC. However, an interpretation of the results of this study is difficult as further rating modi were varied, and differences in the construct v alidities cannot be clearly seen as a result of the experimental facto r ''within-exercise vs. within-dimension method''. A partial replicati on of the Silverman et al. (1986) study was carried out in our experim ent where only the factor ''within-exercise vs. within-dimension metho d'' was varied. Ten AC studies with six participants each were carried out and recorded on video tape. The AC studies were made up of three exercises with three dimensions. Finally, the AC participants' achieve ments were rated according to the ''within-exercise method'' and accor ding to the ''within-dimension method''. The analyses of the resulting multitrait-multimethod matrices showed, in contrast to Silverman et a l., that the construct validity in the ''within-dimension condition'' was no higher than in the ''within-exercise condition''. However, in c ontrast to many pervious studies, both procedures produced a satisfact ory validity.