General performance factors and group differences in assessment center ratings

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent of general performance factors (GPF) in assessment center (AC) exercises and dimensions. The study further aims to determine if larger GPF contributes to larger ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions that are more cogniti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of managerial psychology 2017-01, Vol.32 (4), p.298-313
Hauptverfasser: Buckett, Anne, Becker, Jürgen Reiner, Roodt, Gert
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 313
container_issue 4
container_start_page 298
container_title Journal of managerial psychology
container_volume 32
creator Buckett, Anne
Becker, Jürgen Reiner
Roodt, Gert
description Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent of general performance factors (GPF) in assessment center (AC) exercises and dimensions. The study further aims to determine if larger GPF contributes to larger ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions that are more cognitively loaded in an emerging market context. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed data across three independent AC samples (Sample 1: N=172; Sample 2: N=281; Sample 3: N=428). The Schmid-Leiman solution was used to determine the extent of GPF in AC exercises and dimensions. An independent samples t-test and Cohen’s d was used to determine the size of ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions. Findings The results indicate that GPF is consistently large for the in-basket exercise. Furthermore, dimensions that are more cognitively loaded, such as problem solving, strategic thinking, and business acumen, seem to produce the largest ethnic group differences. Overall, the research indicates that larger GPF is associated with larger ethnic group differences in relation to specific AC dimensions and exercises. Originality/value The authors add to the literature by investigating the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings across AC exercises and dimensions. A novel contribution of the research attempts to link the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings to group membership in South Africa. The study offers an alternative statistical analysis procedure to examine GPF in AC ratings.
doi_str_mv 10.1108/JMP-08-2016-0264
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_JMP-08-2016-0264</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1917271044</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-928720aa0d9c53619c361481811b1c4ac3286392cd8ed589b6d8b146ffe7aa0e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkL1PwzAQxS0EEqWwM1piNvXFTmyPqIICKh8DzJbrXKpUjRPsdOC_x1FZkFjuSXfv3Z1-hFwDvwXgevH88s64ZgWHivGikidkBqrUTCmlT8kstzQTRlbn5CKlHecgSmFm5HWFAaPb0wFj08fOBY-0cX7sY6Iu1HQb-8NA67ZpMGIeJtoG6lLClDoMI_W5YKTRjW3Ypkty1rh9wqtfnZPPh_uP5SNbv62elndr5oUUIzOFVgV3jtfGl6IC43ORGjTABrx0XhS6Eqbwtca61GZT1XoDsspPqJxCMSc3x71D7L8OmEa76w8x5JMWDKhCAZcyu_jR5WOfUsTGDrHtXPy2wO1EzWZqNstEzU7UcmRxjGA3Yan_S_zhLH4ANsJt0Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1917271044</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>General performance factors and group differences in assessment center ratings</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Emerald A-Z Current Journals</source><creator>Buckett, Anne ; Becker, Jürgen Reiner ; Roodt, Gert</creator><creatorcontrib>Buckett, Anne ; Becker, Jürgen Reiner ; Roodt, Gert</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent of general performance factors (GPF) in assessment center (AC) exercises and dimensions. The study further aims to determine if larger GPF contributes to larger ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions that are more cognitively loaded in an emerging market context. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed data across three independent AC samples (Sample 1: N=172; Sample 2: N=281; Sample 3: N=428). The Schmid-Leiman solution was used to determine the extent of GPF in AC exercises and dimensions. An independent samples t-test and Cohen’s d was used to determine the size of ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions. Findings The results indicate that GPF is consistently large for the in-basket exercise. Furthermore, dimensions that are more cognitively loaded, such as problem solving, strategic thinking, and business acumen, seem to produce the largest ethnic group differences. Overall, the research indicates that larger GPF is associated with larger ethnic group differences in relation to specific AC dimensions and exercises. Originality/value The authors add to the literature by investigating the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings across AC exercises and dimensions. A novel contribution of the research attempts to link the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings to group membership in South Africa. The study offers an alternative statistical analysis procedure to examine GPF in AC ratings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-3946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-7778</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/JMP-08-2016-0264</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bradford: Emerald Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Assessment centers ; Bias ; Cognitive ability ; Emerging markets ; Ethnic differences ; Exercise ; Job performance ; Market economies ; Membership ; Minority &amp; ethnic groups ; Occupational psychology ; Personality ; Problem solving ; Quantitative psychology ; Ratings &amp; rankings ; Research methodology ; Statistical analysis ; Workplace diversity</subject><ispartof>Journal of managerial psychology, 2017-01, Vol.32 (4), p.298-313</ispartof><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Emerald Publishing Limited 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-928720aa0d9c53619c361481811b1c4ac3286392cd8ed589b6d8b146ffe7aa0e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-928720aa0d9c53619c361481811b1c4ac3286392cd8ed589b6d8b146ffe7aa0e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0853-3878</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JMP-08-2016-0264/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,961,11614,12825,27901,27902,30976,52664</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Buckett, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Jürgen Reiner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roodt, Gert</creatorcontrib><title>General performance factors and group differences in assessment center ratings</title><title>Journal of managerial psychology</title><description>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent of general performance factors (GPF) in assessment center (AC) exercises and dimensions. The study further aims to determine if larger GPF contributes to larger ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions that are more cognitively loaded in an emerging market context. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed data across three independent AC samples (Sample 1: N=172; Sample 2: N=281; Sample 3: N=428). The Schmid-Leiman solution was used to determine the extent of GPF in AC exercises and dimensions. An independent samples t-test and Cohen’s d was used to determine the size of ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions. Findings The results indicate that GPF is consistently large for the in-basket exercise. Furthermore, dimensions that are more cognitively loaded, such as problem solving, strategic thinking, and business acumen, seem to produce the largest ethnic group differences. Overall, the research indicates that larger GPF is associated with larger ethnic group differences in relation to specific AC dimensions and exercises. Originality/value The authors add to the literature by investigating the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings across AC exercises and dimensions. A novel contribution of the research attempts to link the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings to group membership in South Africa. The study offers an alternative statistical analysis procedure to examine GPF in AC ratings.</description><subject>Assessment centers</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Emerging markets</subject><subject>Ethnic differences</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Job performance</subject><subject>Market economies</subject><subject>Membership</subject><subject>Minority &amp; ethnic groups</subject><subject>Occupational psychology</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Problem solving</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Ratings &amp; rankings</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Workplace diversity</subject><issn>0268-3946</issn><issn>1758-7778</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNptkL1PwzAQxS0EEqWwM1piNvXFTmyPqIICKh8DzJbrXKpUjRPsdOC_x1FZkFjuSXfv3Z1-hFwDvwXgevH88s64ZgWHivGikidkBqrUTCmlT8kstzQTRlbn5CKlHecgSmFm5HWFAaPb0wFj08fOBY-0cX7sY6Iu1HQb-8NA67ZpMGIeJtoG6lLClDoMI_W5YKTRjW3Ypkty1rh9wqtfnZPPh_uP5SNbv62elndr5oUUIzOFVgV3jtfGl6IC43ORGjTABrx0XhS6Eqbwtca61GZT1XoDsspPqJxCMSc3x71D7L8OmEa76w8x5JMWDKhCAZcyu_jR5WOfUsTGDrHtXPy2wO1EzWZqNstEzU7UcmRxjGA3Yan_S_zhLH4ANsJt0Q</recordid><startdate>20170101</startdate><enddate>20170101</enddate><creator>Buckett, Anne</creator><creator>Becker, Jürgen Reiner</creator><creator>Roodt, Gert</creator><general>Emerald Publishing Limited</general><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K8~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0853-3878</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170101</creationdate><title>General performance factors and group differences in assessment center ratings</title><author>Buckett, Anne ; Becker, Jürgen Reiner ; Roodt, Gert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-928720aa0d9c53619c361481811b1c4ac3286392cd8ed589b6d8b146ffe7aa0e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Assessment centers</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Emerging markets</topic><topic>Ethnic differences</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Job performance</topic><topic>Market economies</topic><topic>Membership</topic><topic>Minority &amp; ethnic groups</topic><topic>Occupational psychology</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Problem solving</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Ratings &amp; rankings</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Workplace diversity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Buckett, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Jürgen Reiner</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roodt, Gert</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Management Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of managerial psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Buckett, Anne</au><au>Becker, Jürgen Reiner</au><au>Roodt, Gert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>General performance factors and group differences in assessment center ratings</atitle><jtitle>Journal of managerial psychology</jtitle><date>2017-01-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>298</spage><epage>313</epage><pages>298-313</pages><issn>0268-3946</issn><eissn>1758-7778</eissn><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent of general performance factors (GPF) in assessment center (AC) exercises and dimensions. The study further aims to determine if larger GPF contributes to larger ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions that are more cognitively loaded in an emerging market context. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyzed data across three independent AC samples (Sample 1: N=172; Sample 2: N=281; Sample 3: N=428). The Schmid-Leiman solution was used to determine the extent of GPF in AC exercises and dimensions. An independent samples t-test and Cohen’s d was used to determine the size of ethnic group differences across exercises and dimensions. Findings The results indicate that GPF is consistently large for the in-basket exercise. Furthermore, dimensions that are more cognitively loaded, such as problem solving, strategic thinking, and business acumen, seem to produce the largest ethnic group differences. Overall, the research indicates that larger GPF is associated with larger ethnic group differences in relation to specific AC dimensions and exercises. Originality/value The authors add to the literature by investigating the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings across AC exercises and dimensions. A novel contribution of the research attempts to link the prevalence of a GPF in AC ratings to group membership in South Africa. The study offers an alternative statistical analysis procedure to examine GPF in AC ratings.</abstract><cop>Bradford</cop><pub>Emerald Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/JMP-08-2016-0264</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0853-3878</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0268-3946
ispartof Journal of managerial psychology, 2017-01, Vol.32 (4), p.298-313
issn 0268-3946
1758-7778
language eng
recordid cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_JMP-08-2016-0264
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Emerald A-Z Current Journals
subjects Assessment centers
Bias
Cognitive ability
Emerging markets
Ethnic differences
Exercise
Job performance
Market economies
Membership
Minority & ethnic groups
Occupational psychology
Personality
Problem solving
Quantitative psychology
Ratings & rankings
Research methodology
Statistical analysis
Workplace diversity
title General performance factors and group differences in assessment center ratings
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T02%3A34%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=General%20performance%20factors%20and%20group%20differences%20in%20assessment%20center%20ratings&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20managerial%20psychology&rft.au=Buckett,%20Anne&rft.date=2017-01-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=298&rft.epage=313&rft.pages=298-313&rft.issn=0268-3946&rft.eissn=1758-7778&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/JMP-08-2016-0264&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E1917271044%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1917271044&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true