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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of managerial psychology 2017-01, Vol.32 (4), p.298-313 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & ethnic groups ; Occupational psychology ; Personality ; Problem solving ; Quantitative psychology ; Ratings & 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 & ethnic groups</subject><subject>Occupational psychology</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Problem solving</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Ratings & 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 & ethnic groups</topic><topic>Occupational psychology</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Problem solving</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Ratings & 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 & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & 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 |