Utility of Assessment Center for Promotion of Police Sergeants
Is the cost of an assessment center worth it? This study demonstrates the economic utility of an assessment center as a part of a promotional examination to police sergeant. The total cost of the program to assess 208 candidates was $158,970, or $764 per candidate. Based on initial promotions of 22...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Public personnel management 2010-03, Vol.39 (1), p.59-69 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 69 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 59 |
| container_title | Public personnel management |
| container_volume | 39 |
| creator | Thornton, George C. Potemra, Michael J. |
| description | Is the cost of an assessment center worth it? This study demonstrates the economic utility of an assessment center as a part of a promotional examination to police sergeant. The total cost of the program to assess 208 candidates was $158,970, or $764 per candidate. Based on initial promotions of 22 sergeants, total utility was estimated to be at least $414,943, utility per candidate was estimated to be at least $1995, and utility per selectee was estimated to be at least $18,861. Substantially higher estimates of utility were shown when alternative values of costs, validities of the assessment center, number of sergeants promoted over the life of the promotional list, and the benefits of selecting effective sergeants. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/009102601003900104 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_215951299</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A222485215</galeid><sage_id>10.1177_009102601003900104</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A222485215</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c593t-108736b6260be386f7f03bde60599a6e31a86e8a8ff96335579c0fd360a051783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0l1rHCEUBmApLXSb5g_kamivCp3Ej9UZbwrL0nzA0gSSXIs7e5waZjT1uND8-7pMCF26hCIoyPN6DiohJ4yeMtY0Z5RqRrmijFKhaVnmb8iM6bmsmzlnb8lsB-qdeE8-ID7QYgTnM_LtPvvB56cqumqBCIgjhFwtywSpcjFVNymOMfsYduQmDr6D6hZSDzZk_EjeOTsgHD-vR-T-_Pvd8rJeXV9cLRerupNa5JrRthFqrUr9NYhWucZRsd6AolJrq0Aw2ypobeucVkJI2eiOuo1Q1FLJmlYckU_TuY8p_toCZvMQtymUkoYzqSXjWhf0eUK9HcD44GJOths9dmbBOZ-3stii6gOqhwDJDjGA82V7z58e8GVsYPTdwcCXvUAxGX7n3m4RzdXtj_-27cXqtcafbReHAXow5b6X1_v-619-vUUfyvP6gL7_mXEqscf5xLsUERM485j8aNOTYdTsPpn595OV0NkUQltaeHmTVxJ_ABYUyXg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215951299</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Utility of Assessment Center for Promotion of Police Sergeants</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Thornton, George C. ; Potemra, Michael J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Thornton, George C. ; Potemra, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><description>Is the cost of an assessment center worth it? This study demonstrates the economic utility of an assessment center as a part of a promotional examination to police sergeant. The total cost of the program to assess 208 candidates was $158,970, or $764 per candidate. Based on initial promotions of 22 sergeants, total utility was estimated to be at least $414,943, utility per candidate was estimated to be at least $1995, and utility per selectee was estimated to be at least $18,861. Substantially higher estimates of utility were shown when alternative values of costs, validities of the assessment center, number of sergeants promoted over the life of the promotional list, and the benefits of selecting effective sergeants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-0260</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1945-7421</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/009102601003900104</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PPMNCX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Alternative Assessment ; Assessment centers ; Assessment Centers (Personnel) ; Candidates ; Cities ; Civil service ; Company personnel management ; Conflict Resolution ; Cost Effectiveness ; Costs ; Departments ; Economic Factors ; Employee promotions ; Employment interviews ; Evaluation ; Human resource management ; Human Resources ; Job Analysis ; Job performance ; Managers ; Observation ; Police ; Public service employment ; Ratings & rankings ; Studies ; Utility functions ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Public personnel management, 2010-03, Vol.39 (1), p.59-69</ispartof><rights>2010 SAGE Publications</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2010 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2010 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright International Public Management Association for Human Resources Spring 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c593t-108736b6260be386f7f03bde60599a6e31a86e8a8ff96335579c0fd360a051783</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/009102601003900104$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009102601003900104$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,21821,27926,27927,43623,43624</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thornton, George C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potemra, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><title>Utility of Assessment Center for Promotion of Police Sergeants</title><title>Public personnel management</title><addtitle>Public Personnel Management</addtitle><description>Is the cost of an assessment center worth it? This study demonstrates the economic utility of an assessment center as a part of a promotional examination to police sergeant. The total cost of the program to assess 208 candidates was $158,970, or $764 per candidate. Based on initial promotions of 22 sergeants, total utility was estimated to be at least $414,943, utility per candidate was estimated to be at least $1995, and utility per selectee was estimated to be at least $18,861. Substantially higher estimates of utility were shown when alternative values of costs, validities of the assessment center, number of sergeants promoted over the life of the promotional list, and the benefits of selecting effective sergeants.</description><subject>Alternative Assessment</subject><subject>Assessment centers</subject><subject>Assessment Centers (Personnel)</subject><subject>Candidates</subject><subject>Cities</subject><subject>Civil service</subject><subject>Company personnel management</subject><subject>Conflict Resolution</subject><subject>Cost Effectiveness</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Departments</subject><subject>Economic Factors</subject><subject>Employee promotions</subject><subject>Employment interviews</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Human resource management</subject><subject>Human Resources</subject><subject>Job Analysis</subject><subject>Job performance</subject><subject>Managers</subject><subject>Observation</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>Public service employment</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Utility functions</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0091-0260</issn><issn>1945-7421</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>N95</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0l1rHCEUBmApLXSb5g_kamivCp3Ej9UZbwrL0nzA0gSSXIs7e5waZjT1uND8-7pMCF26hCIoyPN6DiohJ4yeMtY0Z5RqRrmijFKhaVnmb8iM6bmsmzlnb8lsB-qdeE8-ID7QYgTnM_LtPvvB56cqumqBCIgjhFwtywSpcjFVNymOMfsYduQmDr6D6hZSDzZk_EjeOTsgHD-vR-T-_Pvd8rJeXV9cLRerupNa5JrRthFqrUr9NYhWucZRsd6AolJrq0Aw2ypobeucVkJI2eiOuo1Q1FLJmlYckU_TuY8p_toCZvMQtymUkoYzqSXjWhf0eUK9HcD44GJOths9dmbBOZ-3stii6gOqhwDJDjGA82V7z58e8GVsYPTdwcCXvUAxGX7n3m4RzdXtj_-27cXqtcafbReHAXow5b6X1_v-619-vUUfyvP6gL7_mXEqscf5xLsUERM485j8aNOTYdTsPpn595OV0NkUQltaeHmTVxJ_ABYUyXg</recordid><startdate>20100322</startdate><enddate>20100322</enddate><creator>Thornton, George C.</creator><creator>Potemra, Michael J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100322</creationdate><title>Utility of Assessment Center for Promotion of Police Sergeants</title><author>Thornton, George C. ; Potemra, Michael J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c593t-108736b6260be386f7f03bde60599a6e31a86e8a8ff96335579c0fd360a051783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Alternative Assessment</topic><topic>Assessment centers</topic><topic>Assessment Centers (Personnel)</topic><topic>Candidates</topic><topic>Cities</topic><topic>Civil service</topic><topic>Company personnel management</topic><topic>Conflict Resolution</topic><topic>Cost Effectiveness</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Departments</topic><topic>Economic Factors</topic><topic>Employee promotions</topic><topic>Employment interviews</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Human resource management</topic><topic>Human Resources</topic><topic>Job Analysis</topic><topic>Job performance</topic><topic>Managers</topic><topic>Observation</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>Public service employment</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Utility functions</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thornton, George C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potemra, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale Business Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</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 Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Public personnel management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thornton, George C.</au><au>Potemra, Michael J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Utility of Assessment Center for Promotion of Police Sergeants</atitle><jtitle>Public personnel management</jtitle><addtitle>Public Personnel Management</addtitle><date>2010-03-22</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>59</spage><epage>69</epage><pages>59-69</pages><issn>0091-0260</issn><eissn>1945-7421</eissn><coden>PPMNCX</coden><abstract>Is the cost of an assessment center worth it? This study demonstrates the economic utility of an assessment center as a part of a promotional examination to police sergeant. The total cost of the program to assess 208 candidates was $158,970, or $764 per candidate. Based on initial promotions of 22 sergeants, total utility was estimated to be at least $414,943, utility per candidate was estimated to be at least $1995, and utility per selectee was estimated to be at least $18,861. Substantially higher estimates of utility were shown when alternative values of costs, validities of the assessment center, number of sergeants promoted over the life of the promotional list, and the benefits of selecting effective sergeants.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/009102601003900104</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0091-0260 |
| ispartof | Public personnel management, 2010-03, Vol.39 (1), p.59-69 |
| issn | 0091-0260 1945-7421 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_215951299 |
| source | SAGE Complete; Business Source Complete; EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Alternative Assessment Assessment centers Assessment Centers (Personnel) Candidates Cities Civil service Company personnel management Conflict Resolution Cost Effectiveness Costs Departments Economic Factors Employee promotions Employment interviews Evaluation Human resource management Human Resources Job Analysis Job performance Managers Observation Police Public service employment Ratings & rankings Studies Utility functions Validity |
| title | Utility of Assessment Center for Promotion of Police Sergeants |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T22%3A07%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Utility%20of%20Assessment%20Center%20for%20Promotion%20of%20Police%20Sergeants&rft.jtitle=Public%20personnel%20management&rft.au=Thornton,%20George%20C.&rft.date=2010-03-22&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=59&rft.epage=69&rft.pages=59-69&rft.issn=0091-0260&rft.eissn=1945-7421&rft.coden=PPMNCX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/009102601003900104&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA222485215%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215951299&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A222485215&rft_sage_id=10.1177_009102601003900104&rfr_iscdi=true |