Knowledge that Transforms

Past research has shown that assessment centers have accurately predicted managerial success in a number of organizations. The argument is made that understanding assessor judgments is necessary before it can be determined why assessment centers consistently demonstrate predictive validity. Data on the individual ratings made by 46 assessors working in an assessment center were analyzed. Ten assessors ' ratings (each of whom had rated more the 200 assessees) were individually subjected to confirmatory factor analyses (using LISREL) and examined within a lens model framework. Support was found for both a formal and informal method of arriving at an overall assessment rating (OAR). Subgroup analyses indicate tentatively that there is little effect of assessee sex on the way assessors arrive at an OAR. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed. Assessment centers have gained wide ac-ceptance as tools in the selection of managers. Indeed, their use has spread into many non-managerial measurement applications such as performance in college level courses (Al-verno College, 1974) and performance of nurses in examinations of competency for the New York Regents External Degree Pro-gram (Lenburg, 1983). Behind the general acceptance enjoyed by assessment centers is an extensive research base indicating a positive relation between assessment center ratings and subsequent success as a manager (Thorn-ton & Byham, 1982). Klimoski and Strickland (1977) reviewed over 90 studies examining the external validity of assessment centers. They found a median predictive validity of.40. However, they also noted a "curious homogeneity " in the criteria employed in these studies (p. 354). They invoked a warning made by Wallace (1974) about the difference between prediction of an individual's job performance and prediction Portions of this article were presented at the annual meetings of the American Psychological Association,

The present study investigated the effects of the dominant sex of job incumbents, pay level of a job, and evaluator's sex on job evaluation scores among 103 compensation practitioners. No effects on either the absolute rating or relative standing of the manipulated job were found as a function of dominant sex of job incumbents or evaluator sex. Pay level was associated with substantial effect on the absolute rating and on the relative standing of the manipulated job. Implications for research and for the comparable worth controversy are discussed.