Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The construct validity of final self- and peer evaluations in an assessment center was examined within a nomological network of conceptually related and unrelated variables. Data included self-, peer, and assessor evaluations, cognitive ability and personality measures, and job advancement. The evidence for construct validity was stronger for peer than for self-evaluations, and for more easily observable dimensions than for dimensions requiring greater inferential judgment. Self- and peer evaluations were associated with assessor ratings of management potential, whereas only peer evaluations predicted job advancement. Implications for the use of self- and peer evaluations in assessment centers and the need for further research are discussed. Extensive research on assessment centers shows that assessor ratings are valid predictors of a variety of criteria (Gaugler,
Shore et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: