Dimension-specific Versus Task-specific Assessment Centers: Empirical Comparison

Dimension-specific Assessment Centers (ACs) has long been widely criticized on the basisof construct-validity problems throughout the literature. This study investigated whether analternative to the prevailing paradigm would provide a more reasonable treatment of AC ratings,which is “task-specific ACs”. The “task-specific” model treated the AC data as though theycomprised situationally specific behavioral samples. The traditional “dimension-specific” modeltreated the data as though they were indicative of trait-based responses.Two paradigms of assessment were compared in a repeated measures design of125participants：1)Both paradigms of assessment presented high scorer reliability and homogeneityreliability.2)Using MTMM and CFA, both models demonstrated similar psychometriccharacteristics, although only data treated under the situationally specific model held aconceptual justification in this study.3)Linking the evaluation results to a work-related criterion(promotion), showed that exercise factors explained more variance in AC ratings than dimensionfactors in “dimension-specific”,while “task-specific ACs” has a higher discrimination than“dimension-specific”.We got these results:1)Exercise factors explain a main significant portion of the variance inAC ratings and effect validity for predicting work-related criterion.2) The “task-specific”presents a more appropriate means by which to treat AC ratings in practice.