Content area
Abstract
The purpose of this research study was to examine the relationship between performance on commonly used cognitive and interpersonal assessment center exercises and job performance. Perceptions toward these two different types of assessment center exercises were also assessed, as were performance differences between ethnicities.
The research was conducted using two different sample sets. An archival sample of 411 employees was used to examine assessment center validity and adverse impact. Correlations were executed to analyze an association between assessment center ratings and job performance ratings. Passing ratios between Whites and non-Whites were used to look for evidence of adverse impact. Thirty of the participants in the archival study completed a survey assessing procedural justice developed by Smither, Reilly, Pearlman, and Stoffey (1993). These participants provided ratings of the cognitive and interpersonal assessment center exercises separately.
It was expected that the interpersonal exercises would predict job performance better than the cognitive exercises. There was no support for this expectation. Surprisingly, neither the cognitive nor the interpersonal assessment center exercises were related to job performance. Possible reasons for this finding are discussed.
As expected the cognitive exercises produced greater evidence of adverse impact than the People exercises. The expectation that participants would have a more positive perception of the People exercises than the cognitive exercises was partially supported. Participants felt the People exercises had more face validity than the cognitive exercises.
