Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:46:20.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Observer Reports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

Adrian Furnham
Adrian Furnham
Affiliation:
University of London
Get access

Summary

This chapter covers three areas of research of interest to those in assessment: the accuracy and usefulness of others’/observers’ reports, namely references and testimonials; appraisals and reports by people at work who know the individual (boss, colleagues, reports, customers); and the electronic surveillance at work and home. Each method relies on observer reports which are often considered to be superior to self-reports, though they are highly reliant on both the observer’s actual ‘data’ on the individual, as well as the extent to which they are honest. One of the oldest, most established but least validated of methods is the use of personal references/testimonials by supposedly a person who knows a candidate well and is prepared to be honest. The second which comes from the USA more than 70 years ago remains very popular as much for development and training as assessment: similar ratings from different people at work on the same individual on various different aspects. The third area is perhaps the most controversial: the monitoring of individual through a variety (mostly electronic) means on all sorts of their behaviour at as well as to and from work. The newest method, namely wearables, is also discussed.

Keywords

AgreementAppraisalCongruence360-degreeMulti-source evaluationsRater characteristicsRefereesReferencesStructureSurveillanceTestimonialsWearables.
Type
Chapter
Information
Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
Different Techniques and their Respective Advantages
 , pp. 207 - 277
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Aamodt, M. G., Bryan, D. A., & Whitcomb, A. J. (1993). Predicting performance with letters of recommendation. Public Personnel Management, 22(1), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aamodt, M. G., Nagy, M. S., & Thompson, N. (1998, June). Employment references: Who are we talking about. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Baird, J.-A., Greatorex, J., & Bell, J. F. (2004). What makes marking reliable? Experiments with UK examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 331–348.Google Scholar
Baxter, J. C., Brock, B., Hill, P. C., & Rozelle, R. M. (1981). Letters of recommendation: a question of value. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(3), 296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: a new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. (1984). Letters of reference: a naturalistic study of the effects of confidentiality. American Psychologist, 39(1), 29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colarelli, S. M., Hechanova-Alampay, R., & Canali, K. G. (2002). Letters of recommendation: an evolutionary psychological perspective. Human Relations, 55(3), 315–344.Google Scholar
Cook, M. (2016). Personnel selection: Adding value through people – A changing picture (6th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatewood, R., Feild, H. S., & Barrick, M. (2015). Human resource selection (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Guduguntla, V., Adzemovic, T., & Chopra, V. (2020). Writing Wrongs. The American Journal of Medicine, 133(1), 14–16.Google Scholar
Hedricks, C. A., Rupayana, D. D., Fisher, P. A., & Robie, C. (2019). Factors affecting compliance with reference check requests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(2), 139–151.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 72–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A., & Harrison, E. (1982). Prediction of performance in initial officer training using reference reports. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55(1), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Higgins, C. A. (1998). Affective disposition and the letter of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(3), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knouse, S. B. (1983). The letter of recommendation: specificity and favorability of information. Personnel Psychology, 36(2), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., Kochevar, R. J., & Ones, D. S. (2014). A meta‐analysis of letters of recommendation in college and graduate admissions: reasons for hope. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(1), 101–107.Google Scholar
Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1591–1599.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. M., & Goffin, R. D. (2001). Improving the validity of letters of recommendation: an investigation of three standardized reference forms. Military Psychology, 13(4), 199–222.Google Scholar
Mosel, J. N., & Goheen, H. W. (1959). The employment recommendation questionnaire: III. Validity of different types of references. Personnel Psychology, 12, 469–477.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995 ). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Moustafa, K. (2018). Recommendation letters and contacts: an implicit pull string to end within academia. Arabic Science Archive, 14, 1–4.Google Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M. (1979). The use of reference reports in personnel selection: a review and evaluation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(4), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicklin, J. M., & Roch, S. G. (2008). Biases influencing recommendation letter contents: physical attractiveness and gender 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(12), 3053–3074.Google Scholar
Nicklin, J. M., & Roch, S. G. (2009). Letters of recommendation: controversy and consensus from expert perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(1), 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., & Oberman, S. M. (1987). Personnel selection decisions: effects of applicant personality and the letter of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(1), 96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peres, S. H., & Garcia, J. R. (1962). Validity and dimensions of descriptive adjectives used in reference letters for engineering applicants. Personnel Psychology, 15(3), 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. R. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35(1), 1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saudek, K., Saudek, D., Treat, R., Bartz, P., Weigert, R., & Weisgerber, M. (2018). Dear program director: deciphering letters of recommendation. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 10(3), 261–266.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. & Schmitt, N. (1986). Staffing Organizations (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar

References

Antonioni, D., & Park, H. (2001). The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Management, 27(4), 479–495.Google Scholar
Antonioni, D., & Woehr, D. J. (2001). Improving the quality of multi-source rater performance. In Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (Eds.), The handbook of multi-source feedback (pp. 114–130). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
Atkins, P. W., & Wood, R. E. (2002). Self‐versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: validation evidence for 360‐degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 871–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Self‐other agreement: does it really matter?. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others’ leadership ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology, 40(4), 437–454.Google Scholar
Bracken, D. W., Rose, D. S., & Church, A. H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360 feedback. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(4), 761–794.Google Scholar
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multi-source feedback. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
Carless, S. A., & Roberts‐Thompson, G. P. (2001). Self‐ratings in training programs: an examination of level of performance and the effects of feedback. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(3), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. H., Bracken, D. W., Fleenor, J. W., & Rose, D. S. (2019). Handbook of strategic 360 feedback. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. J. (1996). 360-degree feedback: royal fail or holy grail?. Career Development International, 1(3), 28–31.Google Scholar
Fletcher, C., Baldry, C., & Cunningham‐Snell, N. (1998). The psychometric properties of 360 degree feedback: an empirical study and a cautionary tale. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6(1), 19–34.Google Scholar
Furnham, A. (2019). Rater congruency: why ratings of the same person differ. In Church, A. H., Bracken, D. W., Fleenor, J. W., & Rose, D. S. (Eds.), Handbook of strategic 360 feedback (pp. 291–308). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1993). Personality and occupational behavior: Myers–Briggs type indicator correlates of managerial practices in two cultures. Human Relations, 46(7), 827–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1994). Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1998). Congruence in job-performance ratings: a study of 360 feedback examining self, manager, peers, and consultant ratings. Human Relations, 51(4), 517–530.Google Scholar
Good, D., & Coombe, D. (2009). Giving multisource feedback a facelift. Journal of Change Management, 9(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta‐analysis of self‐supervisor, self‐peer, and peer‐supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 43–62.Google Scholar
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 67(3), 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrader, B. W., & Steiner, D. D. (1996). Common comparison standards: an approach to improving agreement between self and supervisory performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 813–820.Google Scholar
Seifert, C. F., Yukl, G., & McDonald, R. A. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers toward subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 561–565.Google Scholar
Smither, J. & Walker, A. (2001) Measuring the impact of multisource feedback. In Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (Eds.), The handbook of multi-source feedback (pp. 256–271). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
Valle, M., & Bozeman, D. P. (2002). Interrater agreement on employees’ job performance: review and directions. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 975–985.Google Scholar
Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). Understanding agreement in multisource feedback. In Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (Eds.), The handbook of multi-source feedback (pp. 205–220). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar

References

Al-Eidan, R., Al-Khalifa, H., & Al-Salman, A. (2018). A review of wrist-worn wearables. Journal of Sensors, 2018, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amick, B. C., & Smith, M. J. (1992). Stress, computer-based work monitoring and measurement systems: a conceptual overview. Applied Ergonomics, 23(1), 6–16.Google Scholar
Cai, R. (2019). Correlation analyses between personality traits and personal behaviours under specific emotion states using physiological data from wearable devices. Hosei University Graduate School of Information Science, 14, 1–6.Google Scholar
Choudhury, T., & Pentland, A. (2010). The sociometer: A wearable device for understanding human networks. Cambridge, MA: Human Design Group.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2015). An investigation of attitudes toward surveillance at work and its correlates. Psychology, 6(13), 1668–1675.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. V., Hettinger, L. J., Huang, Y. H., Jeffries, S., Lesch, M. F., Simmons, L. A., Verma, S. K., & Willetts, J. L. (2019). Employee acceptance of wearable technology in the workplace. Applied Ergonomics, 78, 148–156.Google Scholar
Kolb, K. J., & Aiello, J. R. (1996). The effects of electronic performance monitoring on stress: locus of control as a moderator variable. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(3), 407–423.Google Scholar
Olguın, D. O., Gloor, P. A., & Pentland, A. S. (2009). Capturing individual and group behaviour with wearable sensors (pp. 68–74). Palo Alto, CA: Spring Symposium on Human Behaviour Modelling at Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Oz, E., Glass, R., & Behling, R. (1999). Electronic workplace monitoring: what employees think. International Journal of Management Science, 27(2), 167–177.Google Scholar
Ryan, J., Edney, S., & Maher, C. (2019). Anxious or empowered? A cross-sectional study exploring how wearable activity trackers make their owners feel. BMC Psychology, 7(42), 1–8.Google Scholar
Samaranayake, V., & Gamage, C. (2012). Employee perception towards electronic monitoring at work place and its impact on job satisfaction of software professionals in Sri Lanka. Telematics and Informatics, 29(2), 233–244.Google Scholar
Sano, A., Phillips, A. J., Amy, Z. Y., McHill, A. W., Taylor, S., Jaques, N., Czeisler, C. A., Klerman, E. B., & Picard, R. W. (2015). Recognizing academic performance, sleep quality, stress level, and mental health using personality traits, wearable sensors and mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks (pp. 1–6). Cambridge, MA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, N., & Cunningham-Snell, N. (2000). Personnel selection. In Chmiel, N. (Ed.), Introduction to work and organizational psychology (pp. 69–99). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: a criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1185–1203.Google Scholar
Bartram, D., Robertson, I. T., & Callinan, M. (2002). Introduction: a framework for examining organisational effectiveness. In Robertson, I. T., Callinan, M., & Bartram, D. (Eds.), Organisational effectiveness: The role of psychology (pp. 1–10). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bowler, M. C., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A meta-analytic evaluation of the impact of dimension and exercise factors on assessment center ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1114–1124.Google Scholar
Carless, S. A., & Allwood, V. E. (1997). Managerial assessment centres: what is being rated? Australian Psychologist, 32, 101–105.Google Scholar
Cook, M. (2016). Personnel selection: Adding value through people. Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craik, K. H., Ware, A. P., Kamp, J., O’Reilly, C., Staw, B., & Zedeck, A. (2002). Exploration of construct validity in a combined managerial and personality assessment programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 171–193.Google Scholar
Dayan, K., Kasten, R., & Fox, S. (2002). Entry-level police candidate assessment centre: an efficient tool or a hammer to kill a fly? Personnel Psychology, 55, 827–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Meijer, L. A.L., Born, M. P., Terlouw, G., & van der Molen, H. T. (2006). Applicant and method factors related to ethnic score differences in personnel selection: a Study at the Dutch Police. Human Performance, 19(3), 219–251.Google Scholar
Donahue, L., Truxillo, D., Cornwell, J., & Gerrity, M. (1997). Assessment centre construct validity and behavioural checklists. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 85–107.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types, and disorders: an examination of the relationship between three self‐report measures. European Journal of Personality, 19(3), 167–184.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., Crump, J., & Whelan, J. (1997). Validating the NEO Personality Inventory using assessor’s ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 669–675.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., Miller, T., Batey, M., & Johnson, S. (2012). Demographic and individual correlates of self-rated competency. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 31, 247–265.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., Taylor, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). Personality and intelligence correlates of assessment center exercises. Individual Differences Research, 6, 181–192.Google Scholar
Gaugler, B.B., Rosenthal, D.B., Thornton, G. C. III, & Benson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment centre validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 493–511.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P., Braverman, E. P., Smith, D. B., & Chung, B. (1998). The role of cognitive ability in the subgroup differences and incremental validity of assessment center exercises. Personnel Psychology, 51, 357–374.Google Scholar
Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait-activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Personnel Psychology, 55, 137–163.Google Scholar
Hardison, C. M. (2006). Construct validity of assessment center overall ratings: an investigation of relationships with and incremental criterion related validity over big 5 personality traits and cognitive ability. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section BL: The Sciences and Engineering, 66, 6959.Google Scholar
Hermelin, E., Lievens, F., & Robertson, I. T. (2007). The validity of assessment centres for the prediction of supervisory performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 405–411.Google Scholar
Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (2017). Assessing managerial ability: implications for corporate governance. In Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (Eds.), The Handbook of the Economics of Corporate Governance (vol. 1, pp. 93–176). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hoffman, B. J., Kennedy, C. L., LoPilato, A. C., Monahan, E. L., & Lance, C. E. (2015). A review of the content, criterion-related, and construct-related validity of assessment center exercises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1143–1168.Google Scholar
Howard, A. (1997). A reassessment of assessment centres. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 13–52.Google Scholar
Kleinmann, M., & Koller, O. (1997). Construct validity and assessment centres. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 65–83.Google Scholar
Klimoski, R., & Brickner, M. (1987). Why do assessment centers work? the puzzle of assessment center validity. Personnel Psychology, 40, 243–260.Google Scholar
Kline, P. (1994). The handbook of psychological testing. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kolk, N. J., Born, M. P., & Van Der Flier, H. (2004). Three method factors explaining the low correlations between assessment center dimension ratings and scores on personality inventories. European Journal of Personality, 18, 127–141.Google Scholar
Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., McCarthy, J. M., Rothstein, G., & Johnston, N. (2006) Comparing the validity of structured interviews for managerial-level employees: should we look to the past or focus on the future? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 411–432.Google Scholar
Krause, D. E., Kersting, M., Heggestad, E., & Thornton, G. (2006). Incremental validity of assessment centre ratings over cognitive ability tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 360.Google Scholar
Kudisch, J., Ladd, R., & Dobbins, G. (1997). New evidence on the construct validity of diagnostic assessment centres. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 129–144.Google Scholar
Kurz, R., & Bartram, D. (2002). Competency and individual performance: Modeling the world of work. In Robertson, I. T., Callinan, M., & Bartram, D. (Eds.), Organizational effectiveness: The role of psychology (pp. 227–255). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kurz, R., Bartram, D., & Baron, H. (2004). Assessing potential and performance at work: The Great Eight competencies. In Proceedings of the British Psychological Society Occupational Conference (pp. 91–95). Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.Google Scholar
Lance, C. E. (2008). Why assessment centres do not work the way they are supposed to. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1(1), 84–97.Google Scholar
Lievens, F. & Thornton, G. C. III (2005). Assessment centres: recent developments in practice and research. In Evers, A., Smit-Voskuijl, O., & Anderson, N. (Ed.), Handbook of selection (pp. 243–264). New York: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Lievens, F. (2009). Assessment centers: a tale about dimensions, exercises, and dancing bears. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 18(1), 102–121.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., De Fruyt, F., & Van Dam, K. (2001). Assessors’ use of personality traits in descriptions of assessment centre candidates: a five-factor model perspective. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74, 623–636.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., & Van Keer, E. (2003). Predicting cross-cultural training performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability and dimensions measured by an assessment center and a behavior description interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 476–489.Google Scholar
Livens, F. and Klimoski, R. J. (2001) Understanding the assessment centre process: where are we now? In Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organisational psychology, vol. 16. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Moerdyk, A. (2014). The principles and practice of psychological assessment (2nd ed.). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.Google Scholar
Murray, M. (2005) How to design a successful assessment centre. People Management (UK), 11(4) 24–45.Google Scholar
Petrides, K. V., Weinstein, Y., Chou, J., Furnham, A., & Swami, V. (2010). An investigation into assessment centre validity, fairness, and selection drivers. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62, 227–235.Google Scholar
Riggio, R. E., Mayes, B. T., & Schleicher, D. J. (2003). Using assessment center methods for measuring undergraduate business student outcomes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 68–78.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (1989). Construct validity in personnel selection. In Fullon, B. J., Pfister, H. P., & Brebner, J. (Eds), Advances in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 331–341). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch, M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 37, 407–422.Google Scholar
Schuler, H., & Funke, U. (1999). The moderating effect of raters’ opportunities to observe ratees’ job performance on the validity of an assessment centre. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7, 133–141.Google Scholar
Spector, P. E., Vance, C. A., Schneider, J. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2000). The relation of cognitive ability and personality traits to assessment center performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1474–1491.Google Scholar
Thornton, G. C., & Gibbons, A. M. (2009). Validity of assessment centers for personnel selection. Human Resources Management Review, 19, 169–187.Google Scholar
Thornton, G. C, Tziner, A., Dahan, M., Clevenger, J., & Meir, E. (1997). Construct validity of assessment centre judgements. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 109–127.Google Scholar
Toh, S. M., & Furnham, A. (2015). The validation of assessment centres in Asia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 7, 20–33.Google Scholar
Waldman, D. A., & Korbar, T. (2004). Student assessment center performance in the prediction of early career success. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 151–167.Google Scholar
Woodruffe, C. (1995). Assessment Centres. London, UK: IP.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Observer Reports
  • Adrian Furnham, University of London
  • Book: Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
  • Online publication: 11 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108953276.006
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Observer Reports
  • Adrian Furnham, University of London
  • Book: Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
  • Online publication: 11 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108953276.006
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Observer Reports
  • Adrian Furnham, University of London
  • Book: Twenty Ways to Assess Personnel
  • Online publication: 11 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108953276.006
Available formats
×