A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions

We used meta-analytic procedures to investigate the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimension ratings. By focusing on dimension-level information, we were able to assess the extent to which specific constructs account for the criterion-related validity of assessment centers. From a total of 34 articles that reported dimension-level validities, we collapsed 168 assessment center dimension labels into an overriding set of 6 dimensions: (a) consideration/awareness of others, (b) communication, (c) drive, (d) influencing others, (e) organizing and planning, and (f) problem solving. Based on this set of 6 dimensions, we extracted 258 independent data points. Results showed a range of estimated true criterion-related validities from .25 to .39. A regression-based composite consisting of 4 out of the 6 dimensions accounted for the criterion-related validity of assessment center ratings and explained more variance in performance (20%) than Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, and Bentson (1987) were able to explain using the overall assessment center rating (14%).