The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of three general performance dimensions and 14 specific dimensions on various aspects of rating quality.
The categorization phase of the research tested the hypothesis that categorization accuracy and reliability would be a significantly greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results provided partial support for this hypothesis.
The aggregation phase of the research tested the following hypotheses: (1) rating accuracy would be greater when relevant behaviors were displayed with high frequency than when they were displayed with low frequency; (2) rating accuracy would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions; and (3) interaction effects between frequency condition and performance dimension level would be present. The results provided little support for the hypothesized effect of frequency conditions.
The assessor reliability phase tested the hypothesis that the interrater reliability of pre- and post-consensus assessment ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results confirmed the hypothesis for the pre-consensus ratings, and the results for the post-consensus ratings were in the hypothesized direction.
The construct validation phase tested the hypothesis that the evidence of convergent and discriminant validity in the pre- and post-consensus ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The evidence of convergent validity was substantially greater for the general performance dimensions.
The correlational analyses phase of the research sought to expand the evidence of construct validity within and beyond the assessment center context. The squared multiple partial correlations between ratings on overall measures and ratings on the general performance dimensions were expected to be significant, after the effects of the specific dimensions were removed. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Examination of the correlations between the overall measures and individual performance dimensions disclosed that all of the general and most of the specific performance dimensions were highly correlated with the overall measures.
In sum, the present research indicates that the general performance dimensions are typically as effective, if not more effective, than the specific performance dimensions.
","abstract_html":"<p>The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of three general performance dimensions and 14 specific dimensions on various aspects of rating quality.</p> <p>The categorization phase of the research tested the hypothesis that categorization accuracy and reliability would be a significantly greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results provided partial support for this hypothesis.</p> <p>The aggregation phase of the research tested the following hypotheses: (1) rating accuracy would be greater when relevant behaviors were displayed with high frequency than when they were displayed with low frequency; (2) rating accuracy would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions; and (3) interaction effects between frequency condition and performance dimension level would be present. The results provided little support for the hypothesized effect of frequency conditions.</p> <p>The assessor reliability phase tested the hypothesis that the interrater reliability of pre- and post-consensus assessment ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results confirmed the hypothesis for the pre-consensus ratings, and the results for the post-consensus ratings were in the hypothesized direction.</p> <p>The construct validation phase tested the hypothesis that the evidence of convergent and discriminant validity in the pre- and post-consensus ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The evidence of convergent validity was substantially greater for the general performance dimensions.</p> <p>The correlational analyses phase of the research sought to expand the evidence of construct validity within and beyond the assessment center context. The squared multiple partial correlations between ratings on overall measures and ratings on the general performance dimensions were expected to be significant, after the effects of the specific dimensions were removed. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Examination of the correlations between the overall measures and individual performance dimensions disclosed that all of the general and most of the specific performance dimensions were highly correlated with the overall measures.</p> <p>In sum, the present research indicates that the general performance dimensions are typically as effective, if not more effective, than the specific performance dimensions.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Campbell, Wanda J."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Terry L. Dickinson","Albert S. Glickman","Robert M. McIntyre","Nancy T. Tippins"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1990,"date_issued":"1990-07-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"1990-07-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:35:15Z","subjects":["Construct validity","Performance","Efficacy","Industrial and Organizational Psychology"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/257","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Terry L. Dickinson","Albert S. Glickman","Robert M. McIntyre","Nancy T. Tippins"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Campbell, Wanda J."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-10-03T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Construct validity","Performance","Efficacy","Industrial and Organizational Psychology"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/257"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of three general performance dimensions and 14 specific dimensions on various aspects of rating quality.
The categorization phase of the research tested the hypothesis that categorization accuracy and reliability would be a significantly greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results provided partial support for this hypothesis.
The aggregation phase of the research tested the following hypotheses: (1) rating accuracy would be greater when relevant behaviors were displayed with high frequency than when they were displayed with low frequency; (2) rating accuracy would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions; and (3) interaction effects between frequency condition and performance dimension level would be present. The results provided little support for the hypothesized effect of frequency conditions.
The assessor reliability phase tested the hypothesis that the interrater reliability of pre- and post-consensus assessment ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results confirmed the hypothesis for the pre-consensus ratings, and the results for the post-consensus ratings were in the hypothesized direction.
The construct validation phase tested the hypothesis that the evidence of convergent and discriminant validity in the pre- and post-consensus ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The evidence of convergent validity was substantially greater for the general performance dimensions.
The correlational analyses phase of the research sought to expand the evidence of construct validity within and beyond the assessment center context. The squared multiple partial correlations between ratings on overall measures and ratings on the general performance dimensions were expected to be significant, after the effects of the specific dimensions were removed. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Examination of the correlations between the overall measures and individual performance dimensions disclosed that all of the general and most of the specific performance dimensions were highly correlated with the overall measures.
In sum, the present research indicates that the general performance dimensions are typically as effective, if not more effective, than the specific performance dimensions.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Comparison of the Efficacy of General and Specific Performance Dimensions in an Operational Assessment Center"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Terry L. Dickinson","Albert S. Glickman","Robert M. McIntyre","Nancy T. Tippins"],"dc:creator":["Campbell, Wanda J."],"dc:date.available":["2019-10-03T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of three general performance dimensions and 14 specific dimensions on various aspects of rating quality.
The categorization phase of the research tested the hypothesis that categorization accuracy and reliability would be a significantly greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results provided partial support for this hypothesis.
The aggregation phase of the research tested the following hypotheses: (1) rating accuracy would be greater when relevant behaviors were displayed with high frequency than when they were displayed with low frequency; (2) rating accuracy would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions; and (3) interaction effects between frequency condition and performance dimension level would be present. The results provided little support for the hypothesized effect of frequency conditions.
The assessor reliability phase tested the hypothesis that the interrater reliability of pre- and post-consensus assessment ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The results confirmed the hypothesis for the pre-consensus ratings, and the results for the post-consensus ratings were in the hypothesized direction.
The construct validation phase tested the hypothesis that the evidence of convergent and discriminant validity in the pre- and post-consensus ratings would be greater for the general performance dimensions than for the specific dimensions. The evidence of convergent validity was substantially greater for the general performance dimensions.
The correlational analyses phase of the research sought to expand the evidence of construct validity within and beyond the assessment center context. The squared multiple partial correlations between ratings on overall measures and ratings on the general performance dimensions were expected to be significant, after the effects of the specific dimensions were removed. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Examination of the correlations between the overall measures and individual performance dimensions disclosed that all of the general and most of the specific performance dimensions were highly correlated with the overall measures.
In sum, the present research indicates that the general performance dimensions are typically as effective, if not more effective, than the specific performance dimensions.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/257"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"dc:subject":["Construct validity","Performance","Efficacy","Industrial and Organizational Psychology"],"dc:title":["Comparison of the Efficacy of General and Specific Performance Dimensions in an Operational Assessment Center"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:35:15Z"}