Assessment centers are designed to evaluate candidates through a variety of job-relevant simulations, exercises, and structured interviews to assess competencies and potential. This approach aims to provide an accurate measure of a candidate’s fit for a role and reduce the influence of personal biases that can affect the objectivity of traditional selection methods.
6 Reasons Why Assessment Centers Are Objective - backed by science
Assessment centers have long been praised for their objectivity in evaluating candidates, thanks to their structured and systematic approach. It’s been a while since we last published an article about the research behind assessments, so time for an update! I dug into recent and earlier studies to provide you with an updated review of why assessment centers are considered objective, integrating both historical perspectives and recent research to offer you a comprehensive understanding. – by Lorena Flores
The Nature of Assessment Centers
Key Factors Contributing to Objectivity
There are six factors that contribute to the objectivity of assessment centers as a selection method, I will explain them below.
1. Assessment Centers Standardize Procedures
Standardization remains an absolute cornerstone of objectivity in assessment centers. Recent advancements continue to emphasize this aspect: modern assessment centers utilize advanced technologies and standardized protocols to ensure consistency across evaluations. This reduces variability and enhances the reliability of the assessments. According to Rupp and Hoffman (2015), standardization in all aspects of assessment center operations ensures that all participants have equal opportunities to demonstrate relevant behaviors.
2. Professional Assessment Centers use Multiple Assessors
The involvement of multiple assessors is crucial for maintaining objectivity. This is why our assessment reports are always proof read by colleagues and why our experienced simulation-actors play an active role in providing feedback during the assessment. Ongoing training and calibration sessions for assessors further help in reducing individual biases. By integrating evaluations from multiple evaluators, the process lessens the impact of personal biases and improves the overall accuracy of the assessments.
A study by Petrides et al. (2010) demonstrated that training assessors on potential rating errors and using multiple assessors in structured processes significantly enhance fairness and reduce bias, supporting these best practices in assessment centers.
3. Assessment Centers include Behavioral and Situational Simulations
Don’t change a winning team! Modern assessment centers continue to leverage behavioral and situational simulations to provide objective, accurate measurement of candidates’ performance and decision-making skills. These simulations mirror real job tasks, providing a realistic and objective assessment of candidates’ capabilities.
A recent study by Kückelhaus, Titze, and Blickle (2022), showed that assessment center exercises, such as role-plays, can accurately predict future job performance, particularly in the context of sales positions. The research found that the combination of motivation for sales success and social competence—both measured during the exercises—explained additional performance variance. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of such simulations in providing objective data on candidates’ abilities and predicting their job success.
4. Assessment Centers Focus on overall Performance
Professional assessment centers have a broad, multifaceted approach. A study by Jackson et al. (2022) indeed found that the accuracy of assessment centers depends more on the overall performance across different exercises rather than focusing on specific dimensions. This insight suggests that structuring assessments around practical tasks rather than theoretical dimensions can improve reliability, making the process more consistent and objective.
5. Assessment Centers have High Predictive Validity
Recent research confirms that assessment centers are highly effective in predicting future job performance. The skills and competencies assessed in assessments have been shown to correlate closely with actual job outcomes. This predictive validity supports the idea that assessment centers can reliably forecast candidates’ success in real-world settings.
A study by Sackett, Shewach, and Keiser (2017) found that assessment centers can be better than cognitive tests at predicting how well someone will perform in a job. They showed that assessment centers are more effective at evaluating a wide range of skills, which is especially useful for jobs that require diverse abilities.
6. Assessment Centers Reduce Cognitive Biases
Modern assessment centers incorporate strategies to reduce cognitive biases. At Dijk & Van Emmerik we work with tests checked and certified by COTAN. Fairness checks and bias mitigation strategies in assessment center design help ensure that evaluations are fair and that candidates are assessed based on consistent criteria, further enhancing objectivity (Sackett et al, 2017).
Conclusion
To summarize: assessment centers represent a robust and objective method for evaluating candidates, supported by both historical and recent research. The combination of standardized procedures, multiple assessors, realistic simulations, strong focus on overall performance, predictive validity, and bias reduction strategies contributes to their reputation for objectivity. At Dijk & Van Emmerik we keep a clear eye on how the ongoing advancements in technology and methodology can serve to reinforce this objectivity.
My colleagues and I are committed to staying at the forefront of industry practices. We continuously update our methodologies and incorporate the latest research to ensure our assessments remain fair, objective, and effective.
Further exploration
For further exploration of these concepts, the cited studies (see below for full references) provide detailed insights into the latest developments and evidence supporting the objectivity of assessment centers. If you’d like a personal clarification or are considering an assessment center as part of your selection processes, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
References
Kückelhaus, B. P., Titze, J. L., & Blickle, G. (2022). Improving assessment center criterion validity for salesperson selection: a socioanalytic approach. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 42(3), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2022.2037436
Jackson, Duncan & Blair, Michael & Ingold, Pia. (2024). Assessment centers: Reflections, developments, and empirical insights. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 17. 1-5. 10.1017/iop.2024.8.
Jackson, Duncan & Michaelides, George & Dewberry, Chris & Nelson, Jo & Stephens, Catherine. (2022). Reliability in Assessment Centers Depends on Measurement Intentions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 10.1111/joop.12398.
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(4), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049531003667380
Rupp, D. E., & Hoffman, B. J. (2015). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations: International taskforce on assessment center guidelines. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1244–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314567780
Sackett, Paul & Shewach, Oren & Keiser, Heidi. (2017). Assessment Centers Versus Cognitive Ability Tests: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Criterion-Related Validity. The Journal of applied psychology. 102. 10.1037/apl0000236.