Assessment and development centers: judgment biases and risks of using idiographic and nomothetic approaches to collecting information on people to be evaluated and trained in organizations

Assessment and development centers: judgment biases and risks of using idiographic and nomothetic... Assessment center and development center are two procedures that organizations can use in order to evaluate and train people. They make use of different methods and techniques, some (i.e. interviews) descending from the so called idiographic (or clinical) approach, and some (i.e. standardized instruments) descending from the so called nomothetic (or psychometric) approach. The idea is that different methods and techniques allow assessors and decision makers to collect as much information as possible, in order to come to an integrated judgment of people to be evaluated. Regarding this idea, psychological research has already discovered that it is not the amount of information collected that makes the difference between expert and non-expert assessors and decision makers. Besides, too much information is difficult to manage; and while it increases the confidence of assessors and decision makers about their judgments, it unfortunately does not increase their accuracy as well, since relevant information is mixed with irrelevant one and this makes it difficult to decide which one to consider and which one not. So, the article wants to be a critical review of what psychological science has found, and not so recently, in the field of assessment and development of psychological characteristics, in terms of risks and biases. Finally, it wants to underline the fact that, in spite of risks and biases, nowadays different methods and techniques are actually used to assess one person’s psychological characteristics, which is certainly questionable but also methodologically appropriate if they are appropriately used. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Assessment and development centers: judgment biases and risks of using idiographic and nomothetic approaches to collecting information on people to be evaluated and trained in organizations

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/assessment-and-development-centers-judgment-biases-and-risks-of-using-lb1U9FD8k9
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Subject
Social Sciences, general; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-012-9718-z
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Assessment center and development center are two procedures that organizations can use in order to evaluate and train people. They make use of different methods and techniques, some (i.e. interviews) descending from the so called idiographic (or clinical) approach, and some (i.e. standardized instruments) descending from the so called nomothetic (or psychometric) approach. The idea is that different methods and techniques allow assessors and decision makers to collect as much information as possible, in order to come to an integrated judgment of people to be evaluated. Regarding this idea, psychological research has already discovered that it is not the amount of information collected that makes the difference between expert and non-expert assessors and decision makers. Besides, too much information is difficult to manage; and while it increases the confidence of assessors and decision makers about their judgments, it unfortunately does not increase their accuracy as well, since relevant information is mixed with irrelevant one and this makes it difficult to decide which one to consider and which one not. So, the article wants to be a critical review of what psychological science has found, and not so recently, in the field of assessment and development of psychological characteristics, in terms of risks and biases. Finally, it wants to underline the fact that, in spite of risks and biases, nowadays different methods and techniques are actually used to assess one person’s psychological characteristics, which is certainly questionable but also methodologically appropriate if they are appropriately used.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Apr 28, 2012

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off