Incremental Validity of Assessment Center Ratings Over Cognitive Ability Tests: A Study at the Executive Management Level
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both tests of cognitive ability and assessment center (AC) ratings of various performance attributes have proven useful in personnel selection and promotion contexts. To be of theoretical or practical value, however, the AC method must show incremental predictive accuracy over cognitive ability tests given the cost disparities between the two predictors. In the present study, we investigated this issue in the context of promotion of managers in German police departments into a training academy for high‐level executive positions. Candidates completed a set of cognitive ability tests and a 2‐day AC. The criterion measure was the final grade at the police academy. Results indicated that AC ratings of managerial abilities were important predictors of training success, even after accounting for cognitive ability test scores. These results confirm that AC ratings provide unique contribution to the understanding and prediction of training performance of high‐level executive positions beyond cognitive ability tests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it