Responds to R. D. Neidig and P. J. Neidig's criticism of the present authors' conclusion that the failure to find consistency of assessment center dimension ratings across exercises constitutes a threat to the use of content validity to show job relatedness. The present authors contend that situational differences support the argument that the assessor judgment process is too complex to be justified on content-validity grounds alone. A reconceptualization of assessment centers is offered that relies on identifying critical managerial roles, designing exercises to simulate these roles, and evaluating effectiveness in each exercise. The conditions under which content validity is appropriate for showing the job relatedness of this type of center are specified. (11 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
- construct validity of assessment center ratings, candidates for upper level management in 3 organizations, response to criticism by R. D. Neidig & P. J. Neidig