IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i6p3277-3288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Riccardo Sartori
  • Andrea Ceschi

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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Riccardo Sartori & Andrea Ceschi, 2013. "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," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3277-3288, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:6:p:3277-3288
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-012-9718-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-012-9718-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-012-9718-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Riccardo Sartori & Andrea Ceschi, 2011. "Uncertainty and its perception: experimental study of the numeric expression of uncertainty in two decisional contexts," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 187-198, January.
    2. Reilly, Barbara A. & Doherty, Michael E., 1989. "A note on the assessment of self-insight in judgment research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-131, August.
    3. Riccardo Sartori, 2010. "Face validity in personality tests: psychometric instruments and projective techniques in comparison," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 749-759, June.
    4. Schalock, Robert L., 1994. "Quality of life, quality enhancement, and quality assurance: Implications for program planning and evaluation in the field of mental retardation and developmental disabilities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 121-131.
    5. Shanteau, James & Stewart, Thomas R., 1992. "Why study expert decision making? Some historical perspectives and comments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 95-106, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Riccardo Sartori & Andrea Ceschi & Serena Cubico & Giuseppe Favretto, 2014. "Quality and quantity in the construction and validation of a psychological test for the assessment and selection of aspiring volunteer rescuers: the action-research in an Italian health association," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3037-3051, November.
    2. Riccardo Sartori & Arianna Costantini & Andrea Ceschi & Andrea Scalco, 2017. "Not only correlations: a different approach for investigating the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and job performance based on workers and employees’ perception," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2507-2519, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Iannario, 2015. "Detecting latent components in ordinal data with overdispersion by means of a mixture distribution," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 977-987, May.
    2. Daniel R Clark & Dan Li & Dean A Shepherd, 2018. "Country familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market selection," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 49(4), pages 442-472, May.
    3. Ricchiute, David N., 1997. "Effects of Judgment on Memory: Experiments in Recognition Bias and Process Dissociation in a Professional Judgment Task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 27-39, April.
    4. Riccardo Sartori & Arianna Costantini & Andrea Ceschi & Andrea Scalco, 2017. "Not only correlations: a different approach for investigating the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and job performance based on workers and employees’ perception," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2507-2519, November.
    5. Jason W. Beckstead, 2007. "A note on determining the number of cues used in judgment analysis studies: The issue of type II error," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 317-325, October.
    6. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2002. "The distortion of beliefs in the face of uncertainty," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:9, Stockholm School of Economics.
    7. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2012. "Entrepreneurial Success and Failure: Confidence and Fallible Judgment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1733-1747, December.
    8. Lan Li & Gang Li & Junqi Chen, 2020. "Professional Competence or Personal Relationship? Research on the Influencing Mechanism on Repeated Purchase Intention of Agricultural Resources," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Coller, Maribeth & Tuttle, Brad, 2002. "The acquisition of price-relevant domain knowledge by a market," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 77-101, February.
    10. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:1-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Schalock, Robert L. & Bonham, Gordon S. & Marchand, Cristine B., 2000. "Consumer based quality of life assessment: a path model of perceived satisfaction," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 77-87, February.
    13. Bender, Randall H., 1998. "Judgment and Response Processes across Two Knowledge Domains," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 222-257, September.
    14. Paul M. Vaaler & Gerry McNamara, 2004. "Crisis and Competition in Expert Organizational Decision Making: Credit-Rating Agencies and Their Response to Turbulence in Emerging Economies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 687-703, December.
    15. Michael L. Wehmeyer, 2020. "The Importance of Self-Determination to the Quality of Life of People with Intellectual Disability: A Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-7, September.
    16. Mandeep K. Dhami & Jeryl L. Mumpower, 2018. "Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    17. Enis, Charles R., 1995. "Expert-novive judgments and new cue sets: Process versus outcome," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 641-662, December.
    18. Hermann Frank & Alexander Kessler & Thomas Rusch & Julia Suess–Reyes & Daniela Weismeier–Sammer, 2017. "Capturing the Familiness of Family Businesses: Development of the Family Influence Familiness Scale (FIFS)," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(5), pages 709-742, September.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:317-325 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Lina Zhou & Yu-wei Sung & Dongsong Zhang, 2013. "Deception Performance in Online Group Negotiation and Decision Making: The Effects of Deception Experience and Deception Skill," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 153-172, January.
    21. Laure Cabantous, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion in the Field of Insurance: Insurers’ Attitude to Imprecise and Conflicting Probability Estimates," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 219-240, May.
    22. Ebenbach, David H. & Moore, Colleen F., 2000. "Incomplete Information, Inferences, and Individual Differences: The Case of Environmental Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-27, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:6:p:3277-3288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.