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

Riccardo Sartori () and Andrea Ceschi ()

Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 2013, vol. 47, issue 6, 3277-3288

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

Keywords: Assessment and development centers; Idiographic and nomothetic approaches; Judgment biases and risks (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-012-9718-z (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:6:p:3277-3288

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135

DOI: 10.1007/s11135-012-9718-z

Access Statistics for this article

Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology is currently edited by Vittorio Capecchi

More articles in Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().