U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Determination of the Predictive Validity of the Assessment Center Approach to Selecting Police Managers

NCJ Number
72254
Journal
Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (1980) Pages: 89-96
Author(s)
J D Ross
Date Published
1980
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Five law enforcement assessment centers were evaluated on their ability to pick successful candidates for promotion to lieutenant or captain from 49 police officers.
Abstract
The 49 subjects represented 3 small municipal police departments and 2 large sheriffs' agencies. All subjects had attended assessment centers conducted by a private consulting group specializing in assessment centers for police managers and supervisors. Six dimensions of police management were measured in the program: technical knowledge, interpersonal skills, writing skills, verbal skills, analytic skills (problemsolving), and versatility. At the conclusion of assessments, a group appraisal was added as a seventh dimension. All seven variables are weighted equally in determining an overall assessment rating. Assessment techniques for measuring the dimensions were two leaderless-group problemsolving discussions, an oral presentation by the participants on their background, a written exercise, a personal interview, a leaderless group discussion--assigned role, and two paper and pencil personality inventories. After selection by the assessment centers and an average 2 years of on-the-job performance, the five successful subjects were followed up. A behavioral rating scale was used to measure their job performance. Job performance questionnaires consisting of behaviorally anchored rating scales were delivered to a ranking officer in the five police and sheriff agencies participating in the validation study so that immediate supervisors could rate participants. Correlating the job performance rating with the assessment center rating yielded a favorable 0.47 coefficient describing the assessment centers' success in predicting management success. In addition, data analysis suggested that the centers relied mostly on evidence of interpersonal sensitivty and communication skills to make their final rating. Followup interviews with the chief officers revealed that the officers' choice for promotion was often confirmed by the assessment centers. Many officers were pleased to have the burden of testing and interviewing for promotion partly eliminated. This indicates a high degree of face validity for the centers. A list of 25 references is appended; study data are included.