评价中心的构想效度谜题:测量维度还是活动?  

The Construct Validity Puzzle of Assessment Centers:Are We Measuring Dimensions or Exercises?

作　　者：卞冉[1] 高钦[1] 车宏生[1] 

机构地区：[1]应用实验心理北京市重点实验室,北京师范大学心理学院,北京100875

出　　处：《心理科学进展》2013年第2期358-371,共14页Advances in Psychological Science

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(12YJC880001)

摘　　要：评价中心是一种高保真度的情境模拟,它被设计用来在多种与工作相关的活动中测量多项维度。30年来的大量研究发现,评价中心具备良好的内容效度和效标关联效度,但构想效度却始终不理想,评价中心评分反映的总是由活动而非预先设想的维度带来的效应。这一评价中心"构想效度谜题"吸引了大量研究关注,并逐步形成了维度中心取向、活动中心取向及交互作用取向三种主要观点,分别主张控制各种误差因素以改善维度测量、放弃维度而转向活动或任务以及关注维度与活动的共同作用。未来研究应在传统的维度中心取向之外给予活动中心取向足够重视,并重点发展交互作用取向。As high-fidelity simulations, assessment centers （ACs） are designed to measure a number of dimensions in various job-related exercises. Over the past 30 years, a great deal of research has indicated that ACs exhibit high content and criterion-related validity, but low construct-related validity. AC ratings substantially reflect the effects of the exercises and not the dimensions they were designed to reflect. This so-called AC ＂construct validity puzzle＂ drew a lot of attention from researchers. Three main research perspectives have gradually emerged： dimension-based approach, exercise-based approach, and interactionist approach, which focus on controlling factors causing measurement errors to improve the quality of dimension measurement, removing the dimensions from AC framework and focusing solely on the exercises or tasks, and taking the interaction between dimensions and exercises into account, respectively. Future research should pay more attentions to the exercise-based approach beyond the traditional dimension-based approach, and place great emphasis on the interactionist approach.

关 键 词：评价中心 构想效度 维度中心取向 活动中心取向 交互作用取向 

分 类 号：B849[哲学宗教—应用心理学] C91[哲学宗教—心理学]