<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Kolk, N.J.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/13551/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>A triadic approach to assessment centre’s construct validity; The effect of categorising dimensions into a feeling, thinking, power taxonomy (Miscellaneous)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/997/</link>
      <pubDate>2004-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>This study examined the influence on construct validity of implementing the triad
Feeling, Thinking and Power as a taxonomy for behavioural dimensions in
assessment centre (AC) exercises. A sample of 1.567 job applicants participated in
an AC specifically developed according to this taxonomy. Each exercise tapped
three dimensions, one dimension from each cluster of the taxonomy. Confirmatory
Factor Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix showed evidence for
construct validity. Thus the ratings matched the a priori triadic grouping to a good
extent. Practical implications are discussed.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The Transparent Assessment Centre: The Effects of Revealing Dimensions to Candidates (Miscellaneous)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/998/</link>
      <pubDate>2003-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>What are the effects of revealing dimensions to candidates in an assessment
centre? This question is addressed in two independent studies, using individual exercises. Results in Study 1 showed no difference in construct-related validity
between a transparent (N =99) and a non-transparent group of university
students (N =50),contrary to previous findings by Kleinmann, Kuptsch, and
Köller (1996) and Kleinmann (1997), who used group exercises. Also, mean
ratings did not alter, the exception being the dimension 'Sensitivity', which
increased slightly after the transparency treatment. Conversely, results in
Study 2, which contained a sample of actual job applicants, showed a significant
improvement in construct-related validity for the transparent group (N =297)
compared with the non-transparent group (N =393). Again, mean ratings did
not differ between these two groups. Implications of these findings for practice
and suggestions for future research are discussed in this paper.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>