Individual assessment

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An individual assessment (-Center) (Engl. Assessment "assessment") is a form of assessment center with the formative feature, be limited to a single person to be assessed and not to a number of several participants. The individual assessment is a reaction to methodological deficiencies in classic group assessments. It is a means of organization with which information about the skills and characteristics of an applicant or employee is recorded across various aptitude diagnostic procedures in order to secure decisions about professional suitability, hiring or professional development. To this end, participants go through several individual procedures (for example role plays or presentation tasks, a multimodal interview , activity-related simulations, psychological test procedures and other methods), which are assessed by one or more assessors.

The time required for an individual assessment ranges from a few hours to several days, depending on the purpose and diagnostic breadth (e.g. when selecting pilots or diagnosing safety areas). Individual assessments can be used for a wide variety of target groups. This includes management positions, employees of all levels and functions, students and trainees. Individual assessments to assess and promote professional performance are also carried out for commercial-technical occupational groups.

Functions

The aim of the organization is to use the individual assessment to obtain the most extensive and reliable information about the participants' job-related characteristics and skills. The individual assessment can fulfill the following functions:

  • Aptitude test for a professional target position or career (for internal and external candidates) with the aim of recommending a recruitment or career path
  • Determination of potential with regard to certain professional requirements for a target position or career with the aim of recommending development
  • Identification of areas of development for employees with the aim of developing recommendations for an existing position
  • Job profiling to identify potential career paths
  • Support of individual HR decisions in organizational change or release processes

Delimitation and meaning

  • Perception effects & anonymity: In contrast to the group assessment or the classic assessment center, in the individual assessment only one person is tested at a time. Group procedures, i.e. exercises in which several or all candidates participate at the same time and interact directly with each other, do not occur in the individual assessment. Observer effects such as the halo effect or contrast effects that result from the random composition or order of applicants for a group assessment center are thereby excluded. For example, in an individual assessment, a participant is not overrated due to very good group performance or undervalued because of very poor group performance; Contrast effects in the sense that a participant who is generally only moderately suitable compared to a very poor group of participants are avoided by the individual assessment. In addition, there are no group-related facilities for the participants. For example, participants who have difficulties understanding the material or the tasks cannot compensate for this by orienting themselves towards other participants and benefiting from them. There are also no undesirable behavioral influences due to competition perceived by the participant. This promotes the openness of the participants in the individual assessment. Compared to the group assessment, in which other participants may listen in, the willingness in the individual assessment to deal openly with one's own development needs and also to address weaknesses is higher. In this context, the advantage of individual assessments with regard to the perceived anonymity of the participants compared to other candidates becomes apparent. For example, if several internal applicants come into question for a position, they have no points of contact with each other in the individual assessment format. Even for people who want to keep a change of position or company as secret as possible, classic assessment centers would be out of the question, while in individual assessments this desire for privacy can be fulfilled. Overall, there are fewer influencing factors with regard to observation errors in the individual assessment and it is fairer for the participants because it is oriented towards individual rather than group performance. In addition, it is more pleasant and anonymous for the participant.
  • Measurement of interactive behavior : The measurement of characteristic areas that relate to social skills, interaction of a participant with groups or behavior during presentations and free speech in front of several people is not tied to the method of group assessments. Interaction tasks are also used in individual assessments that provide information on social skills, for example. However, instead of other participants, role players are used who interact in a standardized manner and thus allow greater control of situational influencing factors than in the case of uncontrolled group interaction with randomly selected participants. Due to these controlled boundary conditions, these feature areas can be recorded with more precise measurements.
  • Practicability: In terms of practicability, the individual assessment is very flexible compared to the classic (group) assessment center, which does not have to wait for an assessment group to come into being with a low number of applicants and thus avoids the risk of suitable applicants dropping out over time becomes. However, individual assessments can also be used for larger groups that are to be examined at the same time, in order to use both the diagnostic advantages of individual diagnostics and the efficiency advantages of an organization with several participants in a short time. The time required for several individual assessments taking place in parallel is comparable to that of classic assessment centers, depending on the implementation plan. Spatial, personnel and coordination expenses (e.g. coordination of an individual appointment instead of a group meeting) also have considerable organizational advantages. For example, in group assessments it can happen that the characteristics of individual participants are not recorded satisfactorily in group discussions, so that additional effort, such as a separate follow-up interview, is sometimes carried out. Such a situation can be avoided by choosing an individual assessment. There are also no major differences with regard to the number of observers used, because if several participants have to be observed at the same time in group procedures, several observers are also used. There are also no major differences in the number of rooms required, as individual procedures must also be carried out in traditional group assessment centers and a corresponding number of spatial resources must be provided. In the case of individual assessments, the usual waiting times for participants in group assessments are dispensed with in favor of participant acceptance.
  • Data protection: Individual assessments are economical in terms of their predictive power compared to classic assessment centers. This is measured by the validity , which states the extent to which a method measures what it is supposed to measure, so that this also includes the appropriateness of conclusions that can be drawn from the results. In this context, this means being able to actually make professionally relevant assessments in terms of forecasting future professional success. The validity and meaningfulness of an individual assessment is higher than that of classic assessment centers. As a result, the "necessity of data collection" according to Section 32 I of the Federal Data Protection Act ( BDSG ) is no longer fully given in group assessments and preference is given to individual diagnostics. Group assessments can also interfere with the personal rights of the participants, because with group tasks the other candidates, who could possibly be work colleagues, also receive information about the participant - only the transparent information about participation in a diagnosis can violate the right to informational self-determination . In addition to diagnostic advantages, individual assessments also have data protection advantages over classic assessment centers. For this reason, individual assessments have recently been carried out more and more and it is to be expected that the number of individual assessments as a means of personal diagnostics will increase.

See also

Web links

http://www.einzelassessmentcenter.de/index.php

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Schuler, H., & Frintrup, A .: Assessment Center worse than its reputation. Ed .: Personalwirtschaft. tape 2 , 2009, p. 48-49 .
  2. ↑ Schuler, H., & Frintrup, A .: How the recruitment interview becomes a superior selection method . Ed .: Personnel Management. tape 5 , 2006, p. 62-70 .
  3. ↑ Mussel, P., Frintrup, A. Pfeiffer, K. & Schuler, H .: preselection methods of assessment centers - reference model and application . In: H. Schuler (Ed.): Assessment Center for Potential Analysis . Hogrefe, Göttingen 2007, p. 330-343 .
  4. ↑ Lienert and Raatz: Test setup and test analysis . 5th completely revised and expanded edition. Beltz - PVU, Weinheim 1994, p. 283-285 .
  5. ^ American Psychological Association: Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing . Washington 1985.
  6. ↑ Görlich, Y., Schuler, H., Becker, K. & Diemand, A .: Evaluation of two potential analysis methods for internal selection and classification . Ed .: Assessment Center for Potential Analysis. 2007, p. 203-232 .
  7. ↑ a b Carpenter: Assessment Center generally legally harmless? Ed .: New Journal for Labor Law. tape 4645 , 2007, p. 466-469 .
  8. ↑ Karl Westfoff: methods for operationalization of requirements. In basic knowledge for the job-related suitability assessment according to DIN 33430. Ed .: Karl Westhoff, Carmen Hagemeister, Martin Kersting, Fredi Lang, Helfried Moosbrugger, Gerd Reimann, Gerhard Stemmler. 3. Edition. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich 2010, p. 147 .