Pynes, Joan Ellen.

Two hundred and seventy-five police officer candidates were assessed from 1982 to 1986. The ethnic and gender composition of the candidate sample was as follows: white males = 40; white female = 15; black males = 38, black females = 20; hispanic males = 149; hispanic females = 13. The data for this investigation came from a one-day assessment program. The candidates participated in four assessment exercises in which they were required to assume the position of a police officer. The candidates investigated simulations of a domestic disturbance, and a homeowner complaint, performed a witness probing and watched a video simulation of actual or potential crime scenes. The data for each candidate consisted of ratings on eight behavioral dimensions from three assessors, the group consensus ratings for each dimension, and a consensus-derived overall rating which placed each candidate in one of three descriptive categories: (1) less than acceptable, (2) marginal, or (3) acceptable. Performance in the training academy and on the job performance ratings were used as criteria in the validation. The training academy criteria consisted of four written exam scores, scores on firearms proficiency, and two simulations. Composite measures were derived for the written exams, and the simulations. The last training academy criterion was a composite measure derived by summing the standardized written exam scores and the standardized simulation proficiency scores. The assessment center dimension ratings were significantly correlated (p $<$.05) with the written exam composite and the standardized training academy composite. The overall assessment rating was significantly correlated (p $<$.05) with the written exam composite, the standardized training academy composite, and one of the simulations. On the job performance was assessed by uncontaminated supervisory performance ratings on 204 police officers. An average of 13 performance ratings were available on each candidate. The uncorrected predictive validity of the assessment center was.20. Results are discussed in the context of previous assessment center and law enforcement research.