EVALUATION OF AIRMAN JOBS BY FOUR CATEGORIES OF RATERS,
Abstract
To investigate differences between rater groups in their evaluation of airman jobs, four groups of raters each evaluated a sample of 200 airman job descriptions. The groups consisted of senior NCOs, lieutenants, captains, and field grade officers. The jobs were evaluated in terms of merited grade, merited pay, and the relative importance of five job requirement factors. Within groups each job was evaluated by five raters and across all groups by 20 raters. The raters also indicated their confidence in the grade level ratings they made. The analyses used to compare the four groups were concerned with differences in means, distribution variability, and reliability of ratings and the predictive efficiency of the five job requirement factors. These analyses revealed two statistically significant (P > .01) differences among groups. The mean of the field grade officers expressed greater confidence in their assigned grade ratings than the other groups. However, the NCO difference seemed of little practical consequence, and there was agreement among the groups with regard to the reliability and homogeneity of assigned ratings, and the level of predictive efficiency of the five job requirement factors. The present findings support the use of a composite groups of raters to evaluate airman jobs. (Author)
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 01, 1966
- Accession Number
- AD0640567
Entities
People
- Douglas K. Cowan
- Joe T. Hazel