Personnel Rating Effectiveness as a Function of Number of Rating Statements.
Abstract
Previous work on sets of personnel rating statements leave unanswered the question of whether there is any advantage in using several 'factor' rating statements over the use of a single statement. This is a study of the comparative utility of sets of rating statements varying in number of statements per set, usingan external criterion. A great deal of research effort has been expended in an effort to find 'best' factors for collecting rating data. Most of this research has concentrated on internal psychometric characteristics of the rating data, such as means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients. When internal psychometric considerations constitute the sole criterion, some small advantage isfrequently found for one kind of rating statements over another. When external criteria for evaluating 'goodness' of rating sets are applied, there are usuallyno differences found among sets. Indeed, there have been some indications that raters generally may not be able to evaluate rates on monre than one general quality of overall excellence and that collecting several 'factor' ratings may be little more than time wasted. The subjects for this study were 132 students at the NCO academy at Lackland AFB. Three treatment conditions were applied. Of the 132 subjects, 45 were required to rate their peers in their 15-man study groups on 20 rating factors. Another 44 subjects rated their peers on 10 factors, which were a subset of the 20 factors used by the first group. Still another 43 subjects rated their peers on a subset of only five rating factors.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- May 01, 1979
- Accession Number
- ADA069436
Entities
People
- Cecil J. Mullins
- James A. Earles
- James M. Wilbourn
Organizations
- Air Force Research Laboratory