Nine college instructors were rated by their students on five performance dimensions. Randomized thirds of each class used either standard graphic, behaviorally anchored, or mixed standard scales to make their ratings. Analyses of the ratings indicated (a) somewhat less positive leniency when the mixed standard scales were used rather than the graphic or behaviorally anchored rating scales, (b) generally lower interdimension correlations for ratings made on mixed standard or behaviorally anchored scales than on standard graphic scales, and (c) no significant relationship between mean instructor ratings and instructor leniency in assigning grades. Implications for scale validity were also considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bernardin, H. J.Behavioral expectation scales versus summated scales: A fairer comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 197762, 422-427.
2.
Blanz, F. and Ghiselli, E. E.The mixed standard scale: A new rating system. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 185-199.
3.
Finley, D. M., Osburn, H. G., Dubin, J. A., and Jeanneret, P. R.Behaviorally based rating scales: Effects of specific anchors and disguised continua. Personnel Psychology, 1977, 30, 659-669.
4.
Saal, F. E. and Landy, F. J.The mixed standard scale: An evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977 , 18, 19-35.
5.
Schwab, D. P., Heneman, H. G., and DeCotiis, T. A.Behaviorally anchored rating scales: A review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 1975, 28, 549-562.
6.
Smith, P. C. and Kendall, L. M.Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 47, 149-155.
