Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales developed according to Bernardin, LaShells, Smith, and Alvarez's (1976) optimal procedure was compared with a carefully constructed summated rating scale. Using both scales, 727 undergraduates rated 32 instructors. Psychometric comparisons indicated that BARS had less halo error, more leniency error, and lower interrater reliablity than the alternative format. The two formats did not differ in ratee discrimination and susceptibility to rating bias due to rater characteristics. Finally, the formats contained convergent and discriminant validity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albermale Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975)
2.
BernardinH. (1977). Behavioral expectation scales versus summated scales: A fairer comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 422–427.
3.
BernardinH.AlvarezK.CrannyC. (1976). A recomparison of behavioral expectation scales to summated scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 564–570.
4.
BernardinH.CardyR.CarlyleJ. (1982). Cognitive complexity and appraisal effectiveness: Back to the drawing board?Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 151–160.
5.
BernardinH.LaShellsM.SmithP.AlvarezK. (1976). Behavioral expectation scales: Effects of developmental procedures and formats. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 75–79.
6.
BernardinH.SmithP. (1981). A clarification of some issues regarding the development and use of behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS). Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 458–463.
7.
BernardinH.WalterC. (1977). The effects of rater training and diary keeping on psychometric error in ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 63–69.
8.
BormanW. (1977). Consistency of rating accuracy and rating errors in the judgement of human performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 238–252.
9.
BormanW. (1979). Format and training effects on rater accuracy and rater errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 410–421.
10.
BurnaskaR.HollmanT. (1974). An empirical comparison of the relative effects of rater response biases on three rating scale formats. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 307–312.
11.
CampbellD.FiskeD. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
12.
CascioW.BernardinH. (1981). Implications for performance appraisal litigation for personnel decisions. Personnel Psychology, 34, 211–226.
13.
CooleyW.LohnesP. (1971). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Wiley.
14.
DeCotiisT. (1977). An analysis of the external validity and applied relevance of three rating formats. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 247–266.
15.
DeVriesD.MorrisonA.ShullmanS.GerlachM. (1981). Performance appraisal on the line. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
16.
DunnetteM.BormanW. (1979). Personnel selection and classification systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 477–525.
17.
FlanaganJ. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–357.
18.
FriedmanB.CorneliusE. (1976). Effect of rater participation in scale construction on the psychometric characteristics of two rating scale formats. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 210–216.
19.
HarariO.ZedeckS. (1973). Development of behaviorally anchored scales for the evaluation of faculty teaching. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 261–265.
20.
HolleyW.FeildH. (1975). Performance appraisal and the law. Labor Law Journal, 26, 423–430.
21.
HornP.DeNisiA.KinickiA.BannisterB. (1982). Effectiveness of performance feedback from behaviorally anchored rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 568–576.
KavanaghM.MacKinneyA.WolinL. (1971). Issues in managerial performance: Multitrait-multimethod analysis of ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 34–49.
24.
KeavenyT.McGannA. (1975). A comparison of behavioral expectation scales and graphic rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 695–703.
25.
KingstromP.BassA. (1981). A critical analysis of studies comparing behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) and other rating formats. Personnel Psychology, 34, 263–289.
26.
KinickiA. (1982). A cognitive exploration into the performance appraisal process: The role of category accessibility in encoding performance information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
LissitzR.GreenS. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A monte carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10–13.
29.
RemmersH.WeisbrodtJ. (1965). Manual of instructions for the Purdue Rating Scale for instruction. West Lafayette, Ind.: University Book Store.
30.
SchwabD.HenemanH.DeCotiisT. (1975). Behaviorally anchored rating scales: A review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 28, 549–562.
31.
SiegelS. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.
32.
SmithP.KendallL. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149–155.
33.
TatsuokaM. (1971). Multivariate analysis: Techniques for educational and psychological research. New York: Wiley.
34.
ZedeckS.JacobsR.KafryD. (1976). Behavioral expectations: Development of parallel forms and analysis of scale assumptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 112–115.
35.
ZedeckS.KafryD.JacobsR. (1976). Format scoring variations in behavioral expectation evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 171–184.
