A method is proposed to combine a relative and an absolute approach to performance appraisal; specifically, graphic rating and ranking are combined. In two studies which examined this method, called the Quantitative Ranking Scale (QRS), less leniency generally was found in QRS than in graphic rating. The psychometric performance of the QRS was best when the distinction between the QRS and pure ranking was least. Nonetheless, the system would appear to hold promise as an alternative to graphic rating that could easily be adapted to other rating formats, such as behavioral anchoring or computerized rating.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alliger, G. M. , Hanges, P. J., and Alexander, R. A. (1988). A method for correcting parameter estimates in samples subject to a ceiling. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 424-430.
2.
Alliger, G. M. and Williams K. J. (1989). Confounding among measures of leniency and halo. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 1-10.
3.
Alwin, D. F. and Krosnick, J. A. (1985). The measurement of values in surveys: A comparison of ratings and rankings. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 535-552.
4.
Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 410-421.
5.
Borman, W. C. and Vallon, W. R. (1974). A view of what can happen when behavioral expectation scales are developed in one setting and used in another. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 197-201.
6.
Cascio, W. H. (1984). Applied psychology in personnel management, (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 218-244.
8.
Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychology testing (4th ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
9.
Keaveny, T. J. and McGann, A. F. (1975). A comparison of behavioral expectation scales and graphic rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 695-703.
10.
King, L. M. , Hunter, J. E. and Schmidt, F. L. (1980). Halo in a multi-dimensional forced-choice performance evaluation scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 507-516.
11.
Landy, F. J. and Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
12.
Munson, J. M. and McIntyre, S. H. (1979). Developing practical procedures for the measurement of personal values in cross-cultural marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 48-52.
13.
Pulakos, E. D. , Schmitt, N., and Ostroff, C. (1986). A warning about the use of a standard deviation across dimensions within ratees to measure halo. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 29-32.
14.
Sisson, D. E. (1948). Forced choice: The army rating. Personnel Psychology, 1, 365-381.
15.
Taylor, E. K. , Schneider, D. E., and Clay, H. (1954). Short forced-choice ratings work. Personnel Psychology, 7, 245-252.
16.
Zavala, A. (1965). Development of the forced-choice rating and technique. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 117-124.
