Peer Ratings versus Peer Nominations during Training as Predictors of Actual Performance Criteria

Abstract

Two types of peer evaluations, ratings and nominations during training, were compared to examine their unique contribution in explaining actual performance evaluations. A sample of 133 female soldiers who had participated in a platoon leader-training program completed a rating and nomination form on their peers. These forms served as predictors for actual performance as platoon leaders. Performance criteria included a general evaluation, specific assessments for suitability to various ranks with increasing military responsibility, and a global rank criterion measure. Factor analyses supported the hypothesis that traits would be conceptualized as more distinct with the nomination method rather than with the rating method. The former yielded two distinct factors (professional and social), whereas the latter yielded only one. Hierarchical regressions and examination of the disattenuated correlations indicated an advantage for the nomination method in predicting various criteria. Discussion focuses on explaining the underlying process involved with each type of peer assessment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bernardin, H. J. , & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston: Kent.

Borman, W. C. (1974). The using of individuals in organizations: An alternate approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 105-124.

Cederblom, D. , & Lounsbury, J. W. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567-579.

Clarizio, H. F. (1984). Childhood depression: Diagnostic considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 21,181-197.

Downey, R. G. , Medland, F. F. , & Yates, L. G. (1976). Evaluation of peer rating system for predicting subsequent promotion of senior military officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 206-209.

Fox, S. , Ben-Nahum, Z. , & Yinon, Y. (1989). Perceived similarity and accuracy of peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 781-786.

Fox, S. , & Bizman, A. (1987). Differential dimensions employed in rating subordinates, peers, and supervisors. The Journal of Psychology, 122,73-382.

Georgesen, J. C. , & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why’s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 184-195.

Greenberg, J. , & Baron, R. A. (1997). Behavior in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

10.

Harris, M. M. , & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-57.

11.

Hollander, E. P. (1954). Peer nomination on leadership as a predictor of the pass-fail criterion in naval air training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 150-153.

12.

Hollander, E. P. (1956). Interpersonal exposure times as a determinant of the predictive utility of peer ratings. Psychological Reports, 2, 445-448.

13.

Hunter, J. E. , & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

14.

Kane, J. S. , & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586.

15.

Krehbiel, G. G. , & Milich, R. (1986). Issues in the assessment and treatment of socially rejected children. Advances in Behavioral Assessment of Children and Families, 2, 249-270.

16.

Lindzey, G. , & Byrne, B. (1968). Measurement of social choice and interpersonal attractiveness. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 452-510). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

17.

McEvoy, G. , & Buller, P. F. (1987). User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 785-797.

18.

McGregor, D. (1989). The human side of enterprise. In J. W. Newstrom & K. Davis (Ed.), Organizational behavior (pp. 14-24). New York: McGraw-Hill.

19.

Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.

20.

Reilley, R. R. , & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1-62.

21.

Schoffield, J. W. , & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1983). Peer nominations vs. rating scale measurement of children’s peer preference. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 242-251.

22.

Schumacher, J. E. , Scogin, F. , Howland, K. , & McGee, J. (1992). The relation of peer assessment to future law enforcement performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 286-293.

23.

Schwarzwald, J. , Amir, Y. , & Crain, R. L. (1992). Long-term effects of school desegregation experiences on interpersonal relations in the Israeli Defense Forces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 357-368.

24.

Schwarzwald, J. , & Hoffman, M. (1977). Methodological and personal factors in the assessment of inter-group relations. In R. Ben-Ari & Y. Rich (Ed.), Enhancing education in heterogeneous schools (pp. 109-135). Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press.

25.

Schwarzwald, J. , Laor, T. , & Hoffman, M. (1986). Impact of sociometric activity content on assessment of intergroup relations in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 24-31.

26.

Stahl, M. J. , & Steger, J. A. (1977). Measuring innovation and productivity—A peer rating approach. Research Management, 20, 35-38.

27.

Willingham, W. W. (1959). On deriving standard scores for peer nominations with subgroups of unequal size. Psychological Reports, 5, 397-403.