Both logical evidence and empirical evidence are presented to illustrate that
the conventional scoring algorithm for NASA and similar ranking tasks
significantly underestimates the initial level of ability presumed to be in a
group and that Slevin's alternative scoring algorithm significantly overestimates the initial level of ability. The authors present a third algorithm,
which they believe is unbiased. Recommendations for group facilitators and
researchers are presented. As Slevin has indicated, the conventional scoring
algorithm should no longer be used.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Hall, J.Observations on the invalid scoring algorithm of "NASA" and similar consensus tasks: A responseGroup & Organization Studies , 1979, 4 , 116-118.
2.
Hall, J., & Watson, W.H.The effects of normative interventions on group decision-making performanceHuman Relations, 1970, 23, 293-317.
3.
Pfeiffer, J.W., & Jones, J.E. (Eds.). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. IV). San Diego, CA: University Associates, 1973.
4.
Pfeiffer, J.W., & Jones, J.E. (Eds.). The 1978 annual handbook for group facilitators.San Diego, CA: University Associates, 1978.
5.
Slevin, D.F.Observations on the invalid scoring algorithm of "NASA" and similar consensus tasksGroup & Organization Studies , 1978, 3, 497-507.
