Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The stability of evaluations of job-related descriptors across 24 yr. was investigated along with a determination of present sex differences in such evaluations. The desirability ratings of 129 job-related descriptors which had been evaluated in 1961 were compared to effectiveness ratings of the same job-related descriptors by men and women raters in 1985. A total of 128 men and 73 women served as raters. Analysis indicated that evaluations are reasonably stable across time and present sex differences are negligible. This implies that research on performance appraisal using ratings of job-related descriptors is valid over time and that women and men evaluate job-related descriptors in a similar manner.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bernardin

H. J.

Pence

E. C.

Effects of rater training: Creating new response sets and decreasing accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 60–66.

Borman

W. C.

Consistency of rating accuracy and rating errors in the judgment of human performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 20, 238–252.

Uhbrock

R. S.

2000 scaled items. Personnel Psychology, 1961, 14, 375–420.

Vance

R. J.

Kuhnert

K. W.

Farr

J. L.

Interview judgments: Using external criteria to compare behavioral and graphic scale ratings. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 22, 279–294.

Evaluations of Job-Related Descriptors across Time and between Sexes

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References