Here we evaluate, replicate, and extend 1982 research by Zedeck and Cascio on the relationship between purpose and characteristics of rating. We propose and test an alternative explanation for the Zedeck and Cascio conclusion that discriminability in ratings is affected by their purpose. Results provide partial support for both explanations. Using a measure of rating accuracy as the criterion, no significant effect of purpose is obtained.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernardinH. J.KaneJ. S. (in press) Performance appraisal: A contingency approach to system development and evaluation. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
2.
BernardinH. J.OrbanJ. A. (1990) Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 197–211.
3.
BernardinH. J.VillanovaP. J. (1986) Performance appraisal. In LockeE. A. (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Pp. 43–62.
4.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1988) Heterogeneity of variance in experimental studies: A challenge to conventional interpretations. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 396–404.
5.
ReillyC. E.BalzerW. K. (1990) Effect of purpose on observation and evaluation of teaching performance. (Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State Univer., Bowling Green, OH 43403).
6.
ZedeckS.CascioW. F. (1982) Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752–758.
