BARS and Those Mysterious, Missing Middle Anchors

Hauenstein, Neil M. A.; Brown, Reagan D.; Sinclair, Andrea L.

doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9180-7

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We developed behaviorally-anchored rating scales (BARS) to measure the extent to which the 52 SMJ articles met each of the 12 transparency criteria in Table 1. The use of BARS as a measurement instrument has been used extensively in human resource management and organizational behavior (HRM&OB) (e.g., Cascio & Aguinis, 2019;Hauenstein, Brown, & Sinclair, 2010;Maurer, 2002). The use of BARS is particularly suited for our study because it includes anchors along an evaluative continuum with behavioral examples exemplifying outcomes at different levels of that continuum rather than unspecific and generic anchors such as "agree" and "disagree."…”

Section: Measures and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants

Aguinis

Solarino

2019

Strategic Management Journal

426

327

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary: We used interviews with elite informants as a case study to illustrate the need to expand the discussion of transparency and replicability to qualitative methodology. An analysis of 52 articles published in Strategic Management Journal revealed that none of them were sufficiently transparent to allow for exact replication, empirical replication, or conceptual replication. We offer 12 transparency criteria, and behaviorally-anchored ratings scales to measure them, that can be used by authors as they plan and conduct qualitative research as well as by journal reviewers and editors when they evaluate the transparency of submitted manuscripts. We hope our article will serve as a catalyst for improving the degree of transparency and replicability of future qualitative research. Managerial Summary: If organizations implement practices based on published research, will they produce results consistent with those reported in the articles? To answer this question, it is critical that published articles be transparent in terms of what has been done, why, and how. We investigated 52 articles published in Strategic Management Journal that reported interviewing elite informants (e.g., members of the top management team) and found that none of the articles were sufficiently transparent. These results lead to thorny questions about the trustworthiness of published research, but also important opportunities for future improvements about research transparency and replicability. We offer recommendations on 12 transparency criteria, and how to measure them, that can be used to evaluate past as well as future research using qualitative methods.

show abstract

Section: Measures and Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants

Aguinis

Solarino

2019

Strategic Management Journal

426

327

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to our approach for constructing BARS, we are confident that they were well made. Specifically, we minded the recommendations of Murphy and Constans () to avoid using overly specific and unrepresentative behaviors and to carefully anchor the middle category, as recommended by Hauenstein et al (). This was achieved by carefully sorting possible reactions to previously determined critical incidents and conducting expert ratings determining which behavior was most prototypic for a specific rating score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From these results, it can be inferred that only BARS with an appropriate balance between representativeness and specificity are promising measures to minimize rating biases effectively. Furthermore, the results of BARS are improved if middle categories are appropriately labeled F I G U R E 1 Example BARS pertaining to a question inquiring reactions to setbacks (Hauenstein, Brown, & Sinclair, 2010) and if the compliance of the raters is ensured (Salvemini, Reilly, & Smither, 1993).…”

Section: Behaviorally Anchored Ratings Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, one might conjecture that the anchoring was not optimally chosen because verbal anchors were only placed at the endpoints of the rating scales, whereas the rating of interest was that of an average performance. Hauenstein et al (), for instance, reported increased inter‐rater reliability when middle categories were also anchored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reducing assimilation and contrast effects on selection interview ratings using behaviorally anchored rating scales

Lubbe

Nitsche

2019

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance ratings have been shown to be susceptible to various biases. Two of the most influential biases are assimilation and contrast effects. They denote that ratings are biased either toward (assimilation) or away from (contrast) prior reference assessments. Rigorous rater trainings have proven useful to reduce the latter bias, which, however, are rather time‐consuming. A more parsimonious approach achieving a similar purpose may be to optimize the rating material in order to reduce the tendency of being affected by non‐performance‐related information. Behaviorally anchored ratings scales (BARS) appear to be a theoretically sound alternative in contexts in which rater trainings are uncommon or assessment situations occur only rarely. In two experiments, we evaluated whether BARS are able to reduce assimilation and contrast effects using systematically manipulated standardized videotaped selection interviews. While assimilation effects were reduced by 40%, contrast effects were not significantly but descriptively reduced.

show abstract

“…33 Even assessors who did not participate in the scale development may view the scales favourably because of their reliance on colleagues' feedback. 34 However, one of the main criticisms of BARS is that the middle score band is not detailed enough as good and poor performance behaviours are more easily described than average behaviours. 35 When deciding on the scale, the following criteria apply:…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural-Based Assessments in the Special Forces Environment: A Procedural Review

Wyk¹,

Toit²

2019

SCIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The South African Special Forces is a grouping of highly trained, motivated and dedicated soldiers who execute specialised tasks that ordinary infantry soldiers are not trained or required to conduct. The milieu in which Special Forces operators function is notoriously challenging as these forces could deploy for a few days or several months or longer in any type of environment. It is therefore essential that the correct candidates be selected to function in these environments. The aim of the officer's potential assessment (OPA) is thus to select candidates with the physical, cognitive, emotional and psychological fitness to be trained as South African Special Forces operators and officers. The study on which this article is based, explored the development of the behavioural assessments during the South African Special Forces officers' selection process as a method and model for the review and design of assessment centres from a holistic, detailed perspective.

show abstract

BARS and Those Mysterious, Missing Middle Anchors

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants

Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants

Reducing assimilation and contrast effects on selection interview ratings using behaviorally anchored rating scales

Behavioural-Based Assessments in the Special Forces Environment: A Procedural Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About