Dimensional problems of criteria.

Ghiselli, Edwin Ε.

doi:10.1037/h0040429

Cited by 114 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…La nature dynamique des emplois et des comportements au travail a déjà été bien décrite et documentée, entre autres, par Dunnette (1966), Ghiselli (1956), et Inn, Hulin, et Tucker (1972). Dans le contexte de l'évaluation du rendement, les implications de ces processus dynamiques d'évolution sont claires.…”

Section: Caractéristiques De L'emploi Occupé Par L'évaluéunclassified

La validité des résultats obtenus en évaluation du rendement : un modèle conceptuel

Petit¹,

Cotiis²

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sur la base d'une revue sélective de la littérature, les auteurs présentent un modèle conceptuel des déterminants de la validité ou de l’exactitude des évaluations du rendement. Trois variables majeures sont identifiées: (1) la motivation de l'évaluateur; (2) son habileté; ainsi que (3) la possession de normes ou standards d'évaluation. D'autres variables sont présentées à titre d'antécédents et viennent compléter le modèle conceptuel.In this article, a literature-based model of the determinants of the validity or accuracy of performance ratings is presented. In this model, the dependent variable is a set of ratings on a performance appraisal instrument, the accuracy of which is shown to be affected by several independent variables. The purposes of the article are to (1) organize the relevant literature in terms of existing theory ; (2) provide a set of propositions bearing on appraisal problems ; and finally, (3) increase our understanding and control of this important process in organizations.MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE CONCEPTUAL MODELBased on Taft's theory of interpersonal judgment, the model indicates that the major determinants of accuracy are: (a) rater motivation; (b) rater ability; and (c) availability of the appropriate judgmental norms. Then, a first proposition follows:Accurate performance ratings are most likely to occur when the rater is motivated to rate accurately, uses the appropriate rating standards, and has the ability to correctly interpret ratee job behavior in terms of these standards.The respective determinants of each of the three major variables are then presented, and propositional implications are discussed, always with a focus on the dependent variable: performance appraisal accuracy.RATER MOTIVATIONSix possible determinants of rater motivation are considered. Without regard to the order of their importance, they are: (1) the perceived consequences of accurate ratings for both the rater and the ratee ; (2) rater perceptions of the adequacy of the performance appraisal instrument used; (3) the relevant organizational policies and practices; (4) the rating format itself; (5) the availability of appropriate standards of performance; and (6) the purpose of appraisal.A conclusion derived from the ensuing discussion is that most of the consequences for the rater of assigning accurate performance ratings appear to be negative. It should not be surprising, therefore, that many raters approach the performance appraisal event with reluctance and assign inaccurate ratings. Another conclusion is that if the content of a performance appraisal instrument is based on job analysis, it will have the potential of being both face and content valid and thereby of having a positive impact on rater perceptions of its adequacy for the purpose at hand.RATER ABILITYFour determinants of rater ability are discussed. They are (1) the rater's opportunity to observe ratee job behavior; (2) some of the rater's characteristics ; (3) rater training, and (4) the availability of the appropriate rating standards.Among other...

show abstract

Section: Caractéristiques De L'emploi Occupé Par L'évaluéunclassified

La validité des résultats obtenus en évaluation du rendement : un modèle conceptuel

Petit¹,

Cotiis²

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another important indication of the mul tidin'ensionali ty of criterion performance is that the relationships between tests and criterion measures tend to change systematically over time (Ghiselli, 1956;Bass, 1962;Prien, 1966). That is, ostensibly the same criterion measure displays a different pat tern of test correlations or a different factor structure at different points in time or, IWre fundamentally, at different po.ints in the experiential development of domain performance (Fleishman & Hemphill, 1954;Fleishman & Fruchter, 1960;Ghiselli & Haire, 1960).…”

Section: Utility Of Test-criterion Reiationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the contrary, the empirical multidimensionality of cri terion measures indicates that success is not unitary for different persons on the same job or in the same educational program or, indeed, for the same person in different aspects of a job or program. Furthenoore, since two persons 'lffir'/ achieve the same overall performance levels by different strategies or behavioral routes, it would seem logical to evaluate both treatments and individual differences in terms of DIU1tiple measures (Cronbach « Snow, 1977;Ghiselli, 1956Ghiselli, , 1960. lttJreover, it would also seem that the study of mul tiple criterfa and the various dimensions along which they differ should illuminate, better than the use of a single criterion, the underlying psychologica1 and behavioral processes involved in domain performance (Dunnette, 1963b;Schmddt «Kaplan, 1971;Wallace, 1965).…”

Section: Utility Of Test-criterion Reiationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity

Messick

1987

ETS Research Report Series

268

444

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, many of the objectives of performance measurement imply a need to distinguish between varying levels of overall job performance or to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable job performance. Nevertheless, it is widely recognized in the field of personnel psychology that performance of most jobs actually consists of a number of intertwined dimensions of performance that are not easily represented as a single variable (Ghiselli,' 1956;James, 1973;Ronan and Prien, 1966;Smith, 1976). Thorndike (1949) basis.…”

Section: Dimensionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%