Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences

Bernardin, H. John; Orban, Joseph A.

doi:10.1007/bf01014332

Cited by 38 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Raters who believe that other raters are purposely inflating ratings to get a better deal for their direct reports are themselves more likely to provide inflated ratings Bernardin & Orban, 1990;Tziner et al, 1998).…”

Section: Trust In the Appraisal Processmentioning

confidence: 97%

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Fleenor

Smither

Atwater

et al. 2010

The Leadership Quarterly

314

454

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Trust In the Appraisal Processmentioning

confidence: 97%

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Fleenor

Smither

Atwater

et al. 2010

The Leadership Quarterly

314

454

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is ample empirical evidence that ratings are often more lenient under conditions of administrative use than under research conditions (Bernardin & Orban, 1990;Jawahar & Williams, 1997;Landy & Farr, 1980;Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Our findings were obtained in the research setting of a simulated national exam or a high-stakes school exam.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Contextual factors affecting the tendency to assign overly positive ratings include the extent to which the evaluation context offers incentives for objective and fair ratings, whether the ratees are anonymous to the rater, and whether the evaluations will be used for high-stakes purposes rather than for feedback or research purposes (Bernardin & Orban, 1990;Jawahar & Williams, 1997;Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).…”

Section: Possible Explanations: Leniency and Range Restrictionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…As Kasten and Weintraub (1999) state, there would be no need for subjective evaluation methods if true scores could easily be obtained in field settings. Consequently, although comparing teachers' ratings with expert ratings is both desirable and necessary, the study of rating data in field settings with no reference to "true" performance seems legitimate (Bernardin & Orban, 1990).…”

Section: First Evidence For Leniency Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Verbal Scale Labels on the Elevation and Spread of Performance Ratings

Kuhlemeier

Hemker

Bergh

2013

Applied Measurement in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years many countries have introduced authentic performance-based assessments in their national exam systems. Teachers' ratings of their own candidates' performances may suffer from errors of leniency and range restriction. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of manipulating the descriptiveness, balancedness, and polarity of the rating scales on the elevation and spread of the performance ratings. The study was conducted in the field setting of a (simulated) high-stakes national exam in Dutch pre-vocational education. A total of 55 teachers rated the performances of 652 candidates (aged ±16) on four authentic performance-based tasks. Multivariate multilevel analyses found the psychometric quality of the teachers' performance ratings to be more favorable for positively unbalanced scales than for balanced scales. Positively unbalanced rating scales yielded the lowest (i.e., least generous) and most discriminative ratings. The descriptiveness and polarity of the rating scales were of lesser importance for the rating distributions. On the basis of the findings it was decided to introduce positively unbalanced scales in the national exams for pre-vocational education.

show abstract

“…First, we may cite research conducted by Bernardin and Orban (1985) regarding raters who believed that their colleagues in the organization were biasing their performance appraisals. They perceived the “rogue” appraisers as being too lenient, consequently, inflating their subordinates' ratings to increase the benefits accruing to their workers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of Performance Appraisal Behavior Structure

Tziner

Levy

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The personality (dispositional) characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and orientation of 498 managers and military officers toward performance appraisal and organization were collected in order to examine their structural relationships to raters' behavior, in terms of (a) mean appraisal ratings, (b) measures of performance dimensions discrimination, and (c) rate discrimination. A mapping sentence comprising a modality, a reference group, and an aspect (content) facet were used. The empirical results largely confirmed this definitional system. Moreover, a polarizing partition of the space into three regions–Self (rater), Ratee, and Organization/System–was found, possibly implying that these three considerations are equally proximal in determining rater behavior. Future directions for research are advanced.

show abstract

Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences

Cited by 38 publications

References 13 publications

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

Impact of Verbal Scale Labels on the Elevation and Spread of Performance Ratings

Examination of Performance Appraisal Behavior Structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About