Peer ratings versus peer nominations during training as predictors of actual performance criteria
By: Schwarzwald, Joseph.
Contributor(s): Mager-Bibi, Tamar | Koslowsky, Meni.
Material type:
ArticlePublisher: 1999Description: p.360-72.Subject(s): Training
In:
Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceSummary: Two types of peer evaluations, ratings and nominations during training, were compared to examine their unique contribution in explaining actual performance evaluations. A sample of 133 female soldiers who had participated in a platoon leader-training program completed a rating and nomination form on their peers. These forms served as predictors for actual performance as platoon leaders. Performance criteria included a general evaluation, specific assessments for suitability to various ranks with increasing military responsibility, and a global rank criterion measure. Factor analyses supported the hypothesis that traits would be conceptualized as more distinct with the nomination method rather than with the rating method. The former yielded two distinct factors (professional and social), whereas the latter yielded only one. Hierarchical regressions and examination of the disattenuated correlations indicated an advantage for the nomination method in predicting various criteria. Discussion focuses on explaining the underlying process involved with each type of peer assessment. - Reproduced
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | Volume no: 35, Issue no: 3 | Available | AR43351 |
Two types of peer evaluations, ratings and nominations during training, were compared to examine their unique contribution in explaining actual performance evaluations. A sample of 133 female soldiers who had participated in a platoon leader-training program completed a rating and nomination form on their peers. These forms served as predictors for actual performance as platoon leaders. Performance criteria included a general evaluation, specific assessments for suitability to various ranks with increasing military responsibility, and a global rank criterion measure. Factor analyses supported the hypothesis that traits would be conceptualized as more distinct with the nomination method rather than with the rating method. The former yielded two distinct factors (professional and social), whereas the latter yielded only one. Hierarchical regressions and examination of the disattenuated correlations indicated an advantage for the nomination method in predicting various criteria. Discussion focuses on explaining the underlying process involved with each type of peer assessment. - Reproduced
There are no comments for this item.