Based on several years of research and a careful analysis of the rating process Wherry developed a theory of rating. An accurate rating is seen as being a function of three major components: Performance of the ratee, observation of that performance by the rater, and the recall of those observations by the rater. Cast in a mold of classical psychometric theory each of these components is seen as consisting of a systematic portion and a random portion. The systematic portion of each component is further broken down. The performance of the ratee is a combination of true ability or aptitude for the job and the influence of the environment. What the rater observes is a function the performance of the ratee and bias of observation and what the rater recalls is a result of those observations combined with a bias of recall. The development of the theory of rating unfolds by defining the various factors that affect each of these components in a series of linear equations. Various theorems and corollaries are proposed which should lead to a maximization of the true ability component of the ratee and minimize environmental influence and the bias and error components. The theorems and corollaries suggest testable hypotheses for the researcher in performance evaluation.

It is argued that analyses of subgroup differences utilizing a bivariate correlation strategy do not provide an adequate examination of test fairness. An analysis of differential prediction, which involves slopes and intercepts of regression lines results in more complete coverage of the test fairness issue, since the overall regression line determines the way in which a test is used for prediction. While subgroup correlation coefficients yield information concerning the slopes and intercepts, means and standard deviations must also be examined. A moderated multiple regression strategy is recommended as an alternative to separate analyses by subgroups. An ordered stepup regression procedure is presented which is more encompassing than the bivariate strategies, while avoiding inherent problems associated with subgroup coding in multiple regression.

No abstract

THIS paper has two major purposes: (1) to present more detailed information than has been previously reported (Schneider & Bartlett, 1968) on the initial development of a measure of organizational climate; and (2) to explore a number of issues surrounding the question: who's view of an organization's climate do you use?The Model and The MeasureThe Model I n a previous article (Schneider and Bartlett, 1968) a personnel selection and classification model was presented indicating that the traditional bi-variate prediction model relating individual differences between predictor and criterion was not viable. I n order t o more fully understand and more accurately predict performance, it is necessary to take into account not only individual aptitudes but also the situational variables under which the performance takes place. I n addition, it is argued that this prediction of performance may need t o consider the interaction between individual 1 Duncan for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. 493* The number of itema used for each of the six factora were Mansup 15, Intcon 11. Manstr 15, Newemp 13. Agtind 11, and Gensat 15.

No abstract