No abstract

The study examines the effects of a wide array of rater-ratee relationship and rateecharacteristic variables on supervisor and peer job-performance ratings. Interpersonal ratings, job performance ratings, and ratee scores on ability, job knowledge, and technical proficiency were available for 493-631 first-tour U.S. Army soldiers. Results of supervisor and peer ratings-path models showed ratee ability, knowledge, and proficiency accounted for 13% of the variance in supervisor performance ratings and 7% for the peer ratings. Among the interpersonal variables, ratee dependability had the strongest effect for both models. Ratee friendliness and likability had little effect on the performance ratings. Inclusion of the interpersonal factors increased the variance accounted for in the ratings to 28% and 19%, respectively. Discussion focuses on the relative contribution of ratee technical and contextual performance to raters'judgments.Performance ratings continue to be the most often used criterion measure for personnel research applications (e.g., Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Research on ratings also remains popular (e.g., Borman, 1991), with the motivation great to reduce rating errors and increase the accuracy of performance evaluations. Streams of research have included rating format studies (e.g., Bernardin, 1977), rater training initiatives (e.g., Pulakos, 1984;D. E. Smith, 1986), and cognitively oriented studies of the performance rating process (e.g.,

Proposed and evaluated in this research were causal models that included measures of cognitive ability, job knowledge, task proficiency, two temperament constructs (achievement and dependability), awards, problem behavior, and supervisory ratings. The models were tested on a sample of 4,362 U.S. Army enlisted personnel in nine different jobs. Results of LISREL analyses showed partial confirmation of Hunter's (1983) earlier model, which included cognitive ability, job knowledge, task proficiency, and ratings. In an expanded model of supervisory ratings, including the other variables mentioned, technical proficiency and ratee problem behavior had substantial direct effects on supervisory ratings. Ratee ability, job knowledge, and dependability played strong indirect roles in this rating model. The expanded model accounted for more than twice the variance in ratings in the present research than did Hunter's variables alone.Measures of criterion performance are necessary for almost all personnel research applications in organizations. Criteria are needed to assess the effectiveness of personnel selection procedures, organizational training programs, job design efforts, and many other personnel-related actions and interventions. Furthermore, performance rating scales are by far the most often employed criteria for measuring an individual's job performance. Thus, strong motivation exists for obtaining the most accurate ratings possible to use as performance criteria.Historically, attempts to improve performance ratings have included (a) designing rating formats that help raters to increase the precision of their performance evaluations (e.g., Smith & Kendall, 1963) and (b) developing training programs to reduce rating errors and enhance accuracy (e.g.,

The addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab significantly improved PFS but not OS. Although generally well tolerated, the modest impact on survival and increased toxicity associated with the addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab maintenance mean that this two-drug maintenance regimen will not lead to a new postchemotherapy standard of care.