Acceptability of Associate Ratings at Branch Basic Schools

Abstract

Unclassified 15«. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCMEOULE 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol thtm Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol thm mbatrmct mntmrmd In Block 20. It different from Rmport) 1«. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 19. KEY WORDS (Contlnum on rmrmrmm mid» II nmcmmmmry "id Idmntlty by block number; Associate Ratings Officer Basic Courses Acceptability Branch Schools Associate Rating Questionnaire 20. ABSTRACT (Contlnum on rmvmrmm mid» II nmcmmmmry mnd Idmntlty by block numbmr) Officers in attendance at branch basic courses completed a 27-item attitude questionnaire following completion of associate ratings. This survey, the Associate Rating Questionnaire (ARQ^, tapped the individual's perceptions regarding the value and usefulness of associate ratings as a personnel technique used to assess leadership potential of peers. Acceptability of associate ratings generally was low; it was higher among branches with greater familiarity with associate ratings. Usefulness was perceived to be greatest when pertaining to self-improvement.

Analysis of Aptitude, Training, and Job Performance Measures

“…Peer nomination techniques, used in both military and industrial settings, have produced valid and reliable data. Reliabilities have typically been in the .70 to .90 range (Suci, Valiance & Glickman, 1954;Hollander, 1957;Fiske, 1960;Hammer, 1963;Flyer, 1964;Thomas, 1971;Shenk, Watson & Hazel, 1973;Downey, 1974;Mohr, 1975;Lewin & Zwany, 1976;Downey, Medland & Yates, 1976;Eastman & McMullen, 1976;Eastman & Leger, 1978;Downey & Duffy, 1978). Even the use of a pairedcomparison peer evaluation technique does not significantly improve upon these reliabilities.…”

“…It is important in a training setting that instructors have extensive contact with trainees over a period of several weeks to produce reliable ratings. Research indicates, however, that frequent peer association in a training situation for as short a period as eight weeks is sufficient for peers to make the required judgments accurately (Mohr, 1975), and where a peer group remains intact throughout training, reliable and valid peer evaluations can be obtained in as little as three to six weeks (Hollander, 1957). These guidelines were followed with the experimental measures introduced in this study by requiring that ratees were at least halfway through the training session and that raters, whether peers or supervisors, had been with those they were rating throughout their training.…”