Improving the Selection, Classification, and Utilization of Army Enlisted Personnel. Annual Report, 1984 Fiscal Year

186

148

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.,

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Models of supervisory job performance ratings.

Borman¹,

White²,

Pulakos³

et al. 1991

186

148

“…Data reported here were collected as part of Project A, the U.S. Army's large-scale research program to develop an improved selection and classification system for initial assignment of persons to U.S. Army jobs (Eaton, Goer, Harris, & Zook, 1984). Data were collected from first-term soldiers in 18 jobs (see Table 1) selected to be representative of the population of Army jobs…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three approaches to the investigation of subgroup bias in performance measurement: Review, results, and conclusions.

Oppler

Campbell

Pulakos

et al. 1992

Three methods of assessing subgroup bias in performance measurement commonly found in the literature are identified. After a review of these approaches, findings are reported from analyses of data collected in the United States Army's Project A (J. P. Campbell, 1987). Correlations between nonrating performance measures and supervisor ratings were generally not moderated by race, but correlations between nonrating indicators of negative performance and ratings assigned by peers were. In addition, significant interactions between rater and ratee race on performance ratings were not eliminated when variance in the nonrating measures was removed from the ratings provided by Black and White raters. Conclusions about the magnitude and nature of bias in supervisor and peer ratings are discussed.

“…The data reported here were collected as part of Project A, the Army's large-scale, multiyear research program that is intended to develop an improved selection and classification system for initial assignment of persons to U.S. Army military occupational specialties (MOS) or jobs (Eaton, Goer, Harris, & Zook, 1984). This is being accomplished through the use of new and improved selection and classification tests that are designed to predict performance on carefully developed criterion measures (Campbell, 1985).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of race and sex effects on performance ratings.

Pulakos,

White,

Oppler

et al. 1989

183

157

The effects of rater source, rater and ratee race, rater and ratee sex, and job type were investigated on ratings collected for 8,642 first-term Army enlisted personnel. Ratings were made on 10 behaviorally based dimensions developed for evaluating all first-term soldiers. Results of between-subjects analyses similar to those conducted in past research revealed significant main effects and interactions for sex, race, rater source, and job type, but the variance accounted for by these effects was minimal. Repeated measures analyses were also performed, with each ratee evaluated by one Black and one White rater for the race effects analyses and one female and one male rater for the sex effects analyses. These analyses, which unconfounded rater bias and actual performance differences, yielded results similar to those obtained with the between-subjects design. Implications of the findings are discussed.In a considerable amount of research in the performance appraisal area, various rater and ratee characteristics have been investigated as possible sources of variance in ratings (Landy & Farr, 1980). Among the more frequent has been examination of the effects of rater and ratee gender and race on performance appraisal ratings. Unfortunately, inconsistent findings have resulted from this body of literature, limiting the number of definitive conclusions that can be drawn regarding the influence of gender and race on ratings. For example, research investigating gender effects on ratings has found that rater sex does not typically affect evaluations (e.g.,