Models of supervisory job performance ratings.

Abstract

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.,

Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life

“…22, respectively, to .35 and .41. Recent efforts to model job performance have begun to clarify the role of g. Path models of training and job proficiency (mostly in military jobs) indicate that g strongly predicts success in training and acquiring job knowledge, which in turn strongly predict task proficiency (Borman, White, Pulakos, & Oppler, 1991;Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos, & White, 1993;Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995;Hunter, 1983;Ree, Carretta, & Teachout, 1995;Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge , 1986).…”

Building a joint-service classification research roadmap: Methodological issues in selection and classification

“…Although causal modeling yields the direct, indirect, and total effects of predictors on criteria (given certain assumptions that art often difficult to meet), the variables are usually observed measures, and researchers are typically not interested in the observed measures themselves. The Hunter (1983Hunter ( , 1986, Schmidt et al (1986), and Borman et al (1991) efforts just described all corrected the variables fo~r attenuation. Removing the measurement error from the variables is one way of approximating the modeling of latent variables, but this procedure makes the implicit assumption that removing measurement error yields a measure of the construct that is neither contaminated nor deficient--an assumption that might not be justified.…”

“…Finally, Borman, White, Pulakos, and Oppler (1991) applied the Hunter performance model to data from Project A and compared it to an expanded model that included multiple components of performance assessed via ratings, as well as non-cognitive predictor information (i.e., achievement orientation and dependability). Borman et al found the expanded model accounted for over twice as much variance in supervisor ratings as Hunter's model.…”

Summer Research Program - 1998 Summer Research Extension Program Volume 1 Armstrong Laboratory

“…Granted, work sample performance measures are high fidelity measures of "can-do" aspects of job performance (versus "will-do" aspects, see Borman et al, 1995;Borman, White, Pulakos, & Oppler, 1991;DuBois, Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1993;Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997;Motowidlo & VanScotter, 1994;Sackett, Zedeck, & Fogli, 1988). However, they are not without their limitations.…”