A Methodological Study of Forced-Choice Performance Rating
This report has yet to be scanned by Contrails staff
Report Number: HRRC RB 51-9
Author(s): Highland, Richard W., Berkshire, James R.
Corporate Author(s): Human Resources Research Center
Laboratory: Technical Training Research Laboratory
Date of Publication: 1951-05
Pages: 50
Contract: Laboratory Research - No Contract
DoD Project: 21-03-027
Identifier: ADA049826
Abstract:
The objective of the present study was a relative evaluation of six different kinds of forced-choice performance rating forms with respect to validity, reliability, biasabilitty, and the degree to which raters liked different forms. The kinks of forced-choice forms used in the investigation varied as to the content of the blocks of statements and as to the directions which were given the raters. Of the forms used in this experiment, those in which the blocks were composed of four favorable-appearing statements, from which the rater was to choose either the two most descriptive, or the most and the least descriptive, were generally superior. The inclusion of both favorable and unfavorable statements in the same block appears to be an inferior method of constructing forced-choice forms.
Provenance: IIT
Author(s): Highland, Richard W., Berkshire, James R.
Corporate Author(s): Human Resources Research Center
Laboratory: Technical Training Research Laboratory
Date of Publication: 1951-05
Pages: 50
Contract: Laboratory Research - No Contract
DoD Project: 21-03-027
Identifier: ADA049826
Abstract:
The objective of the present study was a relative evaluation of six different kinds of forced-choice performance rating forms with respect to validity, reliability, biasabilitty, and the degree to which raters liked different forms. The kinks of forced-choice forms used in the investigation varied as to the content of the blocks of statements and as to the directions which were given the raters. Of the forms used in this experiment, those in which the blocks were composed of four favorable-appearing statements, from which the rater was to choose either the two most descriptive, or the most and the least descriptive, were generally superior. The inclusion of both favorable and unfavorable statements in the same block appears to be an inferior method of constructing forced-choice forms.
Provenance: IIT