Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect

Personnel Psychology

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 905-925

  Jawahar, I M ^a   Williams, Charles R ^b  

^a SOUTHWESTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031283608     PISSN: 00315826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01487.x     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Aleamoni LM, Hexner PZ. (1980). A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation. Instructional Science, 9, 67-84.
2. Beckner D, Highhouse S, Hazer JT. (1995). Peer-rater motivation: A field experiment of rating purpose and accountability effects on inflation and avoidance. Unpublished manuscript.
3. Berkshire JR, Highland RW. (1953). Forced-choice performance rating - A methodological study. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 6, 355-378.
4. Bernardin HJ. (1978). Effects of rater training on leniency and halo errors in student ratings of instructors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 301-308.
5. Bernardin HJ. (1986). Subordinate appraisal: A valuable source of information for managers. Human Resource Management, 25, 421-439.
6. Bernardin HJ, Abbott J, Cooper D. (1985, August). The effects of appraisal purpose and rater training on rating characteristics. Paper presented at the 1985 Annual Academy of Management Meetings, San Diego.
7. Bernardin HJ, Cooke DK. (1992). Effects of appraisal purpose on discriminability and accuracy of ratings. Psychological Reports, 70, 1211-1215.
8. Bernardin HJ, Orban JA. (1990). Leniency effect as a function of rating format, purpose for appraisal, and rater individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, (2), 197-211.
9. Bernardin HJ, Villanova P. (1986). Performance appraisal. In Locke EA (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 43-62). Lexington, MA: Lexington.
10. Bretz RD, Milkovich GT, Read W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18, 321-352.
11. Carson KP, Schriesheim CA, Kinicki AJ. (1990). The usefulness of the "fail-safe" statistic in meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 233-243.
12. Centra JE. (1976). The influence of different directions on student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Measurement, 13, 277-282.
13. DeCotiis T, Petit A. (1978). The performance appraisal process: A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 635-646.
14. DeNisi AS, Cafferty TP, Meglino BM. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360-396.
15. Driscoll LA, Goodwin WL. (1979). The effects of varying information about the use and disposition of results on university students' evaluations of faculty and courses. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 25-37.
16. Farh JL, Cannella AA, Bedeian AG. (1991). The impact of purpose on rating quality and user acceptance. Group and Organizational Studies, 16, 367-386.
17. Farh JL, Werbel JD. (1986). Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of validation on self-appraisal leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 527-529.
18. Fisher CD. (1989). Current and recurrent challenges in HRM. Journal of Management, 15, 157-180.
19. Gatewood RD, Feild HS. (1994). Human resource selection. Ft. Worth, TX: Dryden.
20. Glass GV. (1977). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5, 351-379.
21. Greene L, Bernardin HJ, Abbott J. (1985). A comparison of rating formats after corrections for attenuation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 503-515.
22. Gmelch WH, Glasman NS. (1977). The effects of purpose on student evaluation of college instructors. Educational Research Quarterly, 2, 45-55.
23. Harris MM, Smith DE, Champagne D. (1995). A field study of performance appraisal purpose: Research versus administrative based ratings. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 151-160.
24. Hollander EP. (1965). Validity of peer nominations in predicting a distant performance criterion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 443-438.
25. Huffcutt AI, Arthur W Jr. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.
26. Huffcutt AI, Arthur W Jr. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327-334.
27. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28. Ilgen DR, Barnes-Farrell JL, McKellin DB. (1993). Performance appraisal process research in the 1980s: What has it contributed to appraisals in use? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 321-368.
29. Ilgen DR, Favero JL. (1985). Limits in generalization from psychological research to performance appraisal processes. Academy of Management Review, 10, 311-321.
30. Ilgen DR, Knowlton WA. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441-456.
31. Jawahar IM. (1994). Purpose of appraisal revisited: An examination of the relationship between purpose and characteristics of performance ratings. Unpublished dissertation, Oklahoma State University.
32. Kane JS, Bernardin HJ, Villanova P, Peyrefitte J. (1995). Stability of rater leniency: Three studies. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (4), 1036-1051.
33. Klimoski R, Inks L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194-208.
34. Kraiger K, Ford JK. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56-65.
35. Landy FS, Farr JL. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
36. Larson JR Jr. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42-76.
37. Longenecker CO, Sims HP, Gioia DA. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. The Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
38. McIntyre RM, Smith DE, Hassett CE. (1984). Accuracy of performance ratings as affected by rater training and perceived purpose of rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 149-156.
39. McDaniel MA, Whetzel DL, Schmidt FL, Maurer SD. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599-616.
40. Meier RA, Feldhusen JF. (1979). Another look at Dr. Fox: Effect of stated purpose of evaluation, lecturer expressiveness, and density of lecture content on student ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 339-345.
41. Mero NP, Motowidlo SJ. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 517-524.
42. Murphy KR, Balzer WK, Kellam KL, Armstrong JG. (1984). Effects of the purpose of rating on accuracy in observing teacher behavior and evaluating teaching performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 45-54.
43. Murphy KR, Cleveland JN. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
44. Murphy KR, Herr BM, Lockhart MC, Maguire E. (1986). Evaluating the performance of paper people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 654-661.
45. Osburn HG, Callender J. (1992). A note on the sampling variance of the mean uncorrected correlation in meta-analysis and validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 115-122.
46. Pearlman K. (1979). The validity of tests used to select clerical personnel: A comprehensive summary and evaluation (TS-79-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Personnel Research and Development Center. (NTIS No. PB 80.102650).
47. Pritchard RD, Peters LH, Harris AF. (1973). The effects of confidentiality on the distribution of naval performance appraisals. Prepared for Psychological Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research (Contract No. N00014-67-A-0226-0018).
48. Rogers PD, McDaniel MA. (1994, August). Criterion purpose as a moderator of employment test validity. Paper presented at the Annual American Psychological Association Convention, Los Angeles, CA.
49. Sharon A, Bartlett CJ. (1969). Effect of instructional conditions in producing leniency on two types of rating scales. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 22, 251-263.
50. Shore TH, Adams JS, Tashchian A. (1995, August). Effects of self-appraisal information, appraisal purpose, and feedback target on performance appraisal ratings. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Academy of Management Meetings, Vancouver, Canada.
51. Taylor EK, Wherry RJ. (1951). A study of leniency in two rating systems. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 4, 39-47.
52. Tett RP, Jackson DN, Rothstein M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 703-742.
53. Veres JG, Feild HS, Boyles WR. (1983). Administrative versus research performance ratings: An empirical test of rating data quality. Public Personnel Management Journal, 12, 290-298.
54. Villanova P, Bernardin J, Dahmus SA, Sims RL. (1993). Rater leniency and performance appraisal discomfort. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 789-799.
55. Waldman DA, Thornton GC III. (1988). A field study of rating conditions and leniency in performance appraisal. Psychological Reports, 63, 835-840.
56. Williams CR, Livingstone LP. (1994). Another look at the relationship between performance and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 269-298.
57. Williams KJ, DeNisi AS, Blencoe AG, Cafferty TP. (1985). The role of appraisal purpose: Effects of purpose on information acquisition and utilization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 314-339.
58. Zedeck S, Cascio WF. (1982). Performance appraisal decisions as a function of rater training and purpose of the appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 752-758.