The effect of performance appraisal salience on recall and ratings

Incentives and Alternative Rating Approaches

Ratings of others’ performance are central in applied psychology. We investigated rater incentives and two approaches to Behavior Observation Scale (BOS) rating on rating accuracy. Raters (N = 147) were randomly assigned to one of three accuracy-incentive conditions and completed one of two BOSs 48 hr after observing videotaped performances. A serial BOS asked raters to assess one ratee at a time, across behaviors. A parallel BOS had raters consider all ratees on one behavior at a time. The serial (one ratee at a time) approach was generally more accurate than the parallel (one behavior at a time) approach. However, an accuracy incentive prior to observation mitigated the negative effects of the parallel approach. Overall, a serial BOS seems well suited for developmental appraisal.

Cognitive, social and environmental sources of bias in clinical performance ratings

BACKGROUND

Global ratings based on observing convenience samples of clinical performance form the primary basis for appraising the clinical competence of medical students, residents, and practicing physicians. This review explores cognitive, social, and environmental factors that contribute unwanted sources of score variation (bias) to clinical performance evaluations.

SUMMARY

Raters have a 1 or 2-dimensional conception of clinical performance and do not recall details. Good news is reported more quickly and fully than bad news, leading to overly generous performance evaluations. Training has little impact on accuracy and reproducibility of clinical performance ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical performance evaluation systems should assure broad, systematic sampling of clinical situations; keep rating instruments short; encourage immediate feedback for teaching and learning purposes; encourage maintenance of written performance notes to support delayed clinical performance ratings; give raters feedback about their ratings; supplement formal with unobtrusive observation; make promotion decisions via group review; supplement traditional observation with other clinical skills measures (e.g., Objective Structured Clinical Examination); encourage rating of specific performances rather than global ratings; and establish the meaning of ratings in the manner used to set normal limits for clinical diagnostic investigations.

Can performance-feedback accuracy be improved? Effects of rater priming and rating-scale format on rating accuracy

Performance appraisal information is often used for employee feedback and development. Research has found that assessments that are global (i.e., based on broad aspects of performance) and comparative (i.e., explicit interratee comparisons) may be most accurate in terms of Cronbach's (1955) differential accuracy, a type of accuracy that is directly relevant to the provision of feedback. Unfortunately, a global-comparative assessment may not give recipients the most useful diagnostic feedback. In this experiment, an innovative rater-priming manipulation was developed and tested on a sample of 109 participants. The priming manipulation had the effect of improving differential accuracy and providing diagnostic feedback. A 2nd independent variable involving 2 different Behavioral Observation Scale formats also was investigated. Explanations of findings, limitations of this experiment, directions for future research, and implications for performance appraisal practice are discussed.