A Comparison of Three Methods of Rating-scale Construction

A Comparison of Three Methods of Rating-scale Construction PDF

Author: Joseph M. Madden

Publisher:

Published: 1960

Total Pages: 24

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

Four job evaluation factors were used as the basis of rating 10 Air Force specialties. For each factor three different methods were used in constructing the scale: (1) each scale division was defined and illustrated; (2) neither scale division definitions nor examples were used; and (3) definitions were used but the examples were omitted. Ratings by samples of aviation cadets were analyzed for effects of method on mean ratings. For three of the four factors, the mean ratings obtained were not different as a function of the method of scale construction. Methods 1 and 3 were about equally reliable, both yielding more reliable means than method 2. Method 3 is suggested as being the most effective because the task of the rater is somewhat simpler than for method 1 and the reliability is higher than for method 2.

The Methods and Foundations of Job Evaluation in the United States Air Force

The Methods and Foundations of Job Evaluation in the United States Air Force PDF

Author: Joseph M. Madden

Publisher:

Published: 1961

Total Pages: 72

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

"This report summarizes the history of job evaluation and gives a critical review of the technical literature as a background for the Air Force job evaluation plan. The Air Force plan is described with the rationale for each phase. A discussion of unsolved problems includes an outline of research needed to discover solutions of these problems. An Appendix lists a 200-item bibliography with abstracts." -- page iii.

Effect of Degree of Familiarity in Job Evaluation

Effect of Degree of Familiarity in Job Evaluation PDF

Author: Raymond E. Christal

Publisher:

Published: 1960

Total Pages: 14

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

A significant association between the familiarity of the rater with a job and the ratings he assigns to the job was found for 17 of 50 Air Force specialties. Assuming that the most valid ratings are those given by highly familiar raters, it appears that highly technical jobs tend to be under-evaluated by raters who are unfamiliar with the work performed. On the other hand, some jobs ten to be over-evaluated by raters who are unfamiliar with the work performed. These findings point to the necessity for controlling the level of familiarity when job evaluation is conducted.