Search

In the first criterion-related validity study of a complete 360-degree competency assessment process (i.e., where customer data are included), aggregated 360-degree assessment of 428 retail associate store managers on six competencies showed strong validity (.50) in the prediction of assessment center performance. In addition, 360-degree assessments on each of the six competencies were significantly correlated with the criteria. The aggregated 360-degree assessments also demonstrated incremental validity over managerial ratings alone in the prediction of assessment center criteria. Customer (mystery shopper) assessments were also significantly correlated with the assessment center criteria and exhibited incremental validity beyond supervisory assessments. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors examined intentions toward prospective employers with different alternative dispute resolution (ADR) policies and no ADR policy. In Study 1, students (N = 124) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions in which 2 variables, arbitration policy presence or absence and firm desirability, were manipulated. The presence of a voluntary, nonbinding arbitration policy had no impact on intentions and did not interact with firm desirability. In Study 2, students (N = 273) were randomly assigned to 1 of 8 conditions (mandatory vs. voluntary arbitration, binding vs. nonbinding arbitration, and highly desirable vs. less desirable employer). Both mandatory and binding arbitration policies were related to less favorable intentions toward firms. Predictions regarding the interaction of ADR policy and firm desirability were partially supported. Some support was found for the interaction between ADR policy and ethnicity.

The authors studied the relationship between the Big Five personality factors and rating elevation among 111 students making peer evaluations. It was hypothesized that Conscientiousness (C) scores would be negatively correlated with rating level and that Agreeableness (A) scores would be positively correlated with rating level. We further predicted that individuals who were low on C and high on A would produce the most elevated ratings. As predicted, A scores were positively related to rating level (.33, p < .01) and C scores were negatively correlated with rating level (-.37, p < .01). Using the strong hypothesis test (P. Bobko, 1986), the authors found that ratings by low C and high A individuals were more elevated than all other groups of students combined (p < .01).

Here we evaluate, replicate, and extend 1982 research by Zedeck and Cascio on the relationship between purpose and characteristics of rating. We propose and test an alternative explanation for the Zedeck and Cascio conclusion that discriminability in ratings is affected by their purpose. Results provide partial support for both explanations. Using a measure of rating accuracy as the criterion, no significant effect of purpose is obtained.