Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

Mixed‐standard performance rating scales consist of sets of conceptually compatible statements (usually three) that describe high, medium, and low levels of performance within a job dimension. Statements are randomized on the rating form, and the dimension that each statement represents is not obvious. The rater then indicates whether a ratee's performance is “better than,” “as good as,” or “worse than” the behavior described in the statement. Introduced by Blantz (1965) , mixed‐standard scales were designed to inhibit error in ratings, particularly the tendency to be lenient ( see leniency effects ; rating errors ). In the first test of the method, Blantz and Ghiselli (1972) found that ratings from mixed‐standard scales resulted in less leniency than those from “ordinary rating scales” and that “assessments obtained from different raters are quite comparable” (p. 189). Unfortunately, because Blantz and Ghiselli did not actually obtain ratings from any other format, relative comparisons could not be made on any psychometric characteristics. There have since been several comparisons of ratings from mixed‐standard scales with ratings from other formats, such as behaviorally anchored rating scales and behavioral observation scales , and no strong evidence was found suggesting that this format is superior to others. ( 1965 ). A new merit rating method . Unpublished doctoral ... log in or subscribe to read full text