PubMed · 15184750
Learn the most effective method of completing performance evaluations for your staff members.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Sharon LaDuke. 2004. Evaluate employees with ease.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006247-200406000-00016
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Although research has shown that individual job performance changes over time, the extent of such changes is unknown. In this article, the authors define and distinguish between the concepts of temporal consistency, stability, and test-retest reliability when considering individual job performance ratings over time. Furthermore, the authors examine measurement type (i.e., subjective and objective measures) and job complexity in relation to temporal consistency, stability, and test-retest reliability. On the basis of meta-analytic results, the authors found that the test-retest reliability of these ratings ranged from .83 for subjective measures in low-complexity jobs to .50 for objective measures in high-complexity jobs. The stability of these ratings over a 1-year time lag ranged from .85 to .67. The analyses also reveal that correlations between performance measures decreased as the time interval between performance measurements increased, but the estimates approached values greater than zero.
Research examining the structure of multisource performance ratings has demonstrated that ratings are a direct function of both who is doing the rating (rating source) as well as what is being rated (performance dimension). A separate line of research has focused on the extent to which performance ratings are equivalent across sources. To date no research has examined the measurement equivalence of multisource ratings within the context of both dimension and rating source direct effects on ratings. We examine the impact of both performance dimension and rating source as well as the degree of measurement equivalence across sources. Results indicate that (a) the impact of the underlying performance dimension is the same across rating sources, (b) the impact of rating source is substantial and only slightly smaller than the impact of the underlying performance dimension, and (c) the impact of rating source differs substantially depending on the source.
"Mentor" is a term widely used in academic medicine but for which there is no consensus on an operational definition. Further, criteria are rarely reported for evaluating the effectiveness of mentoring. This article presents the work of an Ad Hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee whose tasks were to define "mentorship," specify concrete characteristics and responsibilities of mentors that are measurable, and develop new tools to evaluate the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. The committee developed two tools: the Mentorship Profile Questionnaire, which describes the characteristics and outcome measures of the mentoring relationship from the perspective of the mentee, and the Mentorship Effectiveness Scale, a 12-item six-point agree-disagree-format Likert-type rating scale, which evaluates 12 behavioral characteristics of the mentor. These instruments are explained and copies are provided. Psychometric issues, including the importance of content-related validity evidence, response bias due to acquiescence and halo effects, and limitations on collecting reliability evidence, are examined in the context of the mentor-mentee relationship. Directions for future research are suggested.