| Abstract: | A total of 52 supervisory personnel were trained under one of three performance-appraisal training programs: rater error (response set) training, observation training, or decision-making training. Halo, leniency, range restriction, and accuracy measures were collected before and after training from the three training groups and a no-training control group. The results suggested that although the traditional rater error training, best characterized as inappropriate response set training, reduced the classic rater errors (or statistical effects), it also detrimentally affected rating accuracy. However, observation and decision-making training caused performance rating accuracy to increase after training, but did little to reduce classic rater effects. The need for a reconceptualization of rater training content and measurement focus was discussed in terms of the uncertain relation between statistical rating effects and accuracy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
