Abstract
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales developed according to Bernardin, LaShells, Smith, and Alvarez's (1976) optimal procedure was compared with a carefully constructed summated rating scale. Using both scales, 727 undergraduates rated 32 instructors. Psychometric comparisons indicated that BARS had less halo error, more leniency error, and lower interrater reliablity than the alternative format. The two formats did not differ in ratee discrimination and susceptibility to rating bias due to rater characteristics. Finally, the formats contained convergent and discriminant validity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
