Abstract
The primary question of this experiment was whetherabsoluteandcomparativeperformance appraisal ratings differ in terms of four components of accuracy: differential elevation (DE), differential accuracy (DA), elevation (EL), and stereotype accuracy (SA). Becausecomparativeperformance appraisal methods often useglobalitems (overall performance dimensions), whereas certainabsoluteperformance appraisal methods utilizespecificitems (critical incidents), the effect ofspecificversusglobalitems was also investigated. Eighty participants viewed four videotaped lecturers and rated their performance 24 h later with bothabsoluteandcomparativeperformance appraisal methods which used bothspecificandglobalitem-types. No advantages were associated with theabsoluterating method, however,comparativeratings were more accurate thanabsoluteratings with respect to DA and SA.Globalitems resulted in greater DE and EL accuracy than didspecific;however, the converse was true with respect to DA and SA accuracy. Implications for the practice of performance appraisal are discussed.
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 callMore From: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Disclaimer: 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.
