Merit Rating Research Articles

The performance and evaluation of thin film insulating crossovers

Various thin film insulating crossovers were studied. All of the crossovers had silicon-monoxide as the dielectric film. The common crossover area was 100 sq. mils (6·45 × 10 −4 cm 2). Although several dielectric thicknesses were investigated, 5000 Å was chosen as the minimum thickness for highly reliable crossovers. Eight crossover combinations were fabricated. These were: Upper Conductor Lower conductor chromium-gold chromium chromium-gold chromium-gold aluminum chromium-gold chromium-gold aluminum aluminum aluminum chromium-gold tantalum-aluminum aluminum tantalum-aluminum aluminum chromium The first 5 crossover combinations were selected for subjection to various environmental stresses. Crossover electrical parameters (capacitance and dissipation factor measured at 1 kHz, d.c. insulation resistance, breakdown voltage, and withstanding voltage) and physical parameters (film adhesion, compatability and degradation), were measured. In addition, the electrical parameters were measured periodically during the environmental stresses. The stresses were: storage at −55°C, 125°C, 200°C for 1000 hr; accelerated ageing at 300°C for 100 hr; temperature cycling from room temperature to 65°C in high humidity; temperature cycling from −65°C to 125°C; and the determination of the breakdown voltage as a function of time. None of the crossovers were overcoated or protected in any way. The breakdown voltage was found to be the most important parameter for evaluation. The distribution of breakdown voltages for a given sample population was found to contain two peaks indicating two failure mechanisms. The experimental procedure for the fabrication and the measuring techniques are described. A merit rating for the crossovers studied is presented. Part of this work was supported by the U.S. Army Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Contract No. DA-28-043 AMC-01482(E), 1 July 1965 through 30 September 1966.

Measurement of Articulatory Merit

No AccessJournal of Speech and Hearing ResearchResearch Article1 Sep 1966Measurement of Articulatory Merit Newman Guttman Newman Guttman Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., Murray Hill, New Jersey Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.0903.323 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In It is shown that a specimen of speech may be assigned a semiobjective merit rating that correlates highly with subjective estimates of merit. The rating instrument, termed the Articulatory Product, multiplies a measure of articulatory accuracy and a measure of speaking time: A . P . ​ = W W 0 × T T 0 , T ≤ T 0 = W W × T 0 T , T > T 0 , where W0 is the total number of words in a text, W is the number of “correct words” (the number of words judged by an expert to be accurately spoken), T0 is an optimum speaking time for the text, and T is the measured speaking time. A.P., derived in this manner, approximates the average cross correlation of received and standard words within the observer. Inasmuch as the analysis is based on varied types of speech—natural, fast, slow, stuttered, and foreign-accented—A.P. appears to be applicable to speech free of voice-quality complications. It does not, however, appear to be an instrument sufficiently sensitive to be applied exclusively to unimpaired speech. Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited by Journal of Fluency Disorders12:1 (19-39)1 Feb 1987Reported use of a Japanese accent to promote fluencyDon Mowrer Comparative Group Studies3:3 (175-199)1 Aug 1972The Shaping Group Approach to StutteringWilliam R. Leith and Max R. Uhlemann Volume 9Issue 3September 1966Pages: 323-339 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library HistoryReceived: Nov 23, 1965 Published in issue: Sep 1, 1966 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1966 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...

Time and Motion Study Volume 13 Issue 9

DURING some courses on production and management problems at the T.U.C. Training College job evaluation and merit rating were discussed. The notes used for that purpose form the basis of a booklet which the Trades Union Congress has published at 1s. 6d. Its purpose is to equip trade union representatives with an outline of the systems most widely used.

Teachers' Attitudes Toward Merit Rating As a Function of Conflict of Interest

Teachers' Attitudes Toward Merit Rating As a Function of Conflict of Interest

Criteria which teachers believe should be evaluated in merit rating

Merit rating and merit pay schedules continue to interest educators and laymen. It generally has been assumed that classroom teachers as a group are opposed to programs of merit rating. A number of recent studies, however, have tended to refute this assumption. A sample of educators who were members of Phi Delta Kappa revealed favorable attitudes toward the principle of merit pay. Ralston found that a majority of teachers believed that it was possible to identify differences in teaching ability through cooperative efforts by teachers and administrators. Tate and Haughey* found that administrators were more favorable to merit rating than teachers, and that junior and senior high school teachers were more favorable than elementary teachers. One difficulty in the development of merit rating programs has been the lack of clear-cut, definable criteria for use in judging teacher ability and effectiveness. The present study was designed to ascertain which criteria were deemed fair and adequate by a large number of classroom teachers.

Casualty Actuarial Society - The Negative Binomial Applied to the Canadian Merit Rating Plan for Individual Automobiele Risks by Charles C. Hewitt Jr.

Casualty Actuarial Society - The Negative Binomial Applied to the Canadian Merit Rating Plan for Individual Automobiele Risks by Charles C. Hewitt Jr.

Employee evaluation: An abstract model

A mathematical model of a merit rating system is described in terms of linear equations. It is shown how some of the factors of the system can be evaluated by conventional operations with linear simultaneous equations.

Let's Stop All This Fuss About Merit Rating

(1962). Let's Stop All This Fuss About Merit Rating. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas: Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 72-76.

Merit Rating in Private Passenger Automobile Liability Insurance and the California Driver Record Study, by Frank Harwayne.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Canadian Merit Rating Plan for Individual Automobile Risks, by Herbert E. Wittick

The Canadian Merit Rating Plan for Individual Automobile Risks, by Herbert E. Wittick

Under What Conditions Does Merit Rating Succeed or Fail?

Under What Conditions Does Merit Rating Succeed or Fail?

Why Argue About Merit Rating?

Why Argue About Merit Rating?

Two Studies in Automobile Insurance Ratemaking

Section A of this paper uses the Canadian experience for private passenger automobiles to show (1) that merit rating is almost as effective as the class plan in separating the better risks from the poorer risks, (2) that both merit rating and class rating leave unanalyzed a considerable amount of variation among risks and (3) that certain available evidence supports the conclusion that annual mileage, which has long been felt to be an important measure of hazard, is a very significant cause of this unanalyzed variation among risks.Section B presents a method for obtaining relativities among groups on which a multiple classification system has been imposed. The customary method of calculating class relativities uses the total experience for each class with all subdivisions within the classes added together. With the customary method it is difficult to make a completely accurate adjustment for different distributions by territory or merit rating, because any change in the class relativities disturbs the other sets of relativities and conversely. It is shown that even if such an adjustment were made, the customary method of calculating relativities one set at a time does not reflect the relative credibility of each subgroup and does not produce the best fit to the actual data. Moreover it produces differences between the actual data and the fitted values which are far too large to be caused by chance. In addition, for private passenger automobile insurance in Canada, it is shown that two sets of relativities which are multiplied together cannot produce the best fit to the actual data, and some of the consequences of trying to do so are explained. Some methods are advanced whereby all sets of relativities for classes, merit ratings, territories, and so forth, can be calculated simultaneously, which will overcome all the deficiencies in the customary method. These improved methods use the technique of minimizing a measure (technically known as the chi-square test) of the differences between the actual data and the fitted values. Some applications to other lines of insurance are mentioned.

What Is the Case for and Against Merit Rating for Teachers?

What Is the Case for and Against Merit Rating for Teachers?

Merit Rating and Productivity in an Industrial Research Laboratory: A Case Study

A merit rating plan based only on one criterion, over-all performance, was tested in one section of approximately sixty engineer-scientists in a large industrial research laboratory. The procedure used is discussed along with some general results. In addition, a measure of individual productivity was developed based on the average number of technical reports, publications, and patent disclosures written per year. A fairly good correlation was found between the merit ratings and the measure of productivity.

Briefing the JOURNALS

Eli Ginsberg, “The Pursuit of Excellence,” Child StudyA. Hugh Livingston, “High School Graduates and Dropouts—A New Look at a Persistent Problem,” The School ReviewMerle W. Tate and Charles F. Haughey, “Teachers Rate Merit Rating,” The Nations SchoolsAdah Peckenpaugh, “The Teacher and Preventive Discipline,” NEA Journal“Helping the Gifted,” American School Board Journal“More Spare Time—But for What?” Changing TimesDonald P. Hoyt and Cabroll E. Kennedy, “Interest and Personality Correlates of Career‐motivated and Homemaking‐motivated College Women,” Journal of Counseling Psychology“The Facts about Marriage Counselors,” Changing TimesCollins W. Burnett, “Guidance—Function or Panacea,” The Clearing HouseCharles A. Myers, “What About the Future of Personnel Administrators?,” Personnel AdministrationHenry Winthrop, “Some Psychological and Economic Assumptions Underlying Automation, I,” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology.Carl A. Minor and Robert G. Neel, “The Relationship between Achievement Motive and Occupational Preference,” Journal of Counseling PsychologyDugald S. Arbuckle, “The Education of the School Counselor,” Journal of Counseling PsychologyRobert G. Congdon and Frederick M. Jervis, “A Different Approach to Interest Profiles,” Journal of Counseling PsychologyJohn C. Wright and Barron B. Scarborough, “Relationship of the Interests of College Freshmen to their Interests as Sophomores and as Seniors,” Educational and Psychological MeasurementSamuel J. McGuffin, “Factors Influencing the Choice of Careers by Boys in Two Belfast Grammar Schools,” British Journal of Educational PsychologyK. F. Walker, “A Study of Occupational Stereotypes,” Journal of Applied PsychologyRobert F. Peck, “What Makes a Man Creative?,” PersonnelSimon Uhrman, “Are We Making the Best Use of Our Engineers?”, Personnel Administration

Classroom Teachers and Merit Rating

Classroom Teachers and Merit Rating

Why Teachers Fear Merit Rating

Why Teachers Fear Merit Rating

The Case for and Against Merit Rating

The Case for and Against Merit Rating

Changing Attitudes toward a Merit Rating System

SummaryAn effort was made to change the attitudes of 400 men in a favorable direction concerning a merit appraisal procedure used in one department of a large company. Two experimental methods were used, one in which the members of 12 crews counselled their supervisor on the practices that he should use in order that he might be equally fair to all persons in making his judgments, and another in which 12 foremen explained to their crews the methods he follows so that he might be impartial in his ratings. These supervisors were trained in the procedures necessary for conducting permissive and stimulating meetings and also in standard techniques of reporting appraisal results to each individual workman. The merit evaluations were made monthly instead of the usual practice of twice a year. A number of supervisors, who were also trained in reporting methods, described the appraisal results to the men monthly but held no prior group meetings with them. These were controls on the effect of the increase in frequency of feedback. Another set of crews provided an overall control by making no change from the usual practices. Attitude measures were made at the beginning and end of the experimental period. Measures concerning the crew meetings were also obtained.The difference between the average changes in attitude toward the appraisal plan in the two experimental methods is not statistically significant and the attitude change in the two procedures is not significantly different from the over‐all control group. The over‐all control group did not change at all.The effectiveness of the meetings in both treatments were alike in creating positive attitudes toward the appraisal plan if the foreman was seen to have the best interests of the men in mind, knew what he was talking about, and the men agreed with his beliefs about the evaluation methods during the meeting. Where these features were absent, the attitudes of the men concerning the evaluation methods did not change.The workmen in the consultation procedure made a significant favorable change in attitude toward the appraisal methods if they felt that the meeting outcome was satisfactory, the men were skilled in discussion procedures, and there was difference in opinion during the session prior to arriving at a group decision. Those who were given an explanation of his practices by the boss made a significant positive change in attitude concerning the evaluation methods only if they felt that higher management was sincere and that there was a high degree of similarity in the opinions of the crew members and with their boss.The men in the feedback‐frequency control groups made the greatest average favorable change in attitude toward the appraisal procedures and also developed a strong perception of control over their own fate. It was suggested that these men viewed their foreman as greatly interested in them—even more than those supervisors who held prior meetings with crews—and willing to provide means for improvement of the men.Average attitudes concerning the liking of the foreman and the company, or the power of the supervisor, were not changed during the study in either experimental treatment, nor did the changes where they occurred appear to affect feelings toward the evaluation methods.Positive attitudes toward a potential source of reward or punishment are a function of the probability that one's needs will be satisfied by that source. In the consultation method the group members' feelings about the practices used by a powerful person depend upon how effective they themselves are as a group in determining his behavior. In the explanation treatment the attitudes depend upon how sincere higher management is perceived to be in sanctioning the superior's behavior. Finally, monthly appraisal reports seem to generate a perception that supervisors will help the subordinate to improve his performance and thus to have control over his own need gratification; therefore, attitudes improve when appraisal feedback interviews are frequent.