Peer Ratings versus Peer Nominations during Training as Predictors of Actual Performance Criteria

Two types of peer evaluations, ratings and nominations during training, were compared to examine their unique contribution in explaining actual performance evaluations. A sample of 133 female soldiers who had participated in a platoon leader-training program completed a rating and nomination form on their peers. These forms served as predictors for actual performance as platoon leaders. Performance criteria included a general evaluation, specific assessments for suitability to various ranks with increasing military responsibility, and a global rank criterion measure. Factor analyses supported the hypothesis that traits would be conceptualized as more distinct with the nomination method rather than with the rating method. The former yielded two distinct factors (professional and social), whereas the latter yielded only one. Hierarchical regressions and examination of the disattenuated correlations indicated an advantage for the nomination method in predicting various criteria. Discussion focuses on explaining the underlying process involved with each type of peer assessment.

[1]  Glenn M. McEvoy,et al.  User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Industrial Setting , 1987 .

[2]  Michael J. Stahl,et al.  Improving R&D Productivity: Measuring Innovation and Productivity — A Peer Rating Approach , 1977 .

[3]  H. Clarizio.  Childhood Depression: Diagnostic Considerations. , 1984 .

[4]  J. Schwarzwald,et al.  Long-Term Effects of School Desegregation Experiences on Interpersonal Relations in the Israeli Defense Forces , 1992 .

[5]  M. J. Harris,et al.  Why's My Boss Always Holding Me Down? A Meta-Analysis of Power Effects on Performance Evaluations , 1998, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[6]  D. Mcgregor,et al.  The Human Side of Enterprise , 1960 .

[7]  John Schaubroeck,et al.  A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. , 1988 .

[8]  S. Fox,et al.  Differential Dimensions Employed in Rating Subordinates, Peers, and Superiors , 1988 .

[9]  S. Fox,et al.  Perceived similarity and accuracy of peer ratings , 1989 .

[10]  H. John Bernardin,et al.  Performance appraisal : assessing human behavior at work , 1984 .

[11]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternate approach , 1974 .

[12]  E. Hollander.  Peer nominations on leadership as a predictor of the pass-fail criterion in naval air training. , 1954 .

[13]  J. Schofield,et al.  Peer nomination vs. rating scale measurement of children's peer preferences. , 1983 .

[14]  R. Milich,et al.  Issues in the assessment and treatment of socially rejected children , 1986 .

[15]  F. Scogin,et al.  The Relation of Peer Assessment to Future Law Enforcement Performance , 1992 .

[16]  W. W. Willingham.  On Deriving Standard Scores for Peer Nominations with Subgroups of Unequal Size , 1959 .

[17]  Francis F. Medland,et al.  Evaluation of a peer rating system for predicting subsequent promotion of senior military officers. , 1976 .

[18]  J. Schwarzwald,et al.  IMPACT OF SOCIOMETRIC METHOD AND ACTIVITY CONTENT ON ASSESSMENT OF INTERGROUP RELATIONS IN THE CLASSROOM , 1986 .

[19]  R. Morton,et al.  Who Shall Survive? , 1954, Mental Health.

[20]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[21]  R. Reilly,et al.  VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF SOME ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES , 1982 .

[22]  E. Hollander.  Interpersonal Exposure Time as a Determinant of the Predictive Utility of Peer Ratings , 1956 .

[23]  John W. Lounsbury,et al.  An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. , 1980 .

[24]  Jeffrey S. Kane,et al.  Methods of peer assessment. , 1978 .