The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwarzwald, J.
Right arrow Articles by Mager-Bibi, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, 360-372 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0021886399353007

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

Joseph Schwarzwald

Meni Koslowsky

Tamar Mager-Bibi

Bar-Ilan University

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and D. DeWayne Moore
Development of a Theory-Based Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2007; 67(3): 505 - 524.
[Abstract] [PDF]