A FIELD STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PURPOSE: RESEARCH‐ VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE‐ BASED RATINGS
在实地环境中比较了用于人事决策的行政评分与用于验证研究的研究评分，发现行政评分更宽松且与资历相关，而研究评分与预测因子相关但效度差异不显著。
Many researchers have discussed the theoretical and practical importance of rating purpose. Nevertheless, the body of empirical studies, the majority of which were conducted in a laboratory setting, focus on leniency. There has been little research on other effects of rating purpose. The present study examines 223 ratees in a field setting for whom there were both administrative‐based performance appraisal ratings (which were actually used for personnel decisions) and research‐based performance appraisal ratings (obtained for a validation study). Two of the hypotheses were supported; administrative ratings were more lenient than research‐based ratings. The administrative‐based ratings demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with ratee seniority, while the research‐based ratings did not. There was mixed support for a third hypothesis: Research ratings were significantly correlated with a predictor, while the administrative ratings were not. The difference between the validity coefficients, however, was not significant. Contrary to the hypothesis, the rank order between administrative‐based and research‐based ratings was relatively high ( r = 33).