专注论文查重修改6年+经验

评鉴中心评鉴员训练对评比準确度之影响

【中文摘要】:评鉴中心係一套标準化的评鉴工具,可支持企业人力资源管理与发展功能,
并确保人力资源运用效率及人力资源素质的提升。评鉴中心的效度建立于準确的
职能分析与贴近真实工作情境的模拟演习,此外,评鉴员亦扮演重要角色。称职
的评鉴员必须具备观察、纪录、分类与评估受评者行为之能力,评鉴中心须确保
评鉴员能产出準确的评鉴结果,做为企业执行人才甄选、训练、晋升等参考依据,
让优秀管理人才发挥能力,带领企业成长。
  本研究目的为补充国内评鉴中心评鉴员训练相关文献,以及探讨不同的评鉴
员训练对评比準确度及误差之影响,并透过上述探讨结果建立评鉴员训练之完整
流程,供企业实务应用,以协助企业确实评鉴人才职能。
  在本研究中,研究者检视参考架构训练及行为观察训练对增进评比準确度的
效用。实验对象为随机分配至控制组、参考架构训练组、合併参考架构训练与行
为观察训练组。实验对象评估四位受评者其两项职能构面之行为,且实验对象之
评分会透过多种的準确度测量予以比较,测量方式包含 Cronbach''s 準确度分数、
距离準确度、Borman''s 差异準确度、月晕效果準确度及宽容测量。
  研究结果指出,相较于控制组,参考架构训练仅增进评分者之 Borman''s 差异
準确度。然而,与本研究不符预期之处为,训练组别之差异与 Cronbach''s 準确度
分数、距离準确度、月晕效果準确度及宽容测量之间,各组结果并无显着差异,
因此无法证实训练是否能有效改善评分者之评比準确度。
【英文摘要】:Assessment Center is a set of standardized assessment technique supporting
various human resource management and development functions of business, and
ensuring the effectiveness of human resource utility and the enhancement of human
resource quality.
The validity of assessment center is based on precise competency analysis and
simulation exercises, and assessors also occupy importance positions. A qualified
assessor has the ability to observe, record, and classify and rate assesse''s behaviors in dimensions. Assessment center must train assessors to make reliable judgments about the behaviors of assesses.
The purposes of the research are (a) supplying related reference of assessor training, (b) investigating the influence of different assessor trainings on rating accuracy and error, (c) setting complete procedures of assessor training for practical application and assisting businesses to assess accurately the competency of the talent.
In this Study, the researcher examined the utility of frame-of-reference (FOR)
training and behavioral observation training (BOT) for enhancing rating accuracy. 90
participants were randomly assigned to either (a) control training, (b) FOR training, or
(c) FOR training + BOT. Participants evaluated the behaviors of four ratees in two
dimensions. The rating of participants were compared on various measurements of
accuracy, including Cronbach''s accuracy scores, distance accuracy, Borman''s
differential accuracy, halo-type accuracy and leniency measures.
Results indicated that compared with control training, FOR training only led to
significant enhancements in Borman''s differential accuracy. However, contrary to
predictions, the training group did not have significant difference among each other in
Cronbach''s accuracy scores, distance accuracy, halo-type accuracy and leniency
measures. Hence, it cannot be effectively proved that the influence of assessor training on rating accuracy.
【参考文献】:

  • Uggerslev, K. L., & Sulsky, L. M. 2008. Using frame-of-reference training to understand the implications of rater idiosyncrasy for rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3): 711–719.
  • William, D., & Siegfried, Jr. 2006. Introduction to special issue: developmental assessment centers. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 9(2): 71-74.
  • Woehr, D. J., & Huffcutt, A. I. 1994. Rater training for performance appraisal: a quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 189-205.
  • Thornton, G. C., & Zorich, S. 1980. Training to improve observer accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(3): 351-354.
  • Thornton, G. C., & Rupp, D. E. 2006. Assessment Center in Human Resource Management: Strategies for Prediction, Diagnosis, and Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Thornton, G. C., & Mueller-Hanson, R.A. 2004. Developing Organizational Simulations:A Guide for Practitioners and Students. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. 1982. Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance. New York: Academic Press.
  • Sulsky, L. M., & Day, D. V. 1994. Effects of frame-of-reference training on rater accuracy under alternative time delays. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 535-543.
  • Sulsky, L. M., & Day, D. V. 1992. Frame-of-reference training and cognitive categorization: an empirical investigation of rater memory issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 501-510.
  • Sulsky, L. M., & Balzer, W. K. 1988. Meaning and measurement of performance rating accuracy: some methodological and theoretical concerns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3): 497-506.
  • Smith, D. E. 1986. Training programs for performance appraisal: a review. Academy of Management Review, 11: 22-40.
  • Roch, S. G., & O”Sullivan, B. J. 2003. Frame of reference rater training issues: recall, time and behavior observation training. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(2): 93-107.
  • Pulakos, E. D. 1986. The development of training programs to increase accuracy with different rating tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38: 76-91.
  • Pulakos, E. D. 1984. A comparison of rater training programs: error training and accuracy training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4): 581-588.
  • Noonan, L. E., & Sulsky, L. M. 2001. Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a canadian military sample. Human Performance, 14(1): 3-26.
  • Mclntyre, R., Smith, D., & Hassett, C. 1984. Accuracy of performance ratings as affected by rater training and perceived purpose of rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 147-156.
  • Latham, G. P., Wexley, K. N., & Pursell, E. D. 1975. Training managers to minimize rating errors in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5): 550-555.
  • Joiner, D. A. 1984. Assessment centers in the public sector: a practical approach. Personnel Management, 4: 435-450.
  • Jansen, P., & De Jongh, F. 1997. The value of assessment centres: a practical handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p. 145.
  • International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. 2009. Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(3): 243-253.
  • Hoffman, B.J., Melchers, K. G., Blair, C. A., Kleinmann, M., & Ladd, R.T. 2011. Exercises and dimensions are the currency of assessment centers. Personnel Psychology, 64: 351–395.
  • Hedge, J. W., & Kavanagh, M. J. 1988. Improving the accuracy of performance evaluations: Comparison of three methods of performance appraiser training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 68-73.
  • Guion, R. M. 1965. Personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Finkle, R. B. 1976. Managerial Assessment Center, In M.D. Dunnette(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Cronbach, L. J. 1955. Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity”. Psychological Bulletin, 52(3): 177-193.
  • Cooper, W. H. 1981. Conceptual similarity as a source of illusory halo in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 302-307.
  • Campbell, D. T. 1958. Systematic error on the part of human links in communication systems. Information and Control, 1: 334-369.
  • Borman, W. C. 1979. Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4): 410-421.
  • Borman, W. C. 1978. Exploring upper limits of reliability and validity in job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(2): 135-144.
  • Borman, W. C. 1977. Consistency of rating accuracy and rating errors in the judgement of human performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20: 238-252.
  • Bernardin, H. J., & Walter, C. S. 1977. Effects of rater training and diary-keeping on psychometric error in ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1): 64-69.
  • Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. 1981. Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6(2): 205-212.
  • Ballantyne, I., & Povah, N. 2004. Assessment and Development Centers. Gower Publishing.
  • 二、 英文部分
  • 苏冠华,2001,以「评鉴中心法」选取管理人才,就业与训练,19(6):83-86。
  • 温金丰、谢孟蓉,2012,建立以能力为基础的管理人才培育制度─评鉴中心的应用,游于艺电子报,第133期(八月号),行政院人事行政总处公务人力发展中心发行。
  • 黄佳纯、谢慧贤,2007,评鉴中心未来的发展趋势及其在高等教育上之应用,T&D飞讯,62:1-13。
  • 黄一峰、郑怡君,2005,评鉴中心应用于国家考试之探讨:以美国外交人员口试为例,国家菁英,1(1):79-98。
  • 张裕隆,1996,领导才能之评量,国魂,612:72-74。
  • 林灿萤,2005,管理职能评鉴暨发展中心,T&D飞讯,37:1-18。
  • 李嵩贤,2003,评鉴中心法的基本概念及其在公务人力发展的应用,T&D飞讯,14:1-7。
  • 李俊明、张裕隆,2001,同侪提名法在团体活动中评鉴初中阶主管之应用,应用心理研究,10:97-133。
  • 吴复新,1997,评鉴中新法之评鉴工具的选择与模拟演习的设计,空大行政学报,7:1-39。
  • 吴复新,1993,管理人才的评鉴与考选(下),人事月刊,99:4-13。
  • 吴复新,1993,管理人才的评鉴与考选(中),人事月刊,98:28-35。
  • 吴复新,1993,管理人才的评鉴与考选(上),人事月刊,97:77-92。
  • 一、 中文部分
  • 来源:中山大学;作者:李宜桦
    文懂论文-重复率修改第一品牌,http://www.szwox.com解决论文查重论文降重复,重复率高等各种论文难题的专家

    最新文章

    • 什么是学术不端行为
      什么是学术不端行为
      什么是学术不端行为 1992 年,由美国国家科学院、国家工程院和国家医学研究院组成的 22 位...
    • 论文降重复服务 1. 本网站及服务 szwox.com提供哪些服务? szwox.com是一个...

    联络我们

    QQ: 767326772
    文懂论文
    网站:http://www.szwox.com/
    E-mail: turuinit@foxmail.com

    我们的服务

    我们提供毕业论文、期刊论文、硕士论文、博士论文、会议论文格式排版,论文查重,重复率修改等服务。强大论文查重系统,一手老师资源,首创安全保密查重修改流程。充分保障客户论文查重安全以及修改后的品质,赢得了老师和同学们的信任和口碑。