RATING SCALES By M. MUTHU SASI REKHA

SYNOPSIS  Introduction  Definitions  Rating  Principles of defining rating scale  Types of rating scales  Personality Profile  Sources of errors in rating scales  Merits of rating scales  Defects of rating scales  Improving the rating scales  Conclusion

INTRODUCTION  Rating scale is an important technique of evaluation. Rating is the assessments of a person by another person. This is one of the oldest methods of personality assessment.There are certain general approaches to assess personality like holistic or overall approach, projective test approach and trait approach. In this rating scales and inventories come under the trait approach.

DEFINITIONS  Barr & others define rating as: “Rating is a term applied to expression of opinion or judgement regarding some situation, object or character. Opinions are usually expressed on a scale of values. Rating techniques are devices by which such judgements may be quantified”.  A rating scale is a device by which the opinion concerning a trait can be systematized.

RATING  Three point scale Above average / Average / Below average  Five point scale Excellent / Very good / Good / Average / Poor  Seven point scale

PRINCIPLES OF DEFINING A RATING SCALE  The characteristics should be clearly defined  The characteristics should be readily observable  Degrees of the characteristics must be defined

TYPES OF RATING SCALES  Numerical Rating scale  Descriptive Rating Scale  Graphical Rating Scale  Score cards  The rank Order Scale  Method of Paired comparisons  Man-To-Man Scale

Numerical Rating scale In which numbers are assigned to each trait. If it is a seven point scale, the number 7 represents the maximum amount of that trait in the individual, and 4 represents the average. The rater merely enters the appropriate number after each name to indicate judgement of the person. A B C D E F G

Descriptive Rating Scale In which descriptive phrases or terms assigned to each trait. The rater enters the appropriate phrase after each name to indicate judgement of the person. A B C D E Excellent Good Average Below average poor

Graphical Rating Scale A straight line, may be represented by descriptive phrases at various points. To rate the subject for a particular trait a check mark is made at the particular point. Low Moral Good Moral High Moral

Score cards  It is a type of scale in which whatever is being rated is analysed into its component parts. An expert assigns each part of a maximum score. The rater assign a value to each item as he passes judgement, and these values are totaled a final score is pronounced.

The Rank Order Scale  In this type the judge is simply required to place the people being rated in a rank order from high to low on the attitude or opinion in question. A given individual’s scale position is given in relation to other people in the sample. The units of the scale are unequal.

Method of Paired comparisons  In which the rater compares each person being rated with respect to the trait of every other individual, being rated in the general terms of equal better or worse.

Man-To-Man Scale  In this case, an individual is asked to rate the person to be rated (the rate) by comparing him to a person already rated and assigned a position on the scales. The rate is assigned his position.

PERSONALITY PROFILE / PSYCHOGRAPH  When rating have been obtained on several traits of the same individual they may be combined in a diagram known as the Personality profile.  A number of rating scales of the same individual in a variety of traits may be combined in the form of a psychograph or personality profile.

Intelligence Honesty Persistance Cooperation Dominance Sociability Anxiety Average PERSONALITY PROFILE (OF BANK CASHIER)

SOURCES OF ERRORS IN RATING SCALES There are several common sources of error in rating scales. All these sources affect the validity of a rating. Errors may be due to : 1. Ambiguity 2. The personality of the rater - - Halo effect - Generosity error - Severity error - Central tendecy 3. Logical error 4. Attitude of the rater. 5. Oppurtunity for adequate abservation.

SOURCES OF ERRORS IN RATING SCALES – continued… 1.Ambiguity: This refers to the wording and meaning of the traits that are measured, e.g., To one rater, aggressiveness may be a positive trait suggesting self – assertion. To another it may connote hostility. The term such as honest, effective and fruitful learning, intelligent citizen, personality, ideal character etc. must be clarified. Unless all pupils are rated on the same attributes, the rating will be invalid and unreliable.

SOURCES OF ERRORS IN RATING SCALES – continued… 2. Personality of the Raters: The Halo effect Generosity error Severity error Central tendency error

SOURCES OF ERRORS IN RATING SCALES – continued… 3. Logical error: A logical error is closely related to the halo effect, but is not due to personal bias. It occurs when two traits, such as intelligence and socio- economic status are closely related and the rater is influenced in his rating of one by the presence or absence of the other intelligent persons posses a high socio-economic status.

SOURCES OF ERRORS IN RATING SCALES – continued… 4. Attitude of Raters: Accurate observation is a very time-consuming process. Unless the raters truly believe that there is some value to be derived from ratings, they may consider them only as another administrative process and not to do a conscientious job.

SOURCES OF ERRORS IN RATING SCALES – continued… 5. Opportunity for Adequate Observation: This is the most serious error. The error is committed when the rater does not know well enough the pupil he is rating. The only reasonable thing to do is to refuse to rate the pupil on those traits about which you have little or no knowledge.

MERITS OF RATING SCALES Less subjective than casual observation, An analytical judgement. Helps comparison of individuals. Stimulates person being rated.

DEFECTS OF THE RATING SCALES Error of Lenience or severity Error or central tendency Halo effect

IMPROVING THE RATING SCALE i) Identify educationally significant traits. ii) Clearly define the traits to be rated and the scale points to be used. iii) Avoid technical jargon. If slang will help convey the intent, use it by all means. iv) Express the traits to be rated as question rather then as declarative statements. v) If the line showing the continuum is used, it should follow immediately after the questions, vi) Determine how discrimination you want the ratings and divide the continuum accordingly. (Three to seven intervals).

CONCLUSION In order to minimize the problem semantics and to make Rating Scales more useful, it is necessary to observe certain established principles. Firstly, the trait must be clearly defined. Secondly, the degrees of the trait must be clearly defined. Thirdly, the rater may be asked to quote instances in support of his judgement. Fourthly, the rater should be instructed not to record anything on the scale. Fifthly, the rater should be instructed to avoid Halo-Effect and finally, it is better to obtain ratings of a particular person rather than from more than one judge.