Performance Appraisal

Darby Quave, Elisa Martinez, Kristin Gross

Evaluations are given to professors in order to measure performance and promote growth.

Evaluations give insight to faculty member performance as well as the overall functioning of the

Psychology Department. Furthermore, evaluations are also used to determine if a faculty member

is eligible for a raise or promotion. Evaluations scores are obtained through a graphic rating scale

and critical incident measure. Faculty members are eligible for a 10% maximum pay increase if

their scores fall within the top 15% of the department. This potential pay increase is determined

by the department head and assistant department heads.

A 360-degree performance appraisal is in place for Psychology professors. This consists

of evaluations from students, other faculty members, and a self-report. Students evaluate

professors during one of their class times. Two Psychology professors will separately evaluate

that same professor during a class as well. And lastly, the professor being evaluated will perform

a self-evaluation. All of this feedback will be given to his/her supervisor where he/she will have

a meeting to discuss evaluations from the students, faculty, and the self-report. We chose this

method because it gets a wide array of information from different levels. Furthermore, there is a

balance in the type of feedback received (Culbertson & Muchinsky, 2016). Faculty members

strive to judge objectively in regards to an in-class evaluation, which makes up for subjective

feedback that we would receive from students.

Professors will be evaluated once a semester, in the middle of the semester. They will be

evaluated in the middle of the semester to control for the serial position effect. This makes sure

that information presented at the beginning or end of the evaluation period (semester) is not
better recalled than the information in the middle (Culbertson & Muchinsky, 2016). Since it is in

the middle of the semester, they also have the opportunity to perform better in areas they scored

low for the remainder of the semester. Likewise, being evaluated twice a year will provide

professors with feedback to incorporate into their next semester.

Faculty members will be given two other faculty members to assess in an in-classroom

evaluation. Additionally, faculty members will be given two other faculty members to write

critical incidents for throughout the appraisal period. Faculty members will do their in-

classroom evaluations for their two professors a week apart in order to control for the contrast

error; this will control for unfairly assessing a ratee in comparison with another (Culbertson &

Muchinsky, 2016). Student evaluations and self-report on the same graphic rating scale will also

be taken into consideration for their overall performance appraisal.

Because there are two scales for evaluation, the performance information will be

collected formally throughout the appraisal period as well as a specific period. The critical

incident reports will be recorded throughout the period by faculty members who are assigned to

them. However, the critical rating scales from co-faculty members, students, and the self report

will be collected formally once during the middle of the semester.

The KSAOs we deemed important for psychology faculty members in our job selection

will be used to evaluate and confirm that faculty members are successful. These include being

enthusiasm and passion for psychology, student-oriented, having good time management, being

approachable, professional, having good communication skills, having the ability to use

technology, and being knowledgeable in the field of psychology.

We will use a graphic rating scale as our main evaluation for in-class evaluation. It will

be a 5-point rating scale with 1 being the least satisfactory and 5 being the most satisfactory. The
KSAOs will be the different dimensions in which faculty members are being evaluated.

Successful faculty members would be expected to perform at a 4 or better on each KSAO. A

score of 2 or lower in any area is unacceptable. We are using a graphic rating scale as an

objective measure to evaluate and compare performance. However, we acknowledge that graphic

rating scales are susceptible to rating errors, so we have included a critical incident scale. The

critical incident scale will be a more subjective measure of performance, that can be used to

evaluate the faculty member in areas outside of the classroom like research and service. Critical

incident scales are more personalized and focus more on behaviors than traits (Culbertson &

Muchinsky, 2016).

One of the most effective ways to deal with errors and bias is to develop guidelines for

evaluation. Therefore, evaluators (only faculty members) will go through frame-of reference

training in order to improve their performance and accuracy ratings. Evaluators are given criteria

to compare against facultys performance. During training, evaluators will experience fictitious

examples that they will be potentially exposed to. By having these examples, evaluators are able

to come to a common ground on what they constitute as effective appraisal. This will help

prevent leniency error because raters will use the established guidelines instead of their personal

guidelines. This also helps raters pay more attention because it teaches them what to look for

during the evaluation (Culbertson & Muchinsky, 2016).

In-Class Teaching Evaluation

For our in-class evaluation, we are using a graphic rating scale. Each KSAO being

evaluated has behavior scales that help create a score for each KSAO. An average scale of 4 on
 each KSAO is deemed acceptable and successful. The average score comes from the

combination of scores from the different subscales as well as from different evaluators. If faculty

members are receiving scores lower than this average, there may be issues that need to be

addressed and faculty members will most likely not be eligible for a raise. After two semesters

evaluations, if a professor has fallen consistently in the bottom 10%, they will be given a

warning and the next time they will be asked to resign. Below are our KSAOs as well as how we

will measure each one.

We addressed content-related recommendations by basing the evaluation off of a job

analysis we had created. We focused on objective behaviors instead of subjective information

and tried to avoid evaluating traits. We only focused on behaviors that were in control of the

ratee to make the process fair. Lastly, we addressed specific criteria instead of global ones.

Enthusiasm and passion for psychology:

Being excited and and intrigued by psychology. Enjoy learning and teaching on the

subject and appreciate its importance.

1 2 3 4 5

No Enthusiasm/Passion Little Moderate Satisfactory Exceeds

Enthusiasm/Passion Enthusiasm/Passion Enthusiasm/Passion Enthusiasm/Passion

 Student oriented:

Placing the needs of students first and fostering intellectual growth and academic

achievement whenever possible.

1 2 3 4 5

Never encourages students Rarely Sometime Often Always encourages students

opinions encourages encourages encourages opinions

students students students

opinions opinions opinions

1 2 3 4 5

Never lectures as an Rarely lectures Sometime Often lectures as Always lectures as an

appropriate speed as an appropriate lectures as an an appropriate appropriate speed

speed appropriate speed

speed
 Approachable:

People feel comfortable coming to you with any question or issue.

1 2 3 4 5

Students do not ask Students sometimes Neutral amount of Students often ask Students always ask

questions ask questions asked questions questions questions

Professional:

Acting in a manner that is appropriate for an academic work setting.

1 2 3 4 5

Never uses formal Rarely uses formal Sometimes uses Often uses formal Always uses formal

language language formal language language language

1 2 3 4 5

Never dresses neat or Rarely dresses neat or Sometimes dresses Often dresses neat or Always dresses neat or

appropriately appropriately neat or appropriately appropriately

 appropriately

Good communication skills:

The ability to convey information effectively and efficiently.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither disagree or Agree Strongly agree

agree

1 2 3 4 5

Never gives students Rarely gives students Sometimes gives Often gives students Always gives students

feedback feedback students feedback feedback feedback

The ability to use technology:

The ability to use computers and related technology efficiently.

1 2 3 4 5

Never uses technology Rarely uses technology Sometimes uses Often uses technology Always uses
 technology technology

Time management:

The ability to use time effectively.

1 2 3 4 5

Never finishes lectures Rarely finishes lectures Sometimes finishes Often finishes Always finishes

on time on time lectures on time lectures on time lectures on time

1 2 3 4 5

Never arrives on time Rarely arrives on time Sometimes arrives Often arrives on time Always arrives on time

on time

Knowledgeable in the field of psychology:

Having expertise in psychology from formal schooling. Obtaining the most relevant and

current information in the field.

 .

1 2 3 4 5

Never demonstrates Rarely demonstrates Sometimes Often demonstrates Always demonstrates

psychology concepts psychology concepts demonstrates psychology concepts psychology concepts

psychology

concepts

1 2 3 4 5

Never uses most Rarely uses most Sometimes uses Often uses most Always uses most

relevant and current relevant and current most relevant and relevant and current relevant and current

information information current information information information

Overall, what overall grade would you give this professor?

1 2 3 4 5

F D C B A
References
Culbertson, S. S., & Muchinsky, P. M. (2016) Psychology Applied to Work. Summerfield, NC:

Hypergraphic Press.