@article {36,
	title = {An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales},
	journal = {Journal of Applied Psychology},
	volume = {86},
	number = {5},
	year = {2001},
	note = {214803450021-9010Journal ArticleValidation Studies},
	pages = {965-973},
	abstract = {This laboratory research compared the reliability, validity, and accuracy of a computerized adaptive rating scale (CARS) format and 2 relatively common and representative rating formats. The CARS is a paired-comparison rating task that uses adaptive testing principles to present pairs of scaled behavioral statements to the rater to iteratively estimate a ratee{\textquoteright}s effectiveness on 3 dimensions of contextual performance. Videotaped vignettes of 6 office workers were prepared, depicting prescripted levels of contextual performance, and 112 subjects rated these vignettes using the CARS format and one or the other competing format. Results showed 23\%-37\% lower standard errors of measurement for the CARS format. In addition, validity was significantly higher for the CARS format (d = .18), and Cronbach{\textquoteright}s accuracy coefficients showed significantly higher accuracy, with a median effect size of .08. The discussion focuses on possible reasons for the results.},
	keywords = {*Computer Simulation, *Employee Performance Appraisal, *Personnel Selection, Adult, Automatic Data Processing, Female, Human, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Support, U.S. Gov{\textquoteright}t, Non-P.H.S., Task Performance and Analysis, Video Recording},
	author = {Borman, W. C. and Buck, D. E. and Hanson, M. A. and Motowidlo, S. J. and Stark, S. and F Drasgow}
}
