EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGY 
process. It supplements the tests and other measures of 
ability. This is a common procedure in the selection of 
candidates for training as salesmen. 
If the subjects are old employees, ratings are usually 
obtained from foremen and supervisors. In the employment 
office, however, ratings must be made by the interviewer or 
examiner, by the applicant’s references, or even by the ap- 
plicant himself. Even though a series of ratings by foremen 
may prove to be valid, the investigator is left in doubt as to 
the validity of ratings on these same abilities when made by 
the interviewer on the basis of a brief talk with the appli- 
cant. It is essential, therefore, to validate ratings by inter- 
viewer and applicant, as well as by supervisors or fellow 
workmen. 
The experimental rating scale may cover a good many 
items. A scale installed for permanent use in the employ- 
ment office should be kept within practical length. It should 
include only the reliable and valid items. 
Ratings should not be included on abilities or characteris- 
tics which can be objectively measured by tests or personnel 
records. Do not ask a foreman to rate his men on atten- 
dance or tardiness when the facts are matters of record. 
The rating scale which the investigator develops is seen 
to serve as a substitute gage of abilities for which no ade- 
quate objective tests are available. Besides its uses in em- 
ployment, it will help in deciding questions of transfer and 
promotion, in discovering need for special training, in mea- 
suring progress in this training, and in passing upon recom- 
mendations at periods of salary readjustment. 
This measuring implement, the rating scale, is generally 
recognized to be at best a crude tool. Its reliability is low. 
Its scope is limited. Nevertheless, it is distinctly better 
than no instrument at all, and this in itself is a justification 
for the wide use it has found in industry. 
Tt now remains to consider the third form of examination 
—the questionnaire. 
I42