RATING SCALES N
their judgments on any one ability by a general g¢. «© ..i- ©.
tude they may have formed toward the person wk = they —~ :
are rating (189). This tendency is lessened Ae SS
consider all the persons to be rated with regard t raefipst | os
ability, then the second ability, and so on. Eig
Another influence to be guarded against is closeness of
friendship with the person rated. Shen showed that judges
rate their friends higher than others (169).
According to Knight, supervisors tend to rate old employees
 high as compared with new employees (96). He
gives three reasons for this: (1) The supervisor will not admit
 that being under his direction has brought no improvement
 in the employee. (2) The supervisor unconsciously
identifies himself with older employees who are perhaps more
like him than new employees. (3) The supervisor has become
 used to the older employees and overlooks their weaknesses.

Watson (211) lists also the following characteristics of
ratings: Poor employees are better observed and more reliably
 rated than are good ones; “general-all-round value” is
often more reliably rated than is a more specific trait; people
who are good judges of themselves tend to be good judges
of other people; and ratings of which the judge is very sure
have very much higher reliability than do his ordinary judgments.

The scale should be placed in the hands of the raters and
should be discussed with them several weeks before the ratings
 are called for, to allow them time to observe the subjects
 with reference to the abilities to be rated. Needless
to say, the behavior of the subjects will be more typical and
characteristic if they do not know during this time that they
are being rated.
The following are the most important points which should
be brought to the attention of the rater, regardless of the
type of scale in use:
1. If you have any question about the operation of the