@article {349,
	title = {Computerized adaptive rating scales for measuring managerial performance},
	journal = {International Journal of Selection and Assessment},
	volume = {11},
	number = {2-3},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {237-246},
	abstract = {Computerized adaptive rating scales (CARS) had been developed to measure contextual or citizenship performance. This rating format used a paired-comparison protocol, presenting pairs of behavioral statements scaled according to effectiveness levels, and an iterative item response theory algorithm to obtain estimates of ratees{\textquoteright} citizenship performance (W. C. Borman et al, 2001). In the present research, we developed CARS to measure the entire managerial performance domain, including task and citizenship performance, thus addressing a major limitation of the earlier CARS. The paper describes this development effort, including an adjustment to the algorithm that reduces substantially the number of item pairs required to obtain almost as much precision in the performance estimates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )},
	keywords = {Adaptive Testing, Algorithms, Associations, Citizenship, Computer Assisted Testing, Construction, Contextual, Item Response Theory, Job Performance, Management, Management Personnel, Rating Scales, Test},
	author = {Schneider, R. J. and Goff, M. and Anderson, S. and Borman, W. C.}
}
@article {41,
	title = {An examination of the reliability and validity of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales},
	journal = {Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering},
	volume = {61},
	number = {1-B},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {570},
	abstract = {This study compared the psychometric properties of performance ratings made using recently-developed computerized adaptive rating scales (CARS) to the psyc hometric properties of ratings made using more traditional paper-and-pencil rati ng formats, i.e., behaviorally-anchored and graphic rating scales. Specifically, the reliability, validity and accuracy of the performance ratings from each for mat were examined. One hundred twelve participants viewed six 5-minute videotape s of office situations and rated the performance of a target person in each vide otape on three contextual performance dimensions-Personal Support, Organizationa l Support, and Conscientious Initiative-using CARS and either behaviorally-ancho red or graphic rating scales. Performance rating properties were measured using Shrout and Fleiss{\textquoteright}s intraclass correlation (2, 1), Borman{\textquoteright}s differential accurac y measure, and Cronbach{\textquoteright}s accuracy components as indexes of rating reliability, validity, and accuracy, respectively. Results found that performance ratings mad e using the CARS were significantly more reliable and valid than performance rat ings made using either of the other formats. Additionally, CARS yielded more acc urate performance ratings than the paper-and-pencil formats. The nature of the C ARS system (i.e., its adaptive nature and scaling methodology) and its paired co mparison judgment task are offered as possible reasons for the differences found in the psychometric properties of the performance ratings made using the variou s rating formats. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA )},
	keywords = {Adaptive Testing, Computer Assisted Testing, Performance Tests, Rating Scales, Reliability, Test, Test Validity},
	author = {Buck, D. E.}
}
