%0 Journal Article %J Journal of Applied Psychology %D 2001 %T An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive rating scales %A Borman, W. C. %A Buck, D. E. %A Hanson, M. A. %A Motowidlo, S. J. %A Stark, S. %A F Drasgow %K *Computer Simulation %K *Employee Performance Appraisal %K *Personnel Selection %K Adult %K Automatic Data Processing %K Female %K Human %K Male %K Reproducibility of Results %K Sensitivity and Specificity %K Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. %K Task Performance and Analysis %K Video Recording %X 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'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's accuracy coefficients showed significantly higher accuracy, with a median effect size of .08. The discussion focuses on possible reasons for the results. %B Journal of Applied Psychology %V 86 %P 965-973 %G eng %M 11596812