Descriptor
Source
Educational and Psychological… | 4 |
Publication Type
Journal Articles | 4 |
Reports - Research | 4 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
Conners Rating Scales | 1 |
What Works Clearinghouse Rating

Charters, W. W., Jr.; Pitner, Nancy J. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1986
This paper reports on the application of Yukl's Management Behavior Survey in 47 elementary schools. Three problems with the instrument are discussed: (1) lack of response; (2) interrater disagreement; and (3) ceiling effects. The dimensionality of the measure is evaluated through factor analysis. (Author/LMO)
Descriptors: Administrators, Behavior Rating Scales, Elementary Education, Factor Analysis

Cooke, Robert A.; And Others – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1987
Lafferty's Life Styles Inventory was completed by 556 managers (Level I, Self-Description) and by 2,922 peers, subordinates, and supervisors (Level II, Description by Others). Factor analysis revealed the same three factors in both ratings. Coworkers generally agreed with each others' ratings, but correlations between self and coworker ratings…
Descriptors: Administrator Evaluation, Adults, Behavior Rating Scales, Cognitive Style

Brown, Ronald T. – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1985
Elementary school children with attention deficit disorder were classified according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) as hyperactive or not. Teachers' ratings indicated hyperactive children were more problematic. Teachers were able to distinguish between the groups, using the Abbreviated Conners' Rating Scale…
Descriptors: Attention Deficit Disorders, Behavior Rating Scales, Educational Diagnosis, Elementary Education

Kinicki, Angelo J.; And Others – Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1985
Using both the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) and the Purdue University Scales, 727 undergraduates rated 32 instructors. The BARS had less halo effect, more leniency error, and lower interrater reliability. Both formats were valid. The two tests did not differ in rate discrimination or susceptibility to rating bias. (Author/GDC)
Descriptors: Behavior Rating Scales, College Faculty, Comparative Testing, Higher Education