Re: InterGroup Agreement?

Posted by Rich Ulrich on May 05, 2015; 4:40pm
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/InterGroup-Agreement-tp5729488p5729493.html

It seems to me that potentially there is a conflict -- and therefore a choice to be
made -- between "agreement" and "good character".    Or, would you want to
conclude that someone is "best" when he  is well-agreed-up (including, by his
own ratings) to be a lying, crazy incompetent? 

I gave consultation once to a psychologist who advised some companies about
new hires.  For the basic level jobs, one of the most damning test profiles was
someone who considered himself always better than his peers.  Of course, that
is what you really want to see from the ratings of others, not "self". 

"The rating scale for each item is ordinal".  Is that a perfunctory description of
verbal anchors that are intended as equal-interval, and should be analyzed as such?
Or is it a warning about really lousy scale development done before now?

 - Looks to me like you should be looking for "good" characteristics, as rated
by others.  But I know nothing about "transformational leadership."

--
Rich Ulrich

> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 23:05:43 -0700

> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: InterGroup Agreement?
> To: [hidden email]
>
> I am trying to determine which agreement measures to use with a data set that
> I've been given.
>
> Forty managers completed this leadership assessment tool (self rating).
> Next, six scores are derived - five sub-scores and an overall leadership
> score (average of the five subscores). The rating scale for each item is
> ordinal.
>
> Each manager asks two types of raters to assess their level of leadership
> using the same leadership assessment tool. The same scores are computed for
> both observer types.
>
> The first group is the manager's supervisor, in which n=1 (always). The
> second group are the manager's subordinates, and the number can vary,
> anywhere from n=5 to an n=20.
>
> Therefore, there are three types of ratings for each manager: self,
> supervisor (n=1), subordinate (number varies). This is a 360 degree
> assessment approach to determining the degree to which the manager exhibits
> aspects of transformational leadership.
>
> Basically, of the 40 managers--each with the three types of ratings, the
> person that I am working with wants to select three managers for which there
> is the highest level of agreement across the self (so one rating),
> supervisor (n=1), and the subordinates (number of raters varies per
> manager).
>
> I've looked through the archives....what is the best way / index for
> identifying those with the highest levels of transformational leadership?
>
> I've looked at a variety of indices, but it seems my issue is that I have
> only the one self rating and the one supervisor rating and the number of
> subordinate raters varies.
>
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Christina
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/InterGroup-Agreement-tp5729488.html
> Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> =====================
> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
> [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
> command. To leave the list, send the command
> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
> INFO REFCARD

===================== To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to [hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD