China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
How Employee Evaluations Are Destructive
Published in Kelly Graves, The Management and Employee Development Review, 2017
“Our management used some different rating systems to try to make evaluations more objective. One of them was the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS), which provides an example for each rating. The models are used as a benchmark for managers to decide how to rate their employees, but the scoring was still left to the managers’ discretion. Different interpretations of the rating scale and an employee’s level of performance made the whole process extremely subjective. Using a rating system creates an illusion of objectivity, but employee motivation decreases when their contributions become quantified in an arbitrary way.”
Questionnaire construction
Published in Shamil G. Naoum, Dissertation Research and Writing for Built Environment Students, 2019
The rating scale is one of the most common formats for questioning respondents on their views or opinions of an object, event or attribute. Like the grid, rating scales can be regarded as an elaboration of the checklist format, except the respondent has the choice to express his/her degree of agreement or disagreement on a particular scale. The response categories of such questions are called quantifiers: they reflect the intensity of the particular judgement involved. The following are some common sets of response categories:
Motion sickness in passenger vehicles during test track operations
Published in Ergonomics, 2019
Monica L. H. Jones, Victor C. Le, Sheila M. Ebert, Kathleen H. Sienko, Matthew P. Reed, James R. Sayer
Several rating scales and questionnaires have been used to quantify motion sickness response. Scales typically differ in terms of the total range, and the symptom specificity assigned to each value. Such ordinal rating scales require that participants benchmark themselves against a scale with fixed, explicit levels. Many of these scales focus on nausea-related symptoms. For example, the Fast Motion Sickness Scale (FMS), is a verbal rating that extends the range of the scale from 0 (no sickness at all) to 20 (frank sickness) (Keshavarz and Hecht 2011). Alternatively, the 11-point Misery Scale (MISC) does include additional symptoms beyond nausea; however, it does not differentiate between these additional symptoms (e.g. dizziness, warmth, headache and sweating) (Bos et al. 2010). Our pilot testing demonstrated that (1) participants experience a wide range of motion-sickness sensations that are not well captured by words related solely to nausea and (2) participants differ widely in their interpretations of words used to anchor multiple levels of a nausea scale, such that such labels do not improve either the administration nor interpretation of the scale. In this study, participants rated their motion sickness on a 0–10 integer psychophysical scale, where a rating of ‘0’ corresponded to ‘No motion sickness’ and ‘10’ corresponded to ‘Need to stop the trial’, at 1-min intervals during the test route. The rating scale provided overall integrative perception rather than assigning specific words or semantic definition to each numeric integer (e.g. rating ‘2’ through ‘9’).