peer evaluations during SFAS

[18C/GS 0602]

I found this while doing some research for school. Here is the abstract of the article. I have the entire thing if anyone wants it.

Author
Zazanis, Michelle M; Zaccaro, Stephen J; Kilcullen, Robert N.

Title
Identifying motivation and interpersonal performance using peer evaluations.

Source
Military Psychology. Vol 13(2) Apr 2001, 73-88.
Lawrence Erlbaum, US

Abstract
Peer evaluations have historically shown high predictive validity, but the reason for this strength has not been clear. This research used an assessment center and subsequent training program to investigate the hypothesis that interpersonal performance and motivation are 2 key dimensions of performance that may account for the historical strength of peer assessments. Ss were 329 male Army soldiers (average age 26 yrs), who started training for the Special Forces between March and October 1995. Consistent with previous research, results showed that peer rankings from the assessment center predicted final training outcomes better than did staff ratings. Congruent with the authors' hypothesis, results from the training program demonstrated that, when rating a student's expected future on-the-job performance, peers placed significantly more importance on interpersonal performance and motivation than did staff, and they placed significantly less importance on task performance. Additional longitudinal research is needed to explicitly link peer evaluations of interpersonal skills and performance motivation with future job performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2002 APA, all rights reserved)

[CSB]

peers placed significantly more importance on interpersonal performance and motivation than did staff, and they placed significantly less importance on task performance. Additional longitudinal research is needed to explicitly link peer evaluations of interpersonal skills and performance motivation with future job performance.

Are the researchers going to do the second part of the study to see if those with higher peer reports performed better as SF soldiers than those with lower peer reports? "Lower" being relative, since I assume those with the very lowest peer reports were probably non-selected for SF altogether. (Sobering thought, that peer reports would still be available somewhere years after the class ended). We were told (at NCO, OCS, SF, and Ranger) that peer reports couldn't guarantee graduation, but they could guarantee failure.

And if peer reports are better predictors of graduation (and perhaps subsequent performance) than staff evaluations, should peer reports become the dominant SFAS selection tool? (But I can't see The Reaper ever being replaced by an AG statistician to tally the votes).

Can you PM me a copy of the study, or a link to it?

[The Reaper]

The study was written by Army Research Institute staff, at our request.

Not going to delve into peers to closely here for obvious reasons pertaining to attendees and their need to know (or lack thereof), other than to say that I agreed with the research report and CB hit the nail on the head. Good reports won't guarantee success, but bad ones can (in conjunction with other deficiencies) cause you to be scrutinized a lot more closely, especially as an officer.

'Nuff said.

TR

[Big_King]

Yo bdonham, check your PM box.

[ShadowRunner]

I would really appreciate a link to the whole thing or a PM of the article.


-SR

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by ShadowRunner
I would really appreciate a link to the whole thing or a PM of the article.

-SR

I recommend that you do not.

Next non-Tab wearer that gets into a peer report discussion here gets to look at this board from the outside, and maybe miss out on your SFAS/SFQC experience for an integrity violation.

bdonham, if I find out that you are promulgating distro of this article, I will burn you, badly.

SR and BK, I am watching you now too.

TR

[Big_King]

I realize my word may be worth nothing here since I've done nothing to earn anynones respect, but I'm being honest when I say my interest in the subject was strictly for research for a psych paper. I didn't realize the subject was so sensitive, so nuff said. I'll look elsewhere.

[ShadowRunner]

TR-

I apologize. I actually don't have much interest in the subject. Out.

-SR

[18C/GS 0602]

TR-

I have not forwarded the article or given a link to it to anyone. I didn't realize this was off limits and I will not distribute it to anyone.

[CSB]

I didn't think that the report would/should go into details of the peer reporting process such that it could be used to G2 the SFAS process. That said, I don't have the need to know. I trust Reaper's call 100%.