UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 6.3 Free with a free account
Review Methods: Rating Scales, BARS, Critical Incidents, Narratives
Human Resources Management · Chapter 6: Reviewing Employee Performance: Methods, Tools, and FeedbackSection 6.3 · lesson 38 of 9115 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Forced Choice, Forced Distribution, and 360-Degree Feedback →← Criteria and Approaches: Traits, Behaviors, and ResultsNext lesson: Forced Choice, Forced Distribution, and 360-Degree Feedback →
In this lesson
Build shared meanings and a record of the whole review period.
- Compare graphic scales, BARS, incident records, and narratives
- Explain the 5 construction stages of BARS
- Distinguish anchor matching from behavior-frequency observation
- Combine instruments according to purpose, evidence, and cost
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,903 words). Read along, or search it.
Chapter 6
Appraisal Review Methods
An appraisal instrument records a performance judgment against chosen criteria. It supplies the format the rater uses. It may be a scale, incident record, or narrative document. The format shapes interpretation, evidence requirements, comparability, and administrative time. Graphic scales are compact and familiar to managers. Undefined points can give the numbers very different meanings. Behaviorally anchored rating scales, or BARS, define points using specific actions at different performance levels. Their construction requires independent groups, not simply attaching a manager's favorite adjectives to each number. Critical incident records preserve dated events throughout the period, reducing dependence on what is remembered most recently. Narratives add context and unusual contributions, provided they use specific evidence rather than a succession of adjectives. Combining instruments can support decisions, documentation, and communication together. The combination works only when standards and recording practices are sustained throughout the actual review period. Elena's fictional dispatch reviews illustrate the cost of relying on memory when the year's rating influences pay.
Graphic Rating Scales
A Common Number Does Not Guarantee a Common Meaning
A graphic rating scale lists dimensions, with fixed points such as one to five for each dimension. It fits a compact form and produces numbers usable in a merit matrix. That convenience helps explain its widespread use as an appraisal format. Good or outstanding may mean different things to different managers. The points need defined performance descriptions. Vague traits add inference problems, while missing evidence requirements permit judgments from general impressions. A polished form can therefore conceal a weak rating process. Define points using relevant work descriptions, rather than merely substitute another favorable adjective for the original label. Reduce redundant dimensions inviting repeated scores from one global impression, instead of independent evidence. Replace vague traits with criteria grounded in the job analysis. Request examples for extreme ratings, and teach shared meanings rather than only warn about errors. The format stays compact, while its standards and evidence requirements become clearer to users.
Worked Graphic Scale
Replace Quality of Work With Accuracy of Order Documentation
Quality of work rated one to five asks for a global judgment. Its points have no shared definition. Accuracy of order documentation narrows the dimension to relevant work. In the source's worked example, a three means complete and accurate documentation, with occasional errors corrected before release. A five means no documentation errors reach the next stage, and discrepancies are identified and resolved at source. These describe different performance levels, rather than different impressions of the employee overall. Raters now match observed work to a stated reference point. The example needs full-period evidence, particularly before claiming no errors reached the next stage. A single successful incident cannot alone establish the full-period description. Clearer wording can improve shared meaning without greatly enlarging the form. It does not guarantee perfect agreement, because observation, interpretation, and application still require attention. BARS applies anchoring systematically, using several groups to test the proposed references independently.
BARS Construction
Build Anchors Through Independent Judgments
BARS construction begins with critical incident generation by experienced jobholders and supervisors, describing notably effective and ineffective performance. Each incident identifies the situation, action, and consequence in concrete terms. A separate group then sorts incidents into performance dimensions. Incidents with disputed placement are discarded, because ambiguous dimensions weaken the shared meaning needed for reliable use. Another group independently scales how effective each retained behavior is, typically using a seven-point scale in that construction exercise. Anchor selection keeps incidents with strong agreement about their effectiveness level. Disputed effectiveness judgments are dropped rather than presented as settled reference points. The finished scale then needs testing with raters who did not participate in building it, using real performance evidence. This checks whether anchors support the intended matching task. It costs experienced people's time, for sorting, scaling, selection, and testing beyond drafting. The product is a job-specific scale with shared descriptions. Revisit those descriptions when changes in work make them stale.
Illustrative Dispatch Anchors
Handling Delivery Disruption: Match Action to Level
The illustrative dispatch scale concerns handling delivery disruption, with five final levels. The construction exercise's seven points are a separate stage. At level one, the coordinator closes a route without recording undelivered items. The problem surfaces as a customer complaint two days later. At level two, the delay is recorded but customers are not contacted, and open items lack a handover. At level three, the coordinator responds after a customer calls, giving an accurate revised time and recording it. Level four contacts affected customers that same morning, offers a revised window, and hands over open items at shift end. Level five anticipates a shortfall after a logged vehicle fault. It rebuilds routes, informs customers before missed windows, and records the change for the next shift to use. Anchors describe actions in situations, rather than inferred character or general attitude to work. They give raters a shared reference and employees clearer development content. Use job-specific examples with suitable evidence, rather than transfer the scale unchanged to another role.
Anchors, Observation, and Cost
Matching a Description Is Different From Rating Frequency
BARS asks which anchor best describes performance on a dimension. A behavioral observation scale asks how often specified behaviors occurred. Those frequency ratings are then combined. The distinction is matching a performance description versus reporting frequency. An observation scale requires enough observed work to report frequency honestly, including attention to opportunities for the behavior. Absent opportunities differ from choosing not to act, when the situation required that action. Anchored scales can provide shared meanings and useful developmental descriptions. Development takes time, and a dispatch scale does not automatically represent warehouse work. Invest where jobholder volume or consequential decisions justify that cost. Safety or regulatory risks can justify investment, reducing inconsistency through clearer instruments and standards. Maintain anchors as work changes, rather than assume the original references remain permanently relevant. Behaviorally defined graphic points offer useful benefits, with proportionate development and appropriate testing.
Critical Incident Method
Record Specific Events Throughout the Period
The critical incident method records specific performance events as they happen. It uses dated situations, actions, and consequences as the appraisal's evidence base, including effective and ineffective performance. The worked example records a depot system outage on March fourteenth. The employee rebuilt afternoon routes manually, and called six affected customers before their delivery windows during the outage. No complaints arrived, and one customer wrote a positive response. That is more usable than handled the outage well, without identifying the employee's actions. It can make sense to someone who was absent, even two years later, because the situation and actions are specific. The method requires continuing discipline, not merely an elaborate template. Include positive and negative events, avoiding files containing only failures or only favorable examples. Share relevant feedback promptly, while the employee can act on it. The log reduces dependence on recent memory of the work. Review its coverage and interpretation before drawing the annual conclusion.
Narrative Method
Use Prose for Context, With a Consistent Evidence Structure
A narrative gives an open account, without requiring a scale point. It captures context and unanticipated contributions, particularly in unusual or specialized roles. Begin with the deliverables expected from the role during the period. Explain what was delivered, then use two or three specific episodes illustrating the performance rather than listing personal adjectives. Describe conditions that helped or obstructed work, and identify what the coming period should concentrate on for improvement. That structure makes the prose useful for communication and development. Unstructured narratives are hard to compare, and may advantage employees whose managers write more persuasively than other managers do. Vague prose can look considered, while supplying little decision evidence or actionable development content. Consequential comparisons need shared criteria and evidence, even when the process also uses narratives. Prose can therefore contribute to administration, provided the overall design supports appropriate judgments. Retain its flexibility, while addressing writing variability and a consistent basis for assessment.
Combination and Sequence
Evidence First, Rating Next, Explanation Last
A practical combination begins by confirming standards with the employee. Criteria should be known at the start, rather than announced after preparing the rating. Record and share incidents throughout the period, including circumstances explaining what the employee did and did not control. Before the review, assess that evidence against shared performance descriptions. The rating should follow the record, rather than a general memory of how the employee usually seemed to perform. Write a short narrative explaining the conclusion and any contribution or context not adequately represented in the scale. Discuss the employee's response, and record agreed next actions with timing. The rating supports administrative decisions, incidents support documentation, and narrative explanation supports communication of contribution and expectations. Development benefits from prompt discussion, instead of lessons arriving late at the annual meeting. Each part requires proportionate time and sustained use across the period. A detailed annual form cannot reconstruct missing observations, or conversations never recorded or held.
Instrument Comparison
Match the Strength to the Purpose
Graphic scales offer a compact decision format, but undefined points weaken shared meaning and apparent comparability between ratings. BARS supplies job-specific behavioral references, at the cost of development time. Its usefulness still depends on relevant anchors, evidence, and testing. Incident records supply dated facts and prompt feedback, but maintaining them through the year requires discipline from the manager. A narrative captures context and unusual contribution, while unstructured comparison is weakened by writing variability and differences in evidence. No instrument is automatically best simply because it costs more. Purpose, job relevance, evidence, training, and implementation determine the format's actual value. For comparison decisions, use shared meanings and suitable evidence, rather than assume numbers alone create a common standard. For development, timely incidents and actionable discussion can matter more than the score an employee receives on a scale. Preserve dated evidence supporting the conclusion, rather than treat the rating as complete documentation. Combine elements proportionately, making the arrangement sustainable rather than thorough but impractical.
Composite Case
Elena’s Memory-Based Review Overweighted Recent Handovers
Elena supervises eight dispatch coordinators at fictional Northgate Logistics. Reviews are due in December's first week, and she completes all eight in one evening using memory and a five-point scale. Tomas handled a major March outage across two days, rebuilding routes and keeping every large customer informed throughout the disruption. In late October, he missed two handovers while the team was understaffed. Elena rates him three out of five, calling him inconsistent. She then notices that six of eight comments concern the previous two months, rather than the full review period. The accepted response logs two or three dated instances per coordinator each month, including both effective and ineffective performance. Each is shared within a week, allowing feedback while the event remains useful. The approximate cost is twenty minutes per employee each month. Record the staffing context too, so readers can assess individual control rather than attribute every difficulty solely to Tomas. The immediate benefit is earlier communication: missed handovers are addressed in October, instead of first being raised at December's review.
Reverse Problem and Record
Investigate a Moving Standard Before Comparing Scores
The reverse problem uses one five-point form across four departments. Managers' averages differ, and the highest-rating manager almost never gives a rating below four to employees in that department. Transfers can change ratings by a full point, with no corresponding change in the employee's actual work or performance. Undefined points and inconsistent standards suggest an inter-rater reliability problem. Investigate the evidence, rather than conclude that a department's high average by itself establishes erroneous ratings in every case. Define job-relevant points, train raters, and review shared examples to test whether their judgments use the same performance meanings. That costs development and training time, alongside continued evidence collection. The decision record needs standards, dated instances, the rating's basis, the employee's response, and next actions with their timing. If the matter involves dismissal, protected complaints, accommodation, or exit selection, examine actual legal obligations with counsel where required. Documents support scrutiny; the form does not guarantee a lawful or accurate decision. The next section examines comparative and multi-source methods, together with the errors raters can make and ways to address them.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Review Methods: Rating Scales, BARS, Critical Incidents, Narratives
What are behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS)?
How are behaviorally anchored rating scales developed?
What is the critical incident method of performance appraisal?
What are the weaknesses of graphic rating scales?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →