Acceso usuarios
Fernando Toro Álvarez
Esta investigación tuvo por objeto examinar la existencia de consenso y variabilidad en la confiabilidad de instrumentos de evaluación en los que participan diversos calificadores que califican a un mismo evaluado. Este tema tiene relevancia por cuanto se ha vuelto una práctica empresarial frecuente en Ia evaluación de 360 grados. Se realizaron dos estudios distintos. Uno examinó estos asuntos a partir de un método e instrumento para evaluación de competencias organizacionales en un grupo de empleados (102) que se autoevaluaron, fueron evaluados por algunos de sus pares (196) y por sus jefes (60) en una empresa estatal. El otro estudio examinó los mismos asuntos a partir de una evaluación del liderazgo del personal de mando de una empresas del sector industrial. En este caso los calificadores fueron 217 empleados que evaluaron a sus propios jefes (63). Estos jefes se autoevaluaron y al tiempo fueron evaluados por su respectivo jefe y por 102 pares o colegas. Tal como se reportó en otros estudios. se registraron diferencias importantes en Ia confiabilidad de las medidas dependiendo del tipo de calificador. También se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las calificaciones dadas por cada tipo de evaluador. Se encontró que las calificaciones más confiables y consistentes fueron las del jefe y los colaboradores. Fueron menos confiables y consistentes la auto evaluación y la calificación de los pares.AbstractThe main purpose of this study was to explore the existence of agreement and reliability of measurements provided by methods and instruments in which several different raters participate. This process is called 360 degrees assessments. Two different studies were done in the first case and instrument and method designed to assess organizational competences was used. 102 employees evaluated themselves, were evaluated by 196 colleagues and 60 supervisors. In the second case 217 employees evaluated 63 supervisors. Those bosses also evaluated themselves and were evaluated by 102 peers. As reported in previous research, there were found importand differences in reliability related to type a rater. It also ware found siatistically significant differences between raters. The more reliable and consistent were supervisors and subordinates and the less were self evaluations ans peers.
The main purpose of this study was to explore the existence of agreement and reliability of measurements provided by methods and instruments in which several different raters participate. This process is called 360 degrees assessments. Two different studies were done in the first case and instrument and method designed to assess organizational competences was used. 102 employees evaluated themselves, were evaluated by 196 colleagues and 60 supervisors. In the second case 217 employees evaluated 63 supervisors. Those bosses also evaluated themselves and were evaluated by 102 peers. As reported in previous research, there were found importand differences in reliability related to type a rater. It also ware found siatistically significant differences between raters. The more reliable and consistent were supervisors and subordinates and the less were self evaluations ans peers.
