essay evaluation method of performance appraisal

What is the Essay Method for Performance Appraisals?

While some would label it as the “grandfather” of performance appraisal methods, the essay method is still a commonly used appraisal method in a variety of business models. The essay method, sometimes known as the “free-form method,” is a performance review system where a superior creates a written review of the employee’s performance.

These essays are meant to describe and record an employee’s strengths and weaknesses in job performance, identifying problem areas and creating a plan of action to remedy them. Whether the essay is written by the appraiser alone, or in collaboration with the appraisee, essays provide supervisors the opportunity to assess behaviors and performance with greater complexity and attention to detail.

There are many reasons that the essay method--which was one of the first methods used to evaluate performance--is still effective today.

One of the most noteworthy aspects of essay appraisals is their free-form approach to performance reviews. Whereas some employers can feel limited by rigid performance appraisal criteria, the essay method takes a far less structured stance than typical rating scale methods. In so doing, the appraiser is able to examine any relevant issue or attribute of performance that is pertinent to an employee’s job description or overall company growth.

The essay method assumes that not all employee traits and behaviors can be neatly analyzed, dissected, and rated--instead, it allows appraisers to place varied degrees of emphasis on certain qualities, issues, or attributes that are appropriate. Rather than being locked into a fixed system, this open-ended method gives supervisors the freedom of expression and critical thought. For appraisers, there exist special services such as StudyCrumb , which help in writing accurate essays.

When preparing an essay, a supervisor may consider any of the following factors of an employee as they relate to the company and employee relationship: potential and job knowledge, understanding of the company’s policies, relationships with peers and supervisors, planning and organization, and general attitudes and perceptions. This thorough, non-quantitative assessment provides a good deal more information about an employee than most other performance appraisal techniques.

However, as with all performance appraisal methods, there are a few limitations that the essay method suffers from that are worth examining.

One of the major drawbacks of the essay method is its highly subjective nature--they are often subject to bias, and it can be difficult to separate the assessment of the employee from the bias of the evaluator. While the essay can provide a good deal of information about the employee, it tends to tell more about the evaluator than the one being evaluated.

Another element that essays leave out (that other appraisal methods rely heavily on) is comparative results. Instead of utilizing standardized, numeric questions, these appraisals rely only on open-ended questions. While the essay method gives managers the ability to provide detailed and circumstantial information on a specific employee’s performance, it removes the component of comparing performance with other employees. This often makes it difficult for HR to distinguish top performers.

Overall, the appraisal method’s greatest advantage--the freedom of expression for the evaluator--can also serve as its greatest handicap. Even the actual writing of the reviews can upset or distort the process of employee appraisals, as the introduction of inconsistent, unorganized, or poor writing styles can distort and upset the review process. An employee may be unfairly helped or harmed by an evaluator’s writing ability. An evaluator can also find themselves lacking sufficient time to prepare the essay, and can write an essay hurriedly without accurately assessing an employee’s performance.

What is the essay method best used for?

Appraisal by essay is generally most effective in performance reviews for employees with atypical job descriptions or non-numerical goals. While other appraisals work well in analyzing performance for jobs that are subject to goals based on numbers, essays offer a more subjective analysis of performance for employees with managerial or customer service positions.

When analyzing production, the essay method is most effective in combination with another appraisal method. Using a graphic rating scale along with essay appraisals allows one method to focus solely on numbers, while the essay portion can be used to analyze other performance goals.

Doing essay appraisals right

Here are 3 things to strive for in order to set your company up for success in essay performance appraisals:

• Consistency.

Keeping a standard for style and length of essay appraisals can make the biggest difference in ensuring that your reviews are effective. Essays that are unstructured and unnecessarily complex can be detrimental to an employee’s rating, as well as using unspecific, flowery language that is not relevant to the employee’s performance. In order to remain efficient and effective, today’s evaluators should focus on making appraisal essays short and specific, ensuring that the entire review reflects the performance of the employee.

The appraiser should also ensure that they are making sufficient time in their schedule to prepare the essay. A busy evaluator may compromise an employee’s performance rating by writing a hurried essay, or running out of time to thoroughly assess employee performance. It’s important for all participants of essay appraisals to take enough time to write a consistent, accurate, and succinct review in order to set employees up for success.

2. Proficiency.

If you’ve chosen to use essay appraisals in your organization, it’s important to ensure that your appraisers possess the ability to write well. Even if an essay contains detailed, circumstantial information, it becomes difficult to extract valuable data from a poorly written essay. To ensure that nothing stands between an HR professional’s ability to assess an employee’s performance, evaluators should be trained as well-equipped writers.

Giving writing assistant tools or tips to supervisors can make all the difference in the accuracy and efficiency of an employee’s performance review.

2. Objectivity.

Subjectivity is both a strength and a weakness in essay appraisals. Not only are essays themselves often biased, but the misinterpretation of essays can even further distance the main evaluator from an accurate portrayal of an employee’s performance. Including objective standards in a performance review results in a more balanced and productive review process, and helps to eliminate the forming of incorrect conclusions about an employee’s behavior and performance.

Organizations often implement this goal by pairing essay appraisals with another appraisal method, such as graphic scale ratings, to draw more accurate conclusions and performance data. In so doing, evaluators can utilize all of the free expression and open-ended characteristics of an essay appraisal, while still maintaining accurate, easily translated results that are effective for the overall organization.

The tools to streamline your performance management process.

Bring your performance management to life.

The 2024 HR Guide to the Skip Level Meeting

5 Steps to Deliver Positive Feedback to an Employee

Behavioral Observation Scales | Definition, Tips and Examples

The Essay Method of Performance Appraisal

by Danielle Smyth

Published on 9 Aug 2019

The question of how to effectively gauge an employee’s performance on the job has been answered many times in many different ways, but there’s certainly no one agreed-upon method recommended by the human resources industry. Most experts agree that performance management is a critical part of having a successful business in today’s world and that effectively managing, developing and evaluating employees leads to a more efficient workforce and better company culture.

However, it’s deciding how to implement it within a certain company structure that can be challenging, and implementation is key to keeping the process effective rather than disruptive. The essay method of performance appraisal can be a great choice due to its thorough, thoughtful and unobtrusive nature.

Secrets to Effective Performance Appraisals

The truth is that effective performance appraisals take time. They take up the manager’s time, the employee’s time and the time of human resources, and they can potentially take up the time of teammates and co-workers who are asked about projects and collaboration.

For them to mean something, the process needs to be taken seriously, but that always must be balanced against the forward motion of the company and the day-to-day workloads of the employees in question.

Methods of Performance Appraisal

There are a number of methods used in today’s industries to evaluate employees. All of them require some sort of performance standard to be set at first and then an evaluation over a set period of time against that standard.

Some methods of review can be more effective than others, but some also require more dedicated time and thought from the manager or other evaluator. Some of the more common methods include the checklist method, the comparison or forced distribution method and the essay method.

Checklist Method of Performance Appraisal

With the checklist method, an employee is judged against a list of criteria. The criteria have been developed for the level or job of the employee, and usually all employees at similar levels are evaluated against it.

• Yes/no checklists simply ask the evaluator to determine whether the employee exhibits the behavior defined in each criterion: for example, “comes to work on time,” “frequently contributes to group discussions” or “meets daily safety requirements.” It’s important to make sure that all criteria are phrased so that a "yes" is the desired answer because it can be very easy to confuse an evaluation when this isn’t the case. This provides a very simple and straightforward way of judging performance but won’t get into much nuance of individual strengths and weaknesses and may not do much to differentiate one employee from another.
• Leveled checklists ask the evaluator to rate the employee on some sort of scale for each criterion. This could be a scale from one to five where five is optimal, or it could be a verbal scale with levels like “needs improvement,” “meets expectations” and “exceeds expectations.” Criteria might be “completes work within the timeline,” “collaborates with other departments” or “shows technical expertise.” These scaled ratings provide more nuance into each individual employee and should help highlight strengths as well as areas for improvement, but they require the manager to take more time to understand the performance within the department.

Comparison or Forced Distribution Methods

Comparison or forced distribution methods rate employees comparatively and against each other. This can be done in cases where an organization is rather flat, and it makes sense to compare a collection of employees together. The downside is that it can create a false sense of competition within employee groups or can result in bad attitudes.

• Paired evaluations give the evaluator a set of employee comparisons and asks him to choose who is the better employee. This is normally done within a department. For example, a department of four employees would end up with six pairs for comparison, and the evaluator (or team) would then select the best employee within each pair. For larger departments, this can be time consuming for the evaluators.
• Rankings simply ask the evaluator to rank employees from best to worst. This method is fully based on the perception of the evaluator and is not entirely popular because it is not systematic and can be easily affected by undiscovered bias on the part of the evaluator. It is, however, relatively easy to do for any manager who knows the team well.
• Forced distribution methods focus on the fact that most evaluators tend to rate their employees well. It requires the evaluators to meet a set distribution within their evaluations such that each evaluation finds poor performers as well as excellent ones. While this can be a way to identify areas for improvement, it can also be read as having to meet a quota with ratings, which can lead to dissent.

Essay Evaluation Method

The essay method is a fairly straightforward approach in which the manager or evaluator writes a descriptive essay about each employee. The essay would cover the employees' achievements throughout the evaluation period as well as their strengths and weaknesses. The essay format gives the evaluators the flexibility to focus on whatever they personally find important about the individual’s performance.

However, the essay method can be time consuming for the manager, and it requires a certain level of writing skill for the evaluation to be meaningful. It also is unlikely to be systematic, which can make it difficult to compare evaluations from person to person.

Performance Appraisal Essays

The performance evaluation essay is maybe the most interesting of the methods, as it allows a manager to genuinely express thoughts about the employee in question rather than having to work with a template or list of criteria or comparisons.

There are advantages to this, mainly in allowing the appraisers to focus on what they feel is important for each individual whom they are evaluating. The downside of this apparent freedom is because the entire essay is subjective based on the evaluator’s approach, it becomes difficult to obtain any big-picture conclusions about the department, and it can be difficult to compare employees within a certain group.

The key to a successful performance appraisal essay is the writing skills of the person assembling it . Her attention to basic essay structure and her descriptions of the behaviors on which she focuses will determine whether the right message will get across during the evaluation, both to the employee and to the team of other managers and human resources employees who may be involved with ratings, promotions and improvement plans. Some attention to basic essay-writing principles should help the evaluator construct an essay that will be meaningful to all parties involved.

" id="basic-essay-writing " class="title"> Basic Essay Writing

The following are essential to the writing of an effective performance appraisal essay:

• Preparation: For any essay, the first step is to gather information about the topic at hand. In this case, the manager should take the time to review past performance, current expectations and future needs for each employee whom he intends to evaluate. Review the employee’s achievements this year and examine reports and project records to get a full picture of performance.
• Evaluation: Once the information is at hand, it’s important to spend time connecting the dots to figure out what story the essay needs to tell about the employee’s performance. Identify any changes in the employee’s performance over the evaluation period and establish a list containing the behaviors that have been commendable and in which areas the employee could use improvement.
• Creation: Construct the essay in a manner that suits the manager’s writing style. Be sure to use professional, fair language and describe in words the successes and challenges of the employee’s work over this time period. 

Writing the Essay

The essay should open with an introduction summarizing the work completed by the employee during the evaluation period. Be sure to note key projects and pay attention to ongoing work as well as completed jobs. This is the time to discuss what the employee has done and recognize his overall contribution to the business. For example:

Jon successfully supported the infrastructure team, the McAce project and the office renovations project with technical drawings and materials lists as requested. He personally was able to complete the ventilation upgrade project, which ran over schedule but came in under budget. He submitted all monthly reports on time and took a training course this year to improve his skills at AutoCAD.

Highlight Employee Successes

The next portion of the essay should highlight some real successes for the employee. Mention his strengths and any areas where he has shown visible improvement over past performance. In this portion, focus less on what was done and more on how it was done. To continue the example:

Jon’s skill at estimation has improved greatly over the past year, with only one of his personal projects running over budget (as compared to at least 50 percent the previous year). This makes it much easier for the department to manage our overall budget appropriately and is greatly appreciated. Jon has been described as “friendly” and “personable” by his teammates, who have no problem approaching him when they need a drawing or have a question. He also had huge success with his contributions to the McAce project, which would have fallen behind schedule without his work.

Outline Areas for Improvement

After calling out successes, take some time to consider areas in which the employee needs improvement. For employees currently meeting all expectations, consider their future career path: Are there areas they need to develop in order to move into a new position? For employees whose performance may not be up to par, try to address it fairly and be straightforward and logical.

A number of Jon’s projects ran over schedule this year. It appears that Jon’s technical understanding of the work at hand could perhaps use some development. One such corrective action might be making sure to check with operators and maintenance personnel before launching a new project concept to make sure the problem at hand is actually being solved. Also, while Jon’s open personality makes him approachable, it can also lead to Jon taking extra-long breaks for conversation throughout the day, which can disturb some employees from their work.

Note that the criticisms are couched calmly in specific language that isn’t accusatory or angry and that the behaviors described correlate to an undesirable outcome. In some cases, a corrective action should be suggested. In other cases, it’s best to wait until the final step and develop a path forward with the employee in question.

" id="create-a-forward-plan " class="title"> Create a Forward Plan

The essay should end with a forward plan for the employee, involving any additional training or development she may need to meet current expectations as well as some sort of idea of the next step in her career.

The final step in the performance assessment essay is, of course, reviewing the essay with each employee. It’s best to give the employee a chance to read the evaluation and then open the floor to any questions the employee might have about what’s been written.

If an employee wants to challenge an assertion, she can be encouraged to write a short essay in return discussing why she might disagree with the essay. It’s important to discuss the successes and give recognition where it’s due as well as the challenges in order to ensure the employee understands.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.2 Appraisal Methods

Learning objective.

• Be able to describe the various appraisal methods.

It probably goes without saying that different industries and jobs need different kinds of appraisal methods. For our purposes, we will discuss some of the main ways to assess performance in a performance evaluation form. Of course, these will change based upon the job specifications for each position within the company. In addition to industry-specific and job-specific methods, many organizations will use these methods in combination, as opposed to just one method. There are three main methods of determining performance. The first is the trait method , in which managers look at an employee’s specific traits in relation to the job, such as friendliness to the customer. The behavioral method looks at individual actions within a specific job. Comparative methods compare one employee with other employees. Results methods are focused on employee accomplishments, such as whether or not employees met a quota.

Within the categories of performance appraisals, there are two main aspects to appraisal methods. First, the criteria are the aspects the employee is actually being evaluated on, which should be tied directly to the employee᾿s job description. Second, the rating is the type of scale that will be used to rate each criterion in a performance evaluation: for example, scales of 1–5, essay ratings, or yes/no ratings. Tied to the rating and criteria is the weighting each item will be given. For example, if “communication” and “interaction with client” are two criteria, the interaction with the client may be weighted more than communication, depending on the job type. We will discuss the types of criteria and rating methods next.

Graphic Rating Scale

The graphic rating scale , a behavioral method, is perhaps the most popular choice for performance evaluations. This type of evaluation lists traits required for the job and asks the source to rate the individual on each attribute. A discrete scale is one that shows a number of different points. The ratings can include a scale of 1–10; excellent, average, or poor; or meets, exceeds, or doesn’t meet expectations, for example. A continuous scale shows a scale and the manager puts a mark on the continuum scale that best represents the employee’s performance. For example:

The disadvantage of this type of scale is the subjectivity that can occur. This type of scale focuses on behavioral traits and is not specific enough to some jobs. Development of specific criteria can save an organization in legal costs. For example, in Thomas v. IBM , IBM was able to successfully defend accusations of age discrimination because of the objective criteria the employee (Thomas) had been rated on.

Many organizations use a graphic rating scale in conjunction with other appraisal methods to further solidify the tool’s validity. For example, some organizations use a mixed standard scale , which is similar to a graphic rating scale. This scale includes a series of mixed statements representing excellent, average, and poor performance, and the manager is asked to rate a “+” (performance is better than stated), “0” (performance is at stated level), or “−” (performance is below stated level). Mixed standard statements might include the following:

• The employee gets along with most coworkers and has had only a few interpersonal issues.
• This employee takes initiative.
• The employee consistently turns in below-average work.
• The employee always meets established deadlines.

An example of a graphic rating scale is shown in Figure 11.1 “Example of Graphic Rating Scale” .

Essay Appraisal

In an essay appraisal , the source answers a series of questions about the employee’s performance in essay form. This can be a trait method and/or a behavioral method, depending on how the manager writes the essay. These statements may include strengths and weaknesses about the employee or statements about past performance. They can also include specific examples of past performance. The disadvantage of this type of method (when not combined with other rating systems) is that the manager’s writing ability can contribute to the effectiveness of the evaluation. Also, managers may write less or more, which means less consistency between performance appraisals by various managers.

Checklist Scale

A checklist method for performance evaluations lessens the subjectivity, although subjectivity will still be present in this type of rating system. With a checklist scale , a series of questions is asked and the manager simply responds yes or no to the questions, which can fall into either the behavioral or the trait method, or both. Another variation to this scale is a check mark in the criteria the employee meets, and a blank in the areas the employee does not meet. The challenge with this format is that it doesn’t allow more detailed answers and analysis of the performance criteria, unless combined with another method, such as essay ratings. A sample of a checklist scale is provided in Figure 11.3 “Example of Checklist Scale” .

Figure 11.1 Example of Graphic Rating Scale

Figure 11.2 Example of Essay Rating

Figure 11.3 Example of Checklist Scale

Critical Incident Appraisals

This method of appraisal, while more time-consuming for the manager, can be effective at providing specific examples of behavior. With a critical incident appraisal , the manager records examples of the employee’s effective and ineffective behavior during the time period between evaluations, which is in the behavioral category. When it is time for the employee to be reviewed, the manager will pull out this file and formally record the incidents that occurred over the time period. The disadvantage of this method is the tendency to record only negative incidents instead of postive ones. However, this method can work well if the manager has the proper training to record incidents (perhaps by keeping a weekly diary) in a fair manner. This approach can also work well when specific jobs vary greatly from week to week, unlike, for example, a factory worker who routinely performs the same weekly tasks.

Work Standards Approach

For certain jobs in which productivity is most important, a work standards approach could be the more effective way of evaluating employees. With this results-focused approach, a minimum level is set and the employee’s performance evaluation is based on this level. For example, if a sales person does not meet a quota of $1 million, this would be recorded as nonperforming. The downside is that this method does not allow for reasonable deviations. For example, if the quota isn’t made, perhaps the employee just had a bad month but normally performs well. This approach works best in long-term situations, in which a reasonable measure of performance can be over a certain period of time. This method is also used in manufacuring situations where production is extremely important. For example, in an automotive assembly line, the focus is on how many cars are built in a specified period, and therefore, employee performance is measured this way, too. Since this approach is centered on production, it doesn’t allow for rating of other factors, such as ability to work on a team or communication skills, which can be an important part of the job, too.

Ranking Methods

In a ranking method system (also called stack ranking), employees in a particular department are ranked based on their value to the manager or supervisor. This system is a comparative method for performance evaluations.The manager will have a list of all employees and will first choose the most valuable employee and put that name at the top. Then he or she will choose the least valuable employee and put that name at the bottom of the list. With the remaining employees, this process would be repeated. Obviously, there is room for bias with this method, and it may not work well in a larger organization, where managers may not interact with each employee on a day-to-day basis.

To make this type of evaluation most valuable (and legal), each supervisor should use the same criteria to rank each individual. Otherwise, if criteria are not clearly developed, validity and halo effects could be present. The Roper v. Exxon Corp case illustrates the need for clear guidelines when using a ranking system. At Exxon, the legal department attorneys were annually evaluated and then ranked based on input from attorneys, supervisors, and clients. Based on the feedback, each attorney for Exxon was ranked based on their relative contribution and performance. Each attorney was given a group percentile rank (i.e., 99 percent was the best-performing attorney). When Roper was in the bottom 10 percent for three years and was informed of his separation with the company, he filed an age discrimination lawsuit. The courts found no correlation between age and the lowest-ranking individuals, and because Exxon had a set of established ranking criteria, they won the case (Grote, 2005).

Another consideration is the effect on employee morale should the rankings be made public. If they are not made public, morale issues may still exist, as the perception might be that management has “secret” documents.

Fortune 500 Focus

Critics have long said that a forced ranking system can be detrimental to morale; it focuses too much on individual performance as opposed to team performance. Some say a forced ranking system promotes too much competition in the workplace. However, many Fortune 500 companies use this system and have found it works for their culture. General Electric (GE) used perhaps one of the most well-known forced ranking systems. In this system, every year managers placed their employees into one of three categories: “A” employees are the top 20 percent, “B” employees are the middle 70 percent, and “C” performers are the bottom 10 percent. In GE’s system, the bottom 10 percent are usually either let go or put on a performance plan. The top 20 percent are given more responsibility and perhaps even promoted. However, even GE has reinvented this stringent forced ranking system. In 2006, it changed the system to remove references to the 20/70/10 split, and GE now presents the curve as a guideline. This gives more freedom for managers to distribute employees in a less stringent manner 1 .

The advantages of a forced ranking system include that it creates a high-performance work culture and establishes well-defined consequences for not meeting performance standards. In recent research, a forced ranking system seems to correlate well with return on investment to shareholders. For example, the study (Sprenkel, 2011) shows that companies who use individual criteria (as opposed to overall performance) to measure performance outperform those who measure performance based on overall company success. To make a ranking system work, it is key to ensure managers have a firm grasp on the criteria on which employees will be ranked. Companies using forced rankings without set criteria open themselves to lawsuits, because it would appear the rankings happen based on favoritism rather than quantifiable performance data. For example, Ford in the past used forced ranking systems but eliminated the system after settling class action lawsuits that claimed discrimination (Lowery, 2011). Conoco also has settled lawsuits over its forced ranking systems, as domestic employees claimed the system favored foreign workers (Lowery, 2011). To avoid these issues, the best way to develop and maintain a forced ranking system is to provide each employee with specific and measurable objectives, and also provide management training so the system is executed in a fair, quantifiable manner.

In a forced distribution system, like the one used by GE, employees are ranked in groups based on high performers, average performers, and nonperformers. The trouble with this system is that it does not consider that all employees could be in the top two categories, high or average performers, and requires that some employees be put in the nonperforming category.

In a paired comparison system, the manager must compare every employee with every other employee within the department or work group. Each employee is compared with another, and out of the two, the higher performer is given a score of 1. Once all the pairs are compared, the scores are added. This method takes a lot of time and, again, must have specific criteria attached to it when comparing employees.

Human Resource Recall

How can you make sure the performance appraisal ties into a specific job description?

Management by Objectives (MBO)

Management by objectives (MBOs) is a concept developed by Peter Drucker in his 1954 book The Practice of Management (Drucker, 2006). This method is results oriented and similar to the work standards approach, with a few differences. First, the manager and employee sit down together and develop objectives for the time period. Then when it is time for the performance evaluation, the manager and employee sit down to review the goals that were set and determine whether they were met. The advantage of this is the open communication between the manager and the employee. The employee also has “buy-in” since he or she helped set the goals, and the evaluation can be used as a method for further skill development. This method is best applied for positions that are not routine and require a higher level of thinking to perform the job. To be efficient at MBOs, the managers and employee should be able to write strong objectives. To write objectives, they should be SMART (Doran, 1981):

• Specific. There should be one key result for each MBO. What is the result that should be achieved?
• Measurable. At the end of the time period, it should be clear if the goal was met or not. Usually a number can be attached to an objective to make it measurable, for example “sell $1,000,000 of new business in the third quarter.”
• Attainable. The objective should not be impossible to attain. It should be challenging, but not impossible.
• Result oriented. The objective should be tied to the company’s mission and values. Once the objective is made, it should make a difference in the organization as a whole.
• Time limited. The objective should have a reasonable time to be accomplished, but not too much time.

Setting MBOs with Employees

(click to see video)

An example of how to work with an employee to set MBOs.

To make MBOs an effective performance evaluation tool, it is a good idea to train managers and determine which job positions could benefit most from this type of method. You may find that for some more routine positions, such as administrative assistants, another method could work better.

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

A BARS method first determines the main performance dimensions of the job, for example, interpersonal relationships. Then the tool utilizes narrative information, such as from a critical incidents file, and assigns quantified ranks to each expected behavior. In this system, there is a specific narrative outlining what exemplifies a “good” and “poor” behavior for each category. The advantage of this type of system is that it focuses on the desired behaviors that are important to complete a task or perform a specific job. This method combines a graphic rating scale with a critical incidents system. The US Army Research Institute (Phillips, et. al., 2006) developed a BARS scale to measure the abilities of tactical thinking skills for combat leaders. Figure 11.4 “Example of BARS” provides an example of how the Army measures these skills.

Figure 11.4 Example of BARS

Figure 11.5 More Examples of Performance Appraisal Types

How Would You Handle This?

Playing Favorites

You were just promoted to manager of a high-end retail store. As you are sorting through your responsibilities, you receive an e-mail from HR outlining the process for performance evaluations. You are also notified that you must give two performance evaluations within the next two weeks. This concerns you, because you don’t know any of the employees and their abilities yet. You aren’t sure if you should base their performance on what you see in a short time period or if you should ask other employees for their thoughts on their peers’ performance. As you go through the files on the computer, you find a critical incident file left from the previous manager, and you think this might help. As you look through it, it is obvious the past manager had “favorite” employees and you aren’t sure if you should base the evaluations on this information. How would you handle this?

Table 11.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Each Performance Appraisal Method

Key Takeaways

• When developing performance appraisal criteria, it is important to remember the criteria should be job specific and industry specific.
• The performance appraisal criteria should be based on the job specifications of each specific job. General performance criteria are not an effective way to evaluate an employee.
• The rating is the scale that will be used to evaluate each criteria item. There are a number of different rating methods, including scales of 1–5, yes or no questions, and essay.
• In a graphic rating performance evaluation, employees are rated on certain desirable attributes. A variety of rating scales can be used with this method. The disadvantage is possible subjectivity.
• An essay performance evaluation will ask the manager to provide commentary on specific aspects of the employee’s job performance.
• A checklist utilizes a yes or no rating selection, and the criteria are focused on components of the employee’s job.
• Some managers keep a critical incidents file . These incidents serve as specific examples to be written about in a performance appraisal. The downside is the tendency to record only negative incidents and the time it can take to record this.
• The work standards performance appraisal approach looks at minimum standards of productivity and rates the employee performance based on minimum expectations. This method is often used for sales forces or manufacturing settings where productivity is an important aspect.
• In a ranking performance evaluation system, the manager ranks each employee from most valuable to least valuable. This can create morale issues within the workplace.
• An MBO or management by objectives system is where the manager and employee sit down together, determine objectives, then after a period of time, the manager assesses whether those objectives have been met. This can create great development opportunities for the employee and a good working relationship between the employee and manager.
• An MBO’s objectives should be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented, and time limited.
• A BARS approach uses a rating scale but provides specific narratives on what constitutes good or poor performance.

Review each of the appraisal methods and discuss which one you might use for the following types of jobs, and discuss your choices.

• Administrative Assistant
• Chief Executive Officer
• Human Resource Manager
• Retail Store Assistant Manager

1 “The Struggle to Measure Performance,” BusinessWeek , January 9, 2006, accessed August 15, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966060.htm .

Doran, G. T., “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives,” Management Review 70, no. 11 (1981): 35.

Drucker, P., The Practice of Management (New York: Harper, 2006).

Grote, R., Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2005).

Lowery, M., “Forcing the Issue,” Human Resource Executive Online , n.d., accessed August 15, 2011, http://www.hrexecutive.com/HRE/story.jsp?storyId=4222111&query=ranks .

Phillips, J., Jennifer Shafter, Karol Ross, Donald Cox, and Scott Shadrick, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for the Assessment of Tactical Thinking Mental Models (Research Report 1854), June 2006, US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, accessed August 15, 2011, http://www.hqda.army.mil/ari/pdf/RR1854.pdf .

Sprenkel, L., “Forced Ranking: A Good Thing for Business?” Workforce Management, n.d., accessed August 15, 2011, http://homepages.uwp.edu/crooker/790-iep-pm/Articles/meth-fd-workforce.pdf .

Human Resource Management Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Understanding Performance Appraisal

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2023
• pp 12989–12993
• Cite this reference work entry

• Benati Igor 2  

12 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Aggarwal A, Thakur GSM (2013) Techniques of performance appraisal – a review. Int J Eng Adv Technol 2(3):617–621

Google Scholar  

Boudreau JW, Ramstad PM (2007) Beyond HR: the new science of human capital. Harvard Business Press, Boston

Chiang FF, Birtch TA (2010) Appraising performance across borders: an empirical examination of the purposes and practices of performance appraisal in a multi-country context. J Manag Stud 47(7):1365–1393

Daley DM (1992) Performance appraisal in the public sector: techniques and applications. Quorum, Westport

Deb T (2006) Strategic approach to human resource management. Atlantic Publishers & Dist., New Delhi

DeNisi AS, Pritchard RD (2006) Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: a motivational framework. Manag Organ Rev 2(2):253–277

Article   Google Scholar  

DeNisi AS, Cafferty TP, Meglino BM (1984) A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: a model and research propositions. Organ Behav Hum Perform 33(3):360–396

Guthrie JP (2001) High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from New Zealand. Acad Manag J 44:180–190

Harris H, Brewster C, Sparrow P (2003) International human resource management. CIPD Publishing, London

Ikramullah M, Shah B, Khan S, ul Hassan, F. S., & Zaman, T. (2012) Purposes of performance appraisal system: a perceptual study of civil servants in district Dera Ismail Khan Pakistan. Int J Bus Manage 7(3):142

Johlke MC, Duhan DF (2001) Testing competing models of sales force communication. J Pers Sell Sales Manag 21(4):265–277

Kuvaas B (2008) An exploration of how the employee–organization relationship affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee outcomes. J Manag Stud 45:1–25

Mayer RC, Davis JH (1999) The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: a field quasi-experiment. J Appl Psychol 84:123–136

Pettijohn CE, Pettijohn LS, d’Amico M (2001) Characteristics of performance appraisals and their impact on sales force satisfaction. Hum Resour Dev Q 12(2):127–146

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

CNR – National Research Council of Italy, Torino, Italy

Benati Igor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benati Igor .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Ali Farazmand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Igor, B. (2022). Understanding Performance Appraisal. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_3513

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_3513

Published : 06 April 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-66251-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-66252-3

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What you need to know about performance appraisal methods

Wondering what performance appraisal methods are best for your business?

With the increasing shift to remote work and businesses re-inventing themselves to suit modern needs, it’s critical to redefine your performance management strategy.

These new strategies should encourage employees to make the most of the opportunity to work from home and develop processes that help your business grow.

In this article, we’ll discuss everything you need to know about performance appraisal methods. We’ll also discuss why employee performance appraisal is so important for companies.

 This Article Contains:

(click on specific links to jump to a particular section of the page)

What is Performance Appraisal?

• Self-Evaluation Method
• Essay Appraisal Method
• The Critical Incident Method
• How to Build an Efficient System of Employee Performance Appraisal 

What is the Purpose of Performance Appraisal?

Let’s dive in.

Performance appraisals are a regular process where employers evaluate an employee’s performance against a predetermined, measurable set of objectives.

Usually conducted quarterly or annually, the primary goal of performance evaluation is to determine how well an employee meets the company’s expectations.

Now there are primarily two ways to conduct the performance appraisal process — using the traditional method or the modern method. 

The traditional method emphasizes evaluating an employee for their personality traits , such as: 

• Dependability
• Integrity 
• Leadership potential, etc.

On the other hand, the modern performance appraisal method emphasizes the evaluation of work results (or job achievements) over the employee’s traits.

Top 3 Performance Appraisal Methods for Remote Teams

Let’s look at the top three performance appraisal methods that companies can use for the performance appraisals of remote members:

1. Self-Evaluation Method

This appraisal process allows employees to scrutinize their own performance and give themselves feedback. 

The self-appraisal method is especially useful for remote teams as you’ll be able to:

• Gain insights into the employee’s work, performance, and the way they operate.
• Know the employee’s key strengths and weaknesses. 
• Determine if your employees take their responsibilities and duties seriously.

Once a remote employee has reviewed themselves, employers can use the ranking method to rate the individual based on their strengths and weaknesses.

How do you go about this method?

You give employees a comprehensive questionnaire along with some open-ended questions about their performance.

Here are a few sample questions:

• What goals would you like to accomplish in the next few months?
• What achievements are you most proud of since the last evaluation?
• What targets were you unable to achieve this past year?
• What would you have done differently to achieve the missed targets?

2. Essay Appraisal Method

The essay appraisal method involves the remote employee’s evaluation by their superiors and other team members. 

In this method, you ask the appraiser to:

• Give a detailed description of the employee’s performance and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the employee’s behavior.
• Provide suitable examples to support the information given in the performance review.
• Use a rating scale (1-10) to evaluate the employee’s attributes such as work ethics, leadership, communication, interpersonal skills, etc.

Why do you need this?

With the essay appraisal method, you get a comprehensive view of how remote employees participate as team members in their work group. 

You can also determine if the employees’ behavior might cause issues at the workplace.

For instance, you can identify and prevent negative incidents like a remote employee spreading rumors among coworkers. 

3. The Critical Incident Method 

The critical incident method helps you determine how remote team members handled themselves during certain stressful situations. This way, you can learn more about their behavior at the workplace. 

Here are the steps involved in this method of performance appraisal:

• Note down how an employee reacted to a specific situation (such as missed deadlines, etc.)
• Identify if the remote employee’s behavior was ‘good’ or ‘bad.’
• Assign a score to their performance during those incidents.

The critical incident method helps you and your HR department determine the skills, attitudes, values, and knowledge a remote employee needs to perform well during a crisis.

You can also identify which employees have the potential to be remote team managers based on their conduct.

Other Remote Employee Appraisal Methods

Some other performance appraisal methods that you can use to evaluate your remote team include:

• Human resource cost accounting method: Analyzes the employee’s performance through the monetary benefits they yield to the company. 
• Management By Objectives (MBO): Appraises managers and employees’ progress on some pre-set goals. 
• Psychological appraisal: Determines employees’ hidden potential with a psychological test and predicts their future performance.
• 360-degree feedback: Evaluates an employee using feedback collected from the employee’s circle of influence — peers, managers, and customers.
• Forced distribution method: Compare remote members against one another over any given performance standard.
• Forced choice method: The reviewer is given a few statements that apply to an employee, and they must decide if the information is true or false. 
• Field review method: A HR or administrator observes an employee for a few days and evaluates performance. 
• Journaling : An employee writes down all their achievements throughout a year and presents them to the evaluator.

How to Build an Efficient Remote Employee Performance Appraisal System 

Since working from home is the new normal, it’s essential to consider how you want to conduct performance evaluations in the future. 

With the right performance appraisal method, you can make the whole experience effective and rewarding.

Here’s how you can build an efficient employee performance appraisal system:

1. Reflect on the Purpose of Appraisal

You need to know what you want to achieve with your performance management system.  

For most organizations, the company’s pre-pandemic goals are not applicable anymore.  

The company goalposts have shifted , and the context has changed. 

In a remote environment, you can’t measure employee performance just from the volume of work they do every day.

Instead, you should look at the employees’ resilience, empathy, and adaptability in these tough times. Ideally, you should acknowledge and reward your employees for maintaining proper communication and teamwork.

2. Communicate Proactively

There are several challenges unique to telecommuting , such as,

• Reduced access to managerial support and internal communication.
• No visual cues to understand team response.
• Asynchronous communication due to different time zones, etc.

So it’s critical to have a robust telecommunication policy to overcome these challenges and ensure effective communication.

You must also use video communication tools for a performance appraisal meeting in the remote work environment.

Visual clues like facial expressions allow employees to understand the subtext of the discussion.

Here are some tips you can use to make video appraisals more effective:

• Be as explicit and verbal as possible in the discussion.
• Listen well and encourage back and forth communication. 
• Spend time to ensure that things don’t get lost in translation.
• If you need to deliver negative feedback to an employee, reassure them that you’re criticizing their performance and not their self-worth.

3. Practice Empathy

There’s no fixed template when it comes to evaluating job performance — everyone is trying to do their best in these unique circumstances.  

Ensure that you make an empathetic assessment that’s flexible and recognize the hardships that your employees may be enduring.

An empathic leadership style can bring your employees closer, increase productivity, morale, and loyalty.

So how can you have a more empathetic appraisal ?

Acknowledge the fact that it’s difficult to cut out emotions and be 100% professional all the time.

Have a narrative assessment that provides an individual employee with specific information. Point out the areas they need to improve and what they’re doing well.

However, remember that even talented employees can go through a rough patch that might impact their actual performance. 

In such cases, you must:

• Ensure a positive and supportive work environment for all team members.
• Avoid too much work pressure.
• Respect the contributions of every employee and help them improve their work.

4. Eliminate Any Biases

While managers may strive to be as objective as possible in performance assessments, sometimes implicit biases inevitably creep in.   

You must become aware of biases, such as:

• Presenting employees with a good past performance record more favorably.
• Viewing average performers in a more critical light.
• Making assumptions about an employee’s attitude based on their performance.

When you recognize these biases, you can take steps to correct them. 

It’ll ensure that you avoid a situation that discourages average employees from improving their performance. On the other extreme, you’ll also avoid encouraging efficient employees into overworking themselves.

Some steps that you can take to counteract your biases can include:

• Gathering feedback from different sources.
• Measuring performance against objective performance metrics .
• Using employee self-evaluations against your perception of their work to eliminate subjectivity, etc.

5. Use Productivity Tools

In a remote work environment, you need to provide specific feedback to your employees. 

But that’s not all.

You need to conduct frequent, smaller evaluations such as monthly or quarterly check-ins.

So how can you do that?

By using performance management tools to keep a tab on the work performance of your remote team in real-time.

These tools can track and collect workday data and enable your employees and management with the information needed to make strategic improvements. 

Time Doctor is one such tool that can help you manage your employee performance and take steps to improve overall productivity and profitability.

Used by large corporations as well as small and medium businesses, TimeDoctor is a performance management software that can give you insights into your team’s effectiveness.

You can use workday data from Time Doctor to:

• See the total amount of time employees spend on projects and tasks.
• View idle and inactive time with the idle time tracker.
• Get productivity reports broken down by day, week, or months.
• Keep a tab on your employee’s most-used websites and applications.
• See if your employees are actually working with screenshots and screencasts.
• Know how they spend time on daily tasks with the daily timeline overview and more .

Let’s look at why employee performance appraisal is important:

1. Maximizes Employee Potential

Constant feedback on an employee’s performance will help you track their productivity.

You can then take steps to:

• Ensure tasks are assigned based on the employee’s skill and competency.
• Give more training to less efficient employees.
• Encourage employees to maximize their potential.
• Motivate an employee to work towards their career growth.
• Address any behavioral issues that may be affecting team productivity.

2. Boosts Team Management

Effective performance appraisal gives an employee a structured review process. 

This allows employees to approach the management for:

• Discussions related to performance, promotions, etc.
• Long term and short term goal setting and achieving targets.
• Clarifying expectations and growth plans for the future. 
• Identifying and resolving bottlenecks in the project execution. 

With an effective appraisal technique, you also eliminate micromanagement .

Why is this important?

When employees feel that every aspect of their work is under the scrutiny of an evaluator, it may negatively impact their morale. 

Eliminating micromanagement will enhance the trust between managers and the employees and do away with the time-consuming task of always monitoring employees. 

3. Improves Your Business’ Bottom Line

Performance appraisal system helps the management team :

• Decide the promotions, transfers, and rewards for every employee.
• Enhance decision making in situations that require layoffs or filling job roles internally.
• Optimize efficiency and employee engagement at the workplace.
• Ensure that your staff is not getting paid for hours where they were idle or inactive.

When you take such steps to maximize your team productivity, you’ll increase business output, and ultimately your profits.

Wrapping Up

Remote working may have compelled most companies to revisit how they evaluate employees. 

However, it also presents an opportunity to shift towards a more people-focused appraisal system.

Employee performance appraisal isn’t just about dealing with poor performance. It involves setting the right employee expectations and training employees to be more productive.

An employee-centric performance appraisal system allows us to work towards that goal. 

Go through the tips we have suggested in the article, and revisit your idea of what an employee performance appraisal should look like.

Book a free demo of Time Doctor

Andy is a technology & marketing leader who has delivered award-winning and world-first experiences.

How to manage toxic employees in a remote workplace

12 excellent employee time clocks for your workplace (digital and biometric), related posts, innovate, adapt, succeed: refining your hr team structure, your guide to the art of organizational change management , engineering team structure essentials: building, evaluating, and improving, the top 5 mistakes in team structure and how to prevent them, 7 steps to building a scalable team structure for growth, building blocks of success: creating a finance team structure that works.

• Performance Appraisal
• Knowledge Hub
• Employee Performance
• What is a performance appraisal?

The purpose of a performance appraisal

• How to organize a performance appraisal process

Performance appraisal examples

• Performance appraisal methods

5 Modern method of performance appraisal

What is a performance appraisal.

A performance appraisal is the periodic assessment of an employee’s job performance as measured by the competency expectations set out by the organization.

The performance assessment often includes both the core competencies required by the organization and also the competencies specific to the employee’s job.

The appraiser, often a supervisor or manager, will provide the employee with constructive, actionable feedback based on the assessment. This in turn provides the employee with the direction needed to improve and develop in their job.

Based on the type of feedback , a performance appraisal is also an opportunity for the organization to recognize employee achievements and future potential.

The purpose of a performance appraisal is two-fold: It helps the organization to determine the value and productivity that employees contribute, and it also helps employees to develop in their own roles.

Benefit for organization

Employee assessments can make a difference in the performance of an organization. They provide insight into how employees are contributing and enable organizations to:

• Identify where management can improve working conditions in order to increase productivity and work quality.
• Address behavioral issues before they impact departmental productivity.
• Encourage employees to contribute more by recognizing their talents and skills
• Support employees in skill and career development
• Improve strategic decision-making in situations that require layoffs, succession planning, or filling open roles internally

Benefit for employee

Performance appraisals are meant to provide a positive outcome for employees. The insights gained from assessing and discussing an employee’s performance can help:

• Recognize and acknowledge the achievements and contributions made by an employee.
• Recognize the opportunity for promotion or bonus.
• Identify and support the need for additional training or education to continue career development.
• Determine the specific areas where skills can be improved.
• Motivate an employee and help them feel involved and invested in their career development.
• Open discussion to an employee’s long-term goals.

How to organize a performance appraisal process

Conducting a performance review with an employee requires skill and training on the part of the appraiser. The negative perception that is often associated with the performance appraisal is due in part to a feeling of being criticized during the process.

A performance appraisal is meant to be the complete opposite. Often, the culprit is in the way the appraisal is conducted via the use of language.

The way the sender of a message uses language determines how the other person interprets the message once received. This can include tone of voice, choice of words, or even body language.

Because a performance appraisal is meant to provide constructive feedback, it is crucial that appropriate language and behavior are used in the process.

Human Resources (HR) are the support system for managers and supervisors to be trained in tactfully handling the appraisal process.

The performance appraisal process:

• The assessment process is usually facilitated by Human Resources, who assist managers and supervisors in conducting the individual appraisals within their departments.
• An assessment method should be established.
• Required competencies and job expectations need to be drafted for each employee.
• Individual appraisals on employee performance are conducted.
• A one on one interview is scheduled between the manager and employee to discuss the review.
• Future goals should be discussed between employee and manager.
• A signed-off version of the performance review is archived.
• Appraisal information is utilized by human resources for appropriate organizational purposes, such as reporting, promotions, bonuses or succession planning.

Let’s take a look at one example of a Manager speaking to an employee during a performance appraisal. Below are three versions of the same example.

Compare the difference in language and behavior and how it can change the end-result:

1. An appropriate appraisal example with mixed feedback

“We can start the review by looking at how each project went for you this quarter. Does that sound OK? First, every project you have worked on in the last four months has met the expected deadline and were all within their budgets. I see one project here was even early. They were all implemented successfully. Well done. You have succeeded in the criteria expected of a Project Manager here at ABC Company. Let’s take a look at a few areas where you might be able to develop your project management skills further. In Project A, B, and C, a few team members expressed that they were unsure what to begin working on in the first few meetings and felt that they were engaging in their tasks a bit late. When they tried to express this in later meetings, they felt there was hostility towards them. For upcoming Projects D, E, and F, is there anything that can be done to get team members up and running more quickly? Could more detailed task planning be completed prior to the project kick-off?”

Debrief : This example removes the errors from the first example and puts them in a more constructive light.

• The appraisal begins by involving the employee and making them feel like a valued part of the process.
• The appraiser focuses on measurable outcomes, such as each individual project, instead of broad, baseless generalizations.
• Positives are the focus of the assessment.
• Areas for improvement are offered in a constructive and neutral format by referring to specific events in the employee’s day-to-day tasks.
• The employee is given the opportunity to problem-solve the situation and contribute to their own sense of self-development.
• Constructive solutions are offered so the employee has a clear idea on what they can do better next time.

2. An inappropriate negative appraisal example

“Let’s talk about some of the problems. You are never proactive when it comes to the start of a new project. Things are left too late and there are often complaints. I have heard that your attitude has been less than positive during project meetings. You seem to have things going on at home right now, but they shouldn’t be intruding on your work.”

This example is extreme, but it conveys most of the errors that can occur in a performance review.

• The appraisal begins with a negative. It has been shown that starting with the positives can set the tone for the appraisal and helps employees feel more receptive to feedback.
• The appraiser speaks in a negative, accusatory language and bases the assessment on assumption instead of measured facts. An appraisal needs to be based on measured facts.
• The appraiser makes the discussion personal; a performance review should remain focused on the contributions of the employee to the job and never be about the individual as a person.
• Phrases like “ you are ” or “ you always ” are generalizations about the employee; a performance appraisal needs to be about specific contributions to specific job tasks.

3. An appropriate appraisal example for underperformers

“I wanted to talk to you today about your performance during the last quarter. Looking at the completed project schedules and project debriefs here, I see that each of the five projects was kicked off late. Team members reported having trouble getting the resources and information they needed to start and complete their tasks. Each project was delivered a week or more late and had considerable budget creep. Project A was over by $7000. Project B was over by $9,000, for example. These budget overages were not authorized. I think we really have potential to turn this around and I really want to see you succeed. The role of Project Manager requires you to kick-off projects on-time, make sure your team members have the resources they need, and it’s crucial that any budget issues or delays are discussed with myself or the other Manager. For the upcoming projects this month, I’d like you to draft a project plan one week prior to any project kick-off. We can go over it together and figure out where the gaps might be. Did you have any suggestions on how you might be able to improve the punctuality of your projects or effectiveness of how they are run?”

Debrief : This example deals with an employee who seems to be struggling. The appraiser unfortunately has a lot of negative feedback to work through, but has successfully done so using appropriate language, tone and examples:

• The feedback does not use accusatory language or tone, nor does it focus on the person. This is especially important at the start of a performance review when the topic is being introduced. Being accusatory can make an employee feel uncomfortable, upset or defensive and set the wrong tone for the rest of the review. Comments should remain focused on the employee’s work.
• The comments are constructive and specific. The appraiser uses specific examples with evidence to explain the poor performance and does not make general, unsubstantiated comments. Making general, broad comments like “Your projects have a lot of problems and are always late” are unfair as they cannot be proven. The tone also creates hostility and does not help the employee to solve the problem.
• The appraiser offers a positive comment about improving the situation and also a specific solution to improve the performance. The point of a performance review is to motivate and help an employee, not cut them down.
• The appraiser asks for the input of the employee on how to solve the problem. This empowers the employee to become more involved in their skill development and ends a negative review on a positive note.

4. The inflated appraisal example

“I don’t think we have too much to talk about today as everything seems just fine. Your projects are always done on time and within budget. I’m sure you made the right decisions with your team to achieve all of that. You and I definitely think alike when it comes to project management. Keep up the great work.”

Debrief : This example appears like a perfect performance appraisal, but it’s actually an example of how to inappropriate:

• The feedback glosses over any specifics regarding the employee’s actual work and instead offers vague, inflated comments about everything being great. Feedback needs to refer to specific events.
• Any mention of trouble on the team is ignored. A performance review needs to discuss performance issues before they become serious later on.
• The appraiser compares the employee to himself. This could be referred to as the “halo effect”, where the appraiser allows one aspect of the employee to cloud his or her judgement.
• Nobody is perfect; every appraisal should offer some form of improvement that the employee can work towards, whether it is honing a skill or learning a new skill.

Performance Appraisal Methods

There are many ways an organization can conduct a performance appraisal, owing to the countless different methods and strategies available.

In addition, each organization may have their own unique philosophy making an impact on the way the performance assessment is designed and conducted.

A performance review is often done annually or semi-annually at the minimum, but some organizations do them more often.

There are some common and modern appraisal methods that many organizations gravitate towards, including:

1. Self-evaluation

In a self-evaluation assessment, employees first conduct their performance assessment on their own against a set list of criteria.

The pro is that the method helps employees prepare for their own performance assessment and it creates more dialogue in the official performance interview.

The con is that the process is subjective, and employees may struggle with either rating themselves too high or too low.

2. Behavioral checklist

A Yes or No checklist is provided against a series of traits. If the supervisor believes the employee has exhibited a trait, a YES is ticked.

If they feel the employee has not exhibited the trait, a NO is ticked off. If they are unsure, it can be left blank.

The pro is the simplicity of the format and its focus on actual work-relate tasks and behaviors (ie. no generalizing).

The con is that there is no detailed analysis or detail on how the employee is actually doing, nor does it discuss goals.

3. 360-degree feedback

This type of review includes not just the direct feedback from the manager and employee, but also from other team members and sources.

The review also includes character and leadership capabilities.

The pro is that it provides a bigger picture of an employee’s performance.

The con is that it runs the risk of taking in broad generalizations from outside sources who many not know how to provide constructive feedback .

4. Ratings scale

A ratings scale is a common method of appraisal. It uses a set of pre-determined criteria that a manager uses to evaluate an employee against.

Each set of criteria is weighted so that a measured score can be calculated at the end of the review.

The pro is that the method can consider a wide variety of criteria, from specific job tasks to behavioral traits. The results can also be balanced thanks to the weighting system. This means that if an employee is not strong in a particularly minor area, it will not negatively impact the overall score.

The con of this method is the possible misunderstanding of what is a good result and what is a poor result; managers need to be clear in explaining the rating system.

5. Management by objectives

This type of assessment is a newer method that is gaining in popularity. It involves the employee and manager agreeing to a set of attainable performance goals that the employee will strive to achieve over a given period of time.

At the next review period, the goals and how they have been met are reviewed, whilst new goals are created.

The pro of this method is that it creates dialogue between the employee and employer and is empowering in terms of personal career development.

The con is that it risks overlooking organizational performance competencies that should be considered.

Ivan Andreev

Demand Generation & Capture Strategist

Ivan Andreev is a dedicated marketing professional with a proven track record of driving growth and efficiency in various marketing domains, especially SEO. With a career spanning over a decade, Ivan has developed a deep understanding of marketing strategies, project management, data analysis, and team leadership. His strong commitment to knowledge sharing, passion for process optimization, and turning challenges into opportunities have solidified his reputation as a pivotal player in the marketing team.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

8.6 Performance Appraisal Methods

In this section, we will discuss some of the main methods used to assess performance. However, before discussing these methods, we must discuss how they approach the assessment of individual performance. Some methods focus on the employee’s specific traits in relation to the job. For these methods, the objective is to capture whether or not the employees possess the KSAO’s required for the job. An example would be to assess whether a salesperson is outgoing or whether the accounts payable clerks are conscientious and pay attention to detail.

Another way to approach the assessment of performance is to look at individual actions within a specific job. This focus on behaviour, for example, would try to measure whether the salesperson uses a certain protocol when approaching customers or whether the accounts payable clerk follows up on her phone calls. The focus is on ‘what employees actually do’ as opposed to ‘who the employee is’ (for the trait methods). Comparative methods compare one employee with other employees. Finally, results methods are focused on objective employee accomplishments. Note that many organizations will use these methods in combination.

Graphic Rating Scale

The graphic rating scale , a trait method, is perhaps the most popular choice for performance evaluations. This type of evaluation lists the traits required for the job and asks the source to rate the individual on each attribute such as dependability and creativity. For example, the ratings can include a scale of 1–10; excellent, average, or poor; or exceeds, meets, or does not meet expectations.

The disadvantage of this type of scale is that it is quite subjective. Thus, many organizations use a graphic rating scale in conjunction with other appraisal methods to further solidify the tool’s validity. For example, some organizations use a mixed standard scale, which is similar to a graphic rating scale. This scale includes a series of mixed statements representing excellent, average, and poor performance, and the manager is asked to rate a “+” (performance is better than stated), “0” (performance is at stated level), or “−” (performance is below stated level). Mixed standard statements might include the following:

• The employee gets along with most coworkers and has had only a few interpersonal issues.
• This employee takes initiative.
• The employee consistently turns in below-average work.
• The employee always meets established deadlines.

Essay Appraisal

In an essay appraisal , the evaluator answers a series of questions about the employee’s performance in essay form. This can be a trait method and/or a behavioural method, depending on how the manager writes the essay. These statements may include strengths and weaknesses about the employee or statements about past performance. They can also include specific examples of past performance. The disadvantage of this type of method (when not combined with other rating systems) is that the manager’s writing ability can contribute to the effectiveness of the evaluation. Also, managers may write less or more, which means less consistency between performance appraisals by various managers.

Checklist Scale

A checklist method for performance evaluations lessens the subjectivity, although subjectivity will still be present in this type of rating system. With a checklist scale, a series of questions are being asked and the manager simply responds yes or no to the questions, which can fall into either the behavioural or the trait method, or both. Another variation to this scale is a check mark in the criteria the employee meets and a blank in the areas the employee does not meet. The challenge with this format is that it does not allow for more detailed answers and analysis of the performance criteria unless combined with another method, such as essay ratings.

Critical Incident Appraisals

While Critical Incident Appraisals are more time-consuming to develop, they can be effective because they provide specific examples of behaviour to anchor the ratings. With a critical incident appraisal , the manager records examples of the employee’s effective and ineffective behaviour during the time period between evaluations, which is in the behavioural category. When it is time for the employee to be reviewed, the manager will pull out this file and formally record the incidents that occurred over the time period. The disadvantage of this method is the tendency to record only adverse incidents instead of positive ones. However, this method can work well if the manager has the proper training to record incidents (perhaps by keeping a weekly diary) in a fair manner. This approach can also work well when specific jobs vary greatly from week to week, unlike, for example, a factory worker who routinely performs the same weekly tasks.

Work Standards Approach

A work standards approach could be the more effective way of evaluating employees for certain specific jobs in which productivity is essential. With this results-focused approach, a minimum level is set and the employee’s performance evaluation is based on this level. For example, if a salesperson does not meet a quota of $1 million, this would be recorded as nonperforming. The downside is that this method does not allow for reasonable deviations. For example, if the quota is not met, perhaps the employee just had a bad month but normally performs well. This approach works best in long-term situations, in which a reasonable measure of performance can be over a certain period. For example, in an automotive assembly line, the focus is on how many cars are built in a specified period, and therefore, employee performance is measured this way. Since this approach is centred on production, it does not allow for rating of other factors, such as ability to work on a team or communication skills, which can be important parts of the job.

Ranking Methods

In a ranking method system  (also called relative method), employees in a particular department are ranked based on their performance. This system is a comparative method for performance evaluations. This method is stack ranking of employees based upon individual performance appraisal ratings (numeric or classification). A performance distribution chart is developed to show what percentage are rated as poor, marginal, meets, and exceeds with respect to performance. Senior management of larger organizations sometimes conduct this method of ranking to determine if a company wide action is warranted – to cull poor performers and/or increase emphasis on performance improvement plans.

“ 8.6 Performance Appraisal Methods ” from Human Resources Management – 3rd Edition by Debra Patterson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Human Resources Management Copyright © 2023 by Debra Patterson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Conduct a Great Performance Review

• Frank V. Cespedes

What to do before, during, and after the meeting.

The purpose of performance reviews is two-fold: an accurate and actionable evaluation of performance, and then development of that person’s skills in line with job tasks. For recipients, feedback has intrinsic and extrinsic value. Across fields, research shows that people become high performers by identifying specific areas where they need to improve and then practicing those skills with performance feedback.

Dissatisfaction with performance appraisals is pervasive. They are seen as time-consuming, demotivating, inaccurate, biased, and unfair. A McKinsey survey indicates most CEOs don’t find the appraisal process in their companies helps to identify top performers, while over half of employees think their managers don’t get the performance review right. A Gallup study is more negative: Just one in five employees agreed that their company’s performance practices motivated them.

• Frank V. Cespedes is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and the author of Sales Management That Works: How to Sell in a World That Never Stops Changing (Harvard Business Review Press, 2021).

Partner Center

8.2 Techniques of Performance Appraisal

• What practices are used in the performance appraisal process?

Organizations use numerous methods to evaluate personnel. We will summarize several popular techniques. Although countless variations on these themes can be found, the basic methods presented provide a good summary of the commonly available techniques. Following this review, we will consider the various strengths and weaknesses of each technique. Six techniques are reviewed here: (1) graphic rating scales, (2) critical incident technique, (3) behaviorally anchored rating scales, (4) behavioral observation scales, (5) management by objectives, and (6) assessment centers.

Graphic Rating Scales

Certainly, the most popular method of evaluation used in organizations today is the graphic rating scale . One study found that 57 percent of the organizations surveyed used rating scales, and another study found the figure to be 65 percent. 5 Although this method appears in many formats, the supervisor or rater is typically presented with a printed or online form that contains both the employee’s name and several evaluation dimensions (quantity of work, quality of work, knowledge of job, attendance). The rater is then asked to rate the employee by assigning a number or rating on each of the dimensions. An example of a graphic rating scale is shown in Table 8.1 .

By using this method, if we assume that evaluator biases can be minimized, it is possible to compare employees objectively. It is also possible to examine the relative strengths and weaknesses of a single employee by comparing scores on the various dimensions.

However, one of the most serious drawbacks of this technique is its openness to central tendency, strictness, and leniency errors. It is possible to rate almost everyone in the middle of the scale or, conversely, at one end of the scale. In order to control for this, some companies have assigned required percentage distributions to the various scale points. Supervisors may be allowed to rate only 10 percent of their people outstanding and are required to rate 10 percent unsatisfactory, perhaps assigning 20 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent to the remaining middle categories. By doing this, a distribution is forced within each department. However, this procedure may penalize a group of truly outstanding performers or reward a group of poor ones.

Critical Incident Technique

With the critical incident technique of performance appraisal, supervisors record incidents, or examples, of each subordinate’s behavior that led to either unusual success or unusual failure on some aspect of the job. These incidents are recorded in a daily or weekly log under predesignated categories (planning, decision-making, interpersonal relations, report writing). The final performance rating consists of a series of descriptive paragraphs or notes about various aspects of an employee’s performance (see Table 8.2 ).

Job Knowledge —Technical and/or Specialized—possible considerations:

• shows exceptional knowledge in methods, materials, and techniques; applies in a resourceful and practical manner
• stays abreast of development(s) in field and applies to job
• “keeps up” on latest material in her special field
• participates in professional or technical organizations pertinent to her activities

Performance on Human Relations

Ability to Communicate —possible considerations:

• gives logical, clear-cut, understandable instructions on complex problems
• uses clear and direct language in written and oral reporting
• organizes presentations in logical order and in order of importance
• provides supervisor and subordinates with pertinent and adequate information
• tailors communications approach to group or individual
• keeps informed on how subordinates think and feel about things

Results Achieved through Others —possible considerations:

• develops enthusiasm in others that gets the job done
• has respect and confidence of others
• recognizes and credits skills of others
• coordinates well with other involved groups to get the job done

The critical incident method provides useful information for appraisal interviews, and managers and subordinates can discuss specific incidents. Good qualitative information is generated. However, because little quantitative data emerge, it is difficult to use this technique for promotion or salary decisions. The qualitative output here has led some companies to combine the critical incident technique with one of the quantitative techniques, such as the rating scale, to provide different kinds of feedback to the employees.

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales

An appraisal system that has received increasing attention in recent years is the behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS). This system requires considerable work prior to evaluation but, if the work is carefully done, can lead to highly accurate ratings with high inter-rater reliability. Specifically, the BARS technique begins by selecting a job that can be described in observable behaviors. Managers and personnel specialists then identify these behaviors as they relate to superior or inferior performance.

An example of this is shown in Exhibit 8.4 , where the BARS technique has been applied to the job of college professor. As shown, as one moves from extremely poor performance to extremely good performance, the performance descriptions, or behavioral anchors, increase. Oftentimes, six to ten scales are used to describe performance on the job. Exhibit 8.4 evaluates the professor’s organizational skills. Other scales could relate to the professor’s teaching effectiveness, knowledge of the material, availability to students, and fairness in grading. Once these scales are determined, the evaluator has only to check the category that describes what she observes on the job, and the employee’s rating is simultaneously determined. The BARS technique has several purported advantages. In particular, many of the sources of error discussed earlier (central tendency, leniency, halo) should be significantly reduced because raters are considering verbal descriptions of specific behaviors instead of general categories of behaviors, such as those used in graphic rating scales. In addition, the technique focuses on job-related behaviors and ignores less relevant issues such as the subordinate’s personality, race, or gender. This technique should also lead to employees being less defensive during performance appraisals, because the focus of the discussion would be actual measured behaviors, not the person. Finally, BARS can aid in employee training and development by identifying those domains needing most attention.

On the negative side, as noted above, considerable time and effort in designing the forms are required before the actual rating. Because a separate BARS is required for each distinct job, it is only cost-efficient for common jobs. Finally, because the technique relies on observable behaviors, it may have little applicability for such jobs in such areas as research science (and sometimes management), where much of the work is mental and relevant observable behaviors are difficult to obtain.

Behavioral Observation Scales

The behavioral observation scale (BOS) is similar to BARS in that both focus on identifying observable behaviors as they relate to performance. It is, however, less demanding of the evaluator. Typically, the evaluator is asked to rate each behavior on a scale from 1 to 5 to indicate the frequency with which the employee exhibits the behavior. Evaluation of an employee’s performance on a particular dimension is derived by summing the frequency ratings for the behaviors in each dimension.

For example, in Table 8.3 we can see an example of a form to evaluate a manager’s ability to overcome resistance to change. The rater simply has to circle the appropriate numbers describing observed behaviors and get a summary rating by adding the results. The BOS technique is easier to construct than the BARS and makes the evaluator’s job somewhat simpler. Even so, this is a relatively new technique that is only now receiving some support in industry.

Management by Objectives

A popular technique for evaluating employees who are involved in jobs that have clear quantitative output is management by objectives (MBO). Although the concept of MBO encompasses much more than just the appraisal process (incorporating an organization-wide motivation, performance, and control system), we will focus here on its narrower application to evaluating employee performance. MBO is closely related to the goal-setting theory of motivation.

Under MBO, individual employees work with their supervisor to establish goals and objectives for which they will be responsible during the coming year. These goals are stated in clear language and relate to tasks that are within the domain of the employee. An example of these goals for a sales representative is shown in Table 8.4 . Following a specified period of time, the employee’s performance is compared to the preset goals to determine the extent to which the goals have been met or exceeded.

Several advantages of MBO have been observed. These include the ability to do better planning; improved motivation, because of knowledge of results; fairer evaluations, done on the basis of results rather than personality; improved commitment through participation; and improved supervisory skills in such areas as listening, counseling, and evaluating. On the negative side, however, MBO has been criticized because it emphasizes quantitative goals at the expense of qualitative goals and often creates too much paperwork. It is difficult to compare performance levels among employees because most are responsible for different goals. Sometimes the implementation of MBO goals are autocratic and therefore ineffective or even counterproductive. As discussed in the study of motivation, goals must be accepted to be effective. Finally, in order to be successful, MBO implementation must have constant attention and support from top management; MBO does not run itself. In the absence of this support, the technique loses legitimacy and often falls into disrepair.

Assessment Centers

A relatively new method of evaluation is the assessment center . Assessment centers are unique among appraisal techniques in that they focus more on evaluating an employee’s long-range potential to an organization than on her performance over the past year. They are also unique in that they are used almost exclusively among managerial personnel.

An assessment center consists of a series of standardized evaluations of behavior based on multiple inputs. Over a two- or three-day period (away from the job), trained observers make judgments on managers’ behavior in response to specially developed exercises. These exercises may consist of in-basket exercises, role-playing, and case analyses, as well as personal interviews and psychological tests. An example of an assessment center program is shown in Table 8.5 .

On the basis of these exercises, the trained observers make judgments on employees’ potential for future managerial assignments in the organization. More specifically, information is obtained concerning employees’ interpersonal skills, communication ability, creativity, problem-solving skills, tolerance for stress and ambiguity, and planning ability. This technique has been used successfully by some of the largest corporations in the United States, including AT&T, IBM, and General Electric.

Results from a series of assessment center programs appear promising, and the technique is growing in popularity as a means of identifying future managerial potential. For example, Coca-Cola USA experimented with using assessment centers to select its managerial personnel. After a detailed study, the company found that those selected in this way were only one-third as likely to leave the company or be fired than those selected in the traditional way. Although the assessment center approach added about 6 percent to the cost of hiring, the lower turnover rate led to large overall savings. 6

Some problems with the technique have been noted. In particular, because of the highly stressful environment created in assessment centers, many otherwise good managers may simply not perform to their potential. Moreover, the results of a poor evaluation in an assessment center may be far-reaching; individuals may receive a “loser” image that will follow them for a long time. And, finally, there is some question concerning exactly how valid and reliable assessment centers really are in predicting future managerial success. 7 Despite these problems, assessment centers remain a popular vehicle in some companies for developing and appraising managerial potential.

Ethics in Practice

Tesla’s performance review.

At Tesla, the automotive giant, the standards are set extremely high for their employees. In 2017, Tesla conducted its annual performance reviews as it does each year. Due to the review process, the company sees both voluntary and involuntary departures. During the review process, the managers discuss “results that were achieved, as well as how those results were achieved” with their employees.* Tesla also has a performance recognition and compensation program that includes equity rewards as well as promotions in some cases, along with the constructive feedback.

The departure of employees during the review period is not unique to Tesla; however, in 2017 there was a large exodus of approximately 700 employees following their employee reviews. Elon Musk, who recently has stepped down from the role of chairman and has been under scrutiny for his behavior,* saw the media coverage of this news as “ridiculous.”

“You have two boxes of equal ability, and one’s much smaller, the big guy’s going to crush the little guy, obviously,” states Musk. “So, the little guy better have a heck of a lot more skill or he’s going to get clobbered. So that is why our standards are high . . . if they’re not high, we will die.”

Overall, approximately 17 percent of their employees were promoted, almost half in manufacturing. As Tesla continues to grow and develop new vehicles, it is consistently pushing the boundaries and pushing its employees to new limits. Performance reviews are of the highest importance for Tesla’s business to succeed; the company needs the best people with the best skills. It is constantly growing and attempting to “suck the labor pool dry” to fill positions at many of its locations and factories.

• What factors do you feel could have changed in Tesla’s approach to its performance reviews?
• How can a high-pressure environment affect an employee’s performance? What factors should be considered to combat these issues?

Sources: K. Korosec. “Tesla Fires Hundreds of Workers After Their Annual Performance Review.” Fortune , October 14, 2017, http://fortune.com/2017/10/13/tesla-fires-employees/; D. Muoio. “Tesla fired 700 employees after performance reviews in the third quarter.” Business Insider , November 1, 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-fired-700-employees-performance-reviews-2017-11; J. Wattles. “Elon Musk agrees to pay $20 million and quit as Tesla chairman in deal with SEC.” Money , September 30, 2018, https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/29/technology/business/elon-musk-tesla-sec-settlement/index.html.

Comparison of Appraisal Techniques

It is important to consider which appraisal technique or set of techniques may be most appropriate for a given situation. Although there is no simple answer to this question, we can consider the various strengths and weaknesses of each technique. This is done in Table 8.6 . It is important to keep in mind that the appropriateness of a particular appraisal technique is in part a function of the purpose for the appraisal. For example, if the purpose of the appraisal is to identify high potential executives, then assessment centers are more appropriate than rating scales.

As would be expected, the easiest and least expensive techniques are also the least accurate. They are also the least useful for purposes of personnel decisions and employee development. Once again, it appears that managers and organizations get what they pay for. If performance appraisals represent an important aspect of organizational life, clearly the more sophisticated—and more time-consuming—techniques are preferable. If, on the other hand, it is necessary to evaluate employees quickly and with few resources, techniques such as the graphic rating scale may be more appropriate. Managers must make cost-benefit decisions about the price (in time and money) they are willing to pay for a quality performance appraisal system.

Concept Check

• What are the techniques and scales used in performance appraisals?
• What are MBOs, and how do they relate to performance appraisals?
• What are assessment centers?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: J. Stewart Black, David S. Bright
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Organizational Behavior
• Publication date: Jun 5, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/8-2-techniques-of-performance-appraisal

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Chapter 7: Performance Management

30 Appraisal Methods

4. appraisal methods.

In this section we will discuss some of the main methods used to assess performance. However, before discussing these methods, we must discuss how they approach the assessment of individual performance. Some methods focus on the employee’s specific traits in relation to the job. For these methods, the objective is to capture whether or not the employees possess the KSAO’s required for the job. An example would be to assess whether a salesperson is outgoing or whether the accounts payable clerks are conscientious and pay attention to detail. Another way to approach the assessment of performance is to look at individual actions within a specific job. This focus on behaviour, for example, would try to measure whether the salesperson uses a certain protocol when approaching customers or whether the accounts payable clerk follows up on her phone calls. The focus is on ‘what employees actually do’ as opposed to ‘who the employee is’ (for the trait methods). Comparative methods compare one employee with other employees. Finally, r esults methods are focused on objective employee accomplishments. Note that many organizations will use these methods in combination.

4.1. Graphic Rating Scale

The graphic rating scale , a trait method, is perhaps the most popular choice for performance evaluations. This type of evaluation lists the traits required for the job and asks the source to rate the individual on each attribute such as dependability and creativity. For example, the ratings can include a scale of 1–10; excellent, average, or poor; or exceeds, meets, or doesn’t meet expectations. A continuous scale allows the manager to put a mark on the continuum scale that best represents the employee’s performance. For example:

The disadvantage of this type of scale is that it is quite subjective. Thus, many organizations use a graphic rating scale in conjunction with other appraisal methods to further solidify the tool’s validity. For example, some organizations use a mixed standard scale , which is similar to a graphic rating scale. This scale includes a series of mixed statements representing excellent, average, and poor performance, and the manager is asked to rate a “+” (performance is better than stated), “0” (performance is at stated level), or “−” (performance is below stated level). Mixed standard statements might include the following:

• The employee gets along with most coworkers and has had only a few interpersonal issues.
• This employee takes initiative.
• The employee consistently turns in below-average work.
• The employee always meets established deadlines.

Figure 7.2. Example of Graphic Rating Scale

4.2. Essay Appraisal

In an essay appraisal , the source answers a series of questions about the employee’s performance in essay form. This can be a trait method and/or a behavioral method, depending on how the manager writes the essay. These statements may include strengths and weaknesses about the employee or statements about past performance. They can also include specific examples of past performance. The disadvantage of this type of method (when not combined with other rating systems) is that the manager’s writing ability can contribute to the effectiveness of the evaluation. Also, managers may write less or more, which means less consistency between performance appraisals by various managers.

Figure 7.3. Example of Essay Rating

4.3. Checklist Scale

A checklist method for performance evaluations lessens the subjectivity, although subjectivity will still be present in this type of rating system. With a checklist scale , a series of questions is asked and the manager simply responds yes or no to the questions, which can fall into either the behavioural or the trait method, or both. Another variation to this scale is a check mark in the criteria the employee meets, and a blank in the areas the employee does not meet. The challenge with this format is that it does not allow for more detailed answers and analysis of the performance criteria, unless combined with another method, such as essay ratings.

Figure 7.4.  Example of Checklist Scale

4.4. Critical Incident Appraisals

This method of appraisal, while more time-consuming to develop, can be effective because it provides specific examples of behaviour to anchor the ratings. With a critical incident appraisal , the manager records examples of the employee’s effective and ineffective behaviour during the time period between evaluations, which is in the behavioural category. When it is time for the employee to be reviewed, the manager will pull out this file and formally record the incidents that occurred over the time period. The disadvantage of this method is the tendency to record only negative incidents instead of positive ones. However, this method can work well if the manager has the proper training to record incidents (perhaps by keeping a weekly diary) in a fair manner. This approach can also work well when specific jobs vary greatly from week to week, unlike, for example, a factory worker who routinely performs the same weekly tasks.

4.5. Work Standards Approach

For certain jobs in which productivity is most important, a work standards approach could be the more effective way of evaluating employees. With this results-focused approach, a minimum level is set and the employee’s performance evaluation is based on this level. For example, if a sales person does not meet a quota of $1 million, this would be recorded as nonperforming. The downside is that this method does not allow for reasonable deviations. For example, if the quota is not met, perhaps the employee just had a bad month but normally performs well. This approach works best in long-term situations, in which a reasonable measure of performance can be over a certain period of time. This method is also used in manufacturing situations where production is extremely important. For example, in an automotive assembly line, the focus is on how many cars are built in a specified period, and therefore, employee performance is measured this way. Since this approach is centered on production, it does not allow for rating of other factors, such as ability to work on a team or communication skills, which can be important parts of the job.

4.6. Ranking Methods

In a ranking method system (also called relative method), employees in a particular department are ranked based on their performance. This system is a comparative method for performance evaluations. The manager will have a list of all employees and will first choose the most valuable employee and put that name at the top. Then he or she will choose the least valuable employee and put that name at the bottom of the list. With the remaining employees, this process would be repeated. Obviously, there is room for bias with this method. It may not work well in a larger organization, where managers may not interact with each employee on a day-to-day basis.

Human Resources Management - Canadian Edition by Stéphane Brutus and Nora Baronian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.3: Appraisal Methods

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 23785

Learning Objectives

• Be able to describe the various appraisal methods.

It probably goes without saying that different industries and jobs need different kinds of appraisal methods. For our purposes, we will discuss some of the main ways to assess performance in a performance evaluation form. Of course, these will change based upon the job specifications for each position within the company. In addition to industry-specific and job-specific methods, many organizations will use these methods in combination, as opposed to just one method. There are three main methods of determining performance. The first is the trait method, in which managers look at an employee’s specific traits in relation to the job, such as friendliness to the customer. The behavioral method looks at individual actions within a specific job. Comparative methods compare one employee with other employees. Results methods are focused on employee accomplishments, such as whether or not employees met a quota.

Within the categories of performance appraisals, there are two main aspects to appraisal methods. First, the criteria are the aspects the employee is actually being evaluated on, which should be tied directly to the employee᾿s job description. Second, the rating is the type of scale that will be used to rate each criterion in a performance evaluation: for example, scales of 1–5, essay ratings, or yes/no ratings. Tied to the rating and criteria is the weighting each item will be given. For example, if “communication” and “interaction with client” are two criteria, the interaction with the client may be weighted more than communication, depending on the job type. We will discuss the types of criteria and rating methods next.

Graphic Rating Scale

The graphic rating scale, a behavioral method, is perhaps the most popular choice for performance evaluations. This type of evaluation lists traits required for the job and asks the source to rate the individual on each attribute. A discrete scale is one that shows a number of different points. The ratings can include a scale of 1–10; excellent, average, or poor; or meets, exceeds, or doesn’t meet expectations, for example. A continuous scale shows a scale and the manager puts a mark on the continuum scale that best represents the employee’s performance. For example:

The disadvantage of this type of scale is the subjectivity that can occur. This type of scale focuses on behavioral traits and is not specific enough to some jobs. Development of specific criteria can save an organization in legal costs. For example, in Thomas v. IBM , IBM was able to successfully defend accusations of age discrimination because of the objective criteria the employee (Thomas) had been rated on.

Many organizations use a graphic rating scale in conjunction with other appraisal methods to further solidify the tool’s validity. For example, some organizations use a mixed standard scale, which is similar to a graphic rating scale. This scale includes a series of mixed statements representing excellent, average, and poor performance, and the manager is asked to rate a “+” (performance is better than stated), “0” (performance is at stated level), or “−” (performance is below stated level). Mixed standard statements might include the following:

• The employee gets along with most coworkers and has had only a few interpersonal issues.
• This employee takes initiative.
• The employee consistently turns in below-average work.
• The employee always meets established deadlines.

An example of a graphic rating scale is shown in Figure 11.1 “Example of Graphic Rating Scale” .

Essay Appraisal

In an essay appraisal, the source answers a series of questions about the employee’s performance in essay form. This can be a trait method and/or a behavioral method, depending on how the manager writes the essay. These statements may include strengths and weaknesses about the employee or statements about past performance. They can also include specific examples of past performance. The disadvantage of this type of method (when not combined with other rating systems) is that the manager’s writing ability can contribute to the effectiveness of the evaluation. Also, managers may write less or more, which means less consistency between performance appraisals by various managers.

Checklist Scale

A checklist method for performance evaluations lessens the subjectivity, although subjectivity will still be present in this type of rating system. With a checklist scale, a series of questions is asked and the manager simply responds yes or no to the questions, which can fall into either the behavioral or the trait method, or both. Another variation to this scale is a check mark in the criteria the employee meets, and a blank in the areas the employee does not meet. The challenge with this format is that it doesn’t allow more detailed answers and analysis of the performance criteria, unless combined with another method, such as essay ratings. A sample of a checklist scale is provided in Figure 11.3 “Example of Checklist Scale” .

Figure 11.1 Example of Graphic Rating Scale

Figure 11.2 Example of Essay Rating

Figure 11.3 Example of Checklist Scale

Critical Incident Appraisals

This method of appraisal, while more time-consuming for the manager, can be effective at providing specific examples of behavior. With a critical incident appraisal, the manager records examples of the employee’s effective and ineffective behavior during the time period between evaluations, which is in the behavioral category. When it is time for the employee to be reviewed, the manager will pull out this file and formally record the incidents that occurred over the time period. The disadvantage of this method is the tendency to record only negative incidents instead of postive ones. However, this method can work well if the manager has the proper training to record incidents (perhaps by keeping a weekly diary) in a fair manner. This approach can also work well when specific jobs vary greatly from week to week, unlike, for example, a factory worker who routinely performs the same weekly tasks.

Work Standards Approach

For certain jobs in which productivity is most important, a work standards approach could be the more effective way of evaluating employees. With this results-focused approach, a minimum level is set and the employee’s performance evaluation is based on this level. For example, if a sales person does not meet a quota of $1 million, this would be recorded as nonperforming. The downside is that this method does not allow for reasonable deviations. For example, if the quota isn’t made, perhaps the employee just had a bad month but normally performs well. This approach works best in long-term situations, in which a reasonable measure of performance can be over a certain period of time. This method is also used in manufacuring situations where production is extremely important. For example, in an automotive assembly line, the focus is on how many cars are built in a specified period, and therefore, employee performance is measured this way, too. Since this approach is centered on production, it doesn’t allow for rating of other factors, such as ability to work on a team or communication skills, which can be an important part of the job, too.

Ranking Methods

In a ranking method system (also called stack ranking), employees in a particular department are ranked based on their value to the manager or supervisor. This system is a comparative method for performance evaluations.The manager will have a list of all employees and will first choose the most valuable employee and put that name at the top. Then he or she will choose the least valuable employee and put that name at the bottom of the list. With the remaining employees, this process would be repeated. Obviously, there is room for bias with this method, and it may not work well in a larger organization, where managers may not interact with each employee on a day-to-day basis.

To make this type of evaluation most valuable (and legal), each supervisor should use the same criteria to rank each individual. Otherwise, if criteria are not clearly developed, validity and halo effects could be present. The Roper v. Exxon Corp case illustrates the need for clear guidelines when using a ranking system. At Exxon, the legal department attorneys were annually evaluated and then ranked based on input from attorneys, supervisors, and clients. Based on the feedback, each attorney for Exxon was ranked based on their relative contribution and performance. Each attorney was given a group percentile rank (i.e., 99 percent was the best-performing attorney). When Roper was in the bottom 10 percent for three years and was informed of his separation with the company, he filed an age discrimination lawsuit. The courts found no correlation between age and the lowest-ranking individuals, and because Exxon had a set of established ranking criteria, they won the case (Grote, 2005).

Another consideration is the effect on employee morale should the rankings be made public. If they are not made public, morale issues may still exist, as the perception might be that management has “secret” documents.

Fortune 500 Focus

Critics have long said that a forced ranking system can be detrimental to morale; it focuses too much on individual performance as opposed to team performance. Some say a forced ranking system promotes too much competition in the workplace. However, many Fortune 500 companies use this system and have found it works for their culture. General Electric (GE) used perhaps one of the most well-known forced ranking systems. In this system, every year managers placed their employees into one of three categories: “A” employees are the top 20 percent, “B” employees are the middle 70 percent, and “C” performers are the bottom 10 percent. In GE’s system, the bottom 10 percent are usually either let go or put on a performance plan. The top 20 percent are given more responsibility and perhaps even promoted. However, even GE has reinvented this stringent forced ranking system. In 2006, it changed the system to remove references to the 20/70/10 split, and GE now presents the curve as a guideline. This gives more freedom for managers to distribute employees in a less stringent manner 1 .

The advantages of a forced ranking system include that it creates a high-performance work culture and establishes well-defined consequences for not meeting performance standards. In recent research, a forced ranking system seems to correlate well with return on investment to shareholders. For example, the study (Sprenkel, 2011) shows that companies who use individual criteria (as opposed to overall performance) to measure performance outperform those who measure performance based on overall company success. To make a ranking system work, it is key to ensure managers have a firm grasp on the criteria on which employees will be ranked. Companies using forced rankings without set criteria open themselves to lawsuits, because it would appear the rankings happen based on favoritism rather than quantifiable performance data. For example, Ford in the past used forced ranking systems but eliminated the system after settling class action lawsuits that claimed discrimination (Lowery, 2011). Conoco also has settled lawsuits over its forced ranking systems, as domestic employees claimed the system favored foreign workers (Lowery, 2011). To avoid these issues, the best way to develop and maintain a forced ranking system is to provide each employee with specific and measurable objectives, and also provide management training so the system is executed in a fair, quantifiable manner.

In a forced distribution system, like the one used by GE, employees are ranked in groups based on high performers, average performers, and nonperformers. The trouble with this system is that it does not consider that all employees could be in the top two categories, high or average performers, and requires that some employees be put in the nonperforming category.

In a paired comparison system, the manager must compare every employee with every other employee within the department or work group. Each employee is compared with another, and out of the two, the higher performer is given a score of 1. Once all the pairs are compared, the scores are added. This method takes a lot of time and, again, must have specific criteria attached to it when comparing employees.

Human Resource Recall

How can you make sure the performance appraisal ties into a specific job description?

Management by Objectives (MBO)

Management by objectives (MBOs) is a concept developed by Peter Drucker in his 1954 book The Practice of Management (Drucker, 2006). This method is results oriented and similar to the work standards approach, with a few differences. First, the manager and employee sit down together and develop objectives for the time period. Then when it is time for the performance evaluation, the manager and employee sit down to review the goals that were set and determine whether they were met. The advantage of this is the open communication between the manager and the employee. The employee also has “buy-in” since he or she helped set the goals, and the evaluation can be used as a method for further skill development. This method is best applied for positions that are not routine and require a higher level of thinking to perform the job. To be efficient at MBOs, the managers and employee should be able to write strong objectives. To write objectives, they should be SMART (Doran, 1981):

• Specific. There should be one key result for each MBO. What is the result that should be achieved?
• Measurable. At the end of the time period, it should be clear if the goal was met or not. Usually a number can be attached to an objective to make it measurable, for example “sell $1,000,000 of new business in the third quarter.”
• Attainable. The objective should not be impossible to attain. It should be challenging, but not impossible.
• Result oriented. The objective should be tied to the company’s mission and values. Once the objective is made, it should make a difference in the organization as a whole.
• Time limited. The objective should have a reasonable time to be accomplished, but not too much time.

Setting MBOs with Employees

" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHgPnLCzBwU" class="replaced-iframe">(click to see video)

An example of how to work with an employee to set MBOs.

To make MBOs an effective performance evaluation tool, it is a good idea to train managers and determine which job positions could benefit most from this type of method. You may find that for some more routine positions, such as administrative assistants, another method could work better.

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

A BARS method first determines the main performance dimensions of the job, for example, interpersonal relationships. Then the tool utilizes narrative information, such as from a critical incidents file, and assigns quantified ranks to each expected behavior. In this system, there is a specific narrative outlining what exemplifies a “good” and “poor” behavior for each category. The advantage of this type of system is that it focuses on the desired behaviors that are important to complete a task or perform a specific job. This method combines a graphic rating scale with a critical incidents system. The US Army Research Institute (Phillips, et. al., 2006) developed a BARS scale to measure the abilities of tactical thinking skills for combat leaders. Figure 11.4 “Example of BARS” provides an example of how the Army measures these skills.

Figure 11.4 Example of BARS

Figure 11.5 More Examples of Performance Appraisal Types

How Would You Handle This?

Playing Favorites

You were just promoted to manager of a high-end retail store. As you are sorting through your responsibilities, you receive an e-mail from HR outlining the process for performance evaluations. You are also notified that you must give two performance evaluations within the next two weeks. This concerns you, because you don’t know any of the employees and their abilities yet. You aren’t sure if you should base their performance on what you see in a short time period or if you should ask other employees for their thoughts on their peers’ performance. As you go through the files on the computer, you find a critical incident file left from the previous manager, and you think this might help. As you look through it, it is obvious the past manager had “favorite” employees and you aren’t sure if you should base the evaluations on this information. How would you handle this?

Key Takeaways

• When developing performance appraisal criteria, it is important to remember the criteria should be job specific and industry specific.
• The performance appraisal criteria should be based on the job specifications of each specific job. General performance criteria are not an effective way to evaluate an employee.
• The rating is the scale that will be used to evaluate each criteria item. There are a number of different rating methods, including scales of 1–5, yes or no questions, and essay.
• In a graphic rating performance evaluation, employees are rated on certain desirable attributes. A variety of rating scales can be used with this method. The disadvantage is possible subjectivity.
• An essay performance evaluation will ask the manager to provide commentary on specific aspects of the employee’s job performance.
• A checklist utilizes a yes or no rating selection, and the criteria are focused on components of the employee’s job.
• Some managers keep a critical incidents file . These incidents serve as specific examples to be written about in a performance appraisal. The downside is the tendency to record only negative incidents and the time it can take to record this.
• The work standards performance appraisal approach looks at minimum standards of productivity and rates the employee performance based on minimum expectations. This method is often used for sales forces or manufacturing settings where productivity is an important aspect.
• In a ranking performance evaluation system, the manager ranks each employee from most valuable to least valuable. This can create morale issues within the workplace.
• An MBO or management by objectives system is where the manager and employee sit down together, determine objectives, then after a period of time, the manager assesses whether those objectives have been met. This can create great development opportunities for the employee and a good working relationship between the employee and manager.
• An MBO’s objectives should be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented, and time limited.
• A BARS approach uses a rating scale but provides specific narratives on what constitutes good or poor performance.
• Administrative Assistant
• Chief Executive Officer
• Human Resource Manager
• Retail Store Assistant Manager

1 “The Struggle to Measure Performance,” BusinessWeek , January 9, 2006, accessed August 15, 2011, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966060.htm .

Doran, G. T., “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives,” Management Review 70, no. 11 (1981): 35.

Drucker, P., The Practice of Management (New York: Harper, 2006).

Grote, R., Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2005).

Lowery, M., “Forcing the Issue,” Human Resource Executive Online , n.d., accessed August 15, 2011, www.hrexecutive.com/HRE/story.jsp?storyId=4222111&query=ranks.

Phillips, J., Jennifer Shafter, Karol Ross, Donald Cox, and Scott Shadrick, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for the Assessment of Tactical Thinking Mental Models (Research Report 1854), June 2006, US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, accessed August 15, 2011, www.hqda.army.mil/ari/pdf/RR1854.pdf.

Sprenkel, L., “Forced Ranking: A Good Thing for Business?” Workforce Management, n.d., accessed August 15, 2011, homepages.uwp.edu/crooker/790-iep-pm/Articles/meth-fd-workforce.pdf.

404 Not found

404 Not found

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

Selection Criteria

Search strategy, data extraction, risk of bias and applicability, data synthesis and analysis, parent ratings, teacher ratings, youth self-reports, combined rating scales, additional clinician tools, neuropsychological tests, biospecimen, neuroimaging, variation in diagnostic accuracy with clinical setting or patient subgroup, measures for diagnostic performance, available tools, importance of the comparator sample, clinical implications, future research, conclusions, acknowledgments, tools for the diagnosis of adhd in children and adolescents: a systematic review.

FUNDING: The work is based on research conducted by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract 75Q80120D00009). The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded the research (PCORI Publication No. 2023-SR-03). The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ or PCORI, its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of PCORI, AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Bradley S. Peterson , Joey Trampush , Morah Brown , Margaret Maglione , Maria Bolshakova , Mary Rozelle , Jeremy Miles , Sheila Pakdaman , Sachi Yagyu , Aneesa Motala , Susanne Hempel; Tools for the Diagnosis of ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics 2024; e2024065854. 10.1542/peds.2024-065854

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Correct diagnosis is essential for the appropriate clinical management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents.

This systematic review provides an overview of the available diagnostic tools.

We identified diagnostic accuracy studies in 12 databases published from 1980 through June 2023.

Any ADHD tool evaluation for the diagnosis of ADHD, requiring a reference standard of a clinical diagnosis by a mental health specialist.

Data were abstracted and critically appraised by 1 reviewer and checked by a methodologist. Strength of evidence and applicability assessments followed Evidence-based Practice Center standards.

In total, 231 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies evaluated parental ratings, teacher ratings, youth self-reports, clinician tools, neuropsychological tests, biospecimen, EEG, and neuroimaging. Multiple tools showed promising diagnostic performance, but estimates varied considerably across studies, with a generally low strength of evidence. Performance depended on whether ADHD youth were being differentiated from neurotypically developing children or from clinically referred children.

Studies used different components of available tools and did not report sufficient data for meta-analytic models.

A valid and reliable diagnosis of ADHD requires the judgment of a clinician who is experienced in the evaluation of youth with and without ADHD, along with the aid of standardized rating scales and input from multiple informants across multiple settings, including parents, teachers, and youth themselves.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent neurodevelopmental conditions in youth. Its prevalence has remained constant at ∼5.3% worldwide over the years, and diagnostic criteria have remained constant when based on rigorous diagnostic procedures. 1 Clinical diagnoses, however, have increased steadily over time, 2 and currently, ∼10% of US children receive an ADHD diagnosis. 3 Higher rates of clinical compared with research-based diagnoses are because of an increasing clinician recognition of youth who have ADHD symptoms that are functionally impairing but do not fully meet formal diagnostic criteria. 4 The higher diagnostic rates over time in clinical samples also results from youth receiving a diagnosis incorrectly. Some youth, for example, are misdiagnosed as having ADHD when they have symptoms of other disorders that overlap with ADHD symptoms, such as difficulty concentrating, which occurs in many other conditions. 5 Moreover, ADHD is more than twice as likely to be diagnosed in boys than in girls, 3 in lower-income families, 6 and in white compared with nonwhite youth 7 ; differences that derive at least in part from diagnostic and cultural biases. 8 , – 11  

Improving clinical diagnostic accuracy is essential to ensure that youth who truly have ADHD benefit from receiving treatment without delay. Similarly, youth who do not have ADHD should not be diagnosed since an incorrect diagnosis risks exposing them to unbeneficial treatments. 12 , 13 Clinician judgement alone, however, especially by nonspecialist clinicians, is poor in diagnosing ADHD 14 compared with expert, research-grade diagnoses made by mental health clinicians. 15 Accurately diagnosing ADHD is difficult because diagnoses are often made using subjective clinical impressions, and putative diagnostic tools have a confusing, diverse, and poorly described evidence base that is not widely accessible. The availability of valid diagnostic tools would especially help to reduce misdiagnoses from cultural biases and symptom overlap with ADHD. 12 , 16 , – 19  

This review summarizes evidence for the performance of tools for children and adolescents with ADHD. We did not restrict to a set of known diagnostic tools but instead explored the range of available diagnostic tools, including machine-learning assisted and virtual reality-based tools. The review aimed to assess how diagnostic performance varies by clinical setting and patient characteristics.

The review aims were developed in consultation with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the topic nominator American Academy of Pediatrics, key informants, a technical expert panel (TEP), and public input. The TEP reviewed the protocol and advised on key outcomes. Subgroup analyses and key outcomes were prespecified. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022312656) and the protocol is available on the AHRQ Web site as part of a larger evidence report on ADHD. The systematic review followed Methods of the (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center Program. 20  

Population: age <18 years.

Interventions: any ADHD tool for the diagnosis of ADHD.

Comparators: diagnosis by a mental health specialist, such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, or other provider, who often used published scales or semistructured diagnostic interviews to ensure a reliable DSM-based diagnosis of ADHD.

Key outcomes: diagnostic accuracy (eg, sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve).

Setting: any.

Study design: diagnostic accuracy studies.

Other: English language, published from 1980 to June 2023.

We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We identified reviews for reference-mining through PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Collaboration, What Works in Education, PROSPERO, ECRI Guidelines Trust, G-I-N, and ClinicalKey. The peer reviewed strategy is in the Supplemental Appendix . All citations were screened by trained literature reviewers supported by machine learning ( Fig 1 ). Two independent reviewers assessed full text studies for eligibility. The TEP reviewed studies to ensure all were captured. Publications reporting on the same participants were consolidated into 1 record.

Literature flow diagram.

The data abstraction form included extensive guidance to aid reproducibility and standardization in recording study details, results, risk of bias, and applicability. One reviewer abstracted data and a methodologist checked accuracy and completeness. Data are publicly available in the Systematic Review Data Repository.

We assessed characteristics pertaining to patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow and timing that may have introduced bias, and evaluated applicability of study results, such as whether the test, its conduct, or interpretation differed from how the test is used in clinical practice. 21 , 22  

We differentiated parent, teacher, and youth self-report ratings; tools for clinicians; neuropsychological tests; biospecimens; EEG; and neuroimaging. We organized analyses according to prespecified outcome measures. A narrative overview summarized the range of diagnostic performance for key outcomes. Because lack of reported detail in many individual studies hindered use of meta-analytic models, we created summary figures to document the diagnostic performance reported in each study. We used meta-regressions across studies to assess the effects of age, comorbidities, racial and ethnic composition, and diagnostic setting (differentiating primary care, specialty care, school settings, mixed settings, and not reported) on diagnostic performance. One researcher with experience in use of specified standardized criteria 23 initially assessed the overall strength of evidence (SoE) (see Supplemental Appendix ) for each study, then discussed it with the study team to communicate our confidence in each finding.

We screened 23 139 citations and 7534 publications retrieved as full text against the eligibility criteria. In total, 231 studies reported in 290 publications met the eligibility criteria (see Fig 1 ).

Methodological quality of the studies varied. Selection bias was likely in two-thirds of studies; several were determined to be problematic in terms of reported study flow and timing of assessments (eg, not stating whether diagnosis was known before the results of the index test); and several lacked details on diagnosticians or diagnostic procedures ( Supplemental Fig 1 ). Applicability concerns limited the generalizability of findings ( Supplemental Fig 2 ), usually because youth with comorbidities were excluded. Many different tools were assessed within the broader categories (eg, within neuropsychological tests), and even when reporting on the same diagnostic tool, studies often used different components of the tool (eg, different subscales of rating scales), or they combined components in a variety of ways (eg, across different neuropsychological test parameters).

The evidence table ( Supplemental Table 10 , Supplemental Appendix ) shows each study’s finding. The following highlights key findings across studies.

Fifty-nine studies used parent ratings to diagnose ADHD ( Fig 2 ). The most frequently evaluated tool was the CBCL (Child Behavior Checklist), alone or in combination with other tools, often using different score cutoffs for diagnosis, and evaluating different subscales (most frequently the attention deficit/hyperactivity problems subscale). Sensitivities ranged from 38% (corresponding specificity = 96%) to 100% (specificity = 4% to 92%). 24 , 25  

Diagnostic performance parent and teacher ratings. For a complete list of scales see Supplemental Appendix .

Area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operator characteristic curves ranged widely from 0.55 to 0.95 but 3 CBCL studies reported AUCs of 0.83 to 0.84. 26 , – 28 Few studies reported measurement of reliability. SoE was downgraded for study limitation (lack of detailed reporting), imprecision (large performance variability), and inconsistent findings ( Supplemental Table 1 ).

Twenty-three studies used teacher ratings to diagnose ADHD ( Fig 2 ). No 2 studies reported on rater agreement, internal consistency, or test-retest reliability for the same teacher rating scale. The highest sensitivity was 97% (specificity = 26%). 25 The Teacher Report Form, alone or in combination with Conners teacher rating scales, yielded sensitivities of 72% to 79% 29 and specificities of 64% to 76%. 30 , 32 reported AUCs ranged from 0.65 to 0.84. 32 SoE was downgraded to low for imprecision (large performance variability) and inconsistency (results for specific tools not replicated), see Supplemental Table 2 .

Six studies used youth self-reports to diagnose ADHD. No 2 studies used the same instrument. Sensitivities ranged from 53% (specificity = 98%) to 86% (specificity = 70%). 35 AUCs ranged from 0.56 to 0.85. 36 We downgraded SoE for domain inconsistency (only 1 study reported on a given tool and outcome), see Supplemental Table 3 .

Thirteen studies assessed diagnostic performance of ratings combined across informants, often using machine learning for variable selection. Only 1 study compared performance of combined data to performance from single informants, finding negligible improvement (AUC youth = 0.71; parent = 0.85; combined = 0.86). 37 Other studies reported on limited outcome measures and used ad hoc methods to combine information from multiple informants. The best AUC was reported by a machine learning supported study combining parent and teacher ratings (AUC = 0.98). 38  

Twenty-four studies assessed additional tools, such as interview guides, that can be used by clinicians to aid diagnosis of ADHD. Sensitivities varied, ranging from 67% (specificity = 65%) to 98% (specificity = 100%); specificities ranged from 36% (sensitivity = 89%) to 100% (sensitivity = 98%). 39 Some of the tools measured activity levels objectively using an actometer or commercially available activity tracker, either alone or as part of a diagnostic test battery. Reported performance was variable (sensitivity range 25% to 100%, 40 specificity range 66% to 100%, 40 AUCs range 0.75–0.9996 41 ). SoE was downgraded for imprecision (large performance variability) and inconsistency (outcomes and results not replicated), see Supplemental Table 4 .

Seventy-four studies used measures from various neuropsychological tests, including continuous performance tests (CPTs). Four of these included 3- and 4-year-old children. 42 , – 44 A large majority used a CPT, which assessed omission errors (reflecting inattention), commission errors (impulsivity), and reaction time SD (response time variability). Studies varied in use of traditional visual CPTs, such as the Test of Variables of Attention, more novel, multifaceted “hybrid” CPT paradigms, and virtual reality CPTs built upon environments designed to emulate real-world classroom distractibility. Studies used idiosyncratic combinations of individual cognitive measures to achieve the best performance, though many reported on CPT attention and impulsivity measures.

Sensitivity for all neuropsychological tests ranged from 22% (specificity = 96%) to 100% (specificity = 100%) 45 ( Fig 3 ), though the latter study reported performance for unique composite measures without replication. Specificities ranged from 22% (sensitivity = 91%) 46 to 100% (sensitivity = 100% to 75%). 45 , 47 AUCs ranged from 0.59 to 0.93. 48 Sensitivity for all CPT studies ranged from 22% ( specificity = 96) to 100% (specificity = 75%). 49 Specificities for CPTs ranged from 22% (sensitivity = 91%) to 100% (sensitivity = 89%) 47 ( Fig 3 ). AUCs ranged from 0.59 to 0.93. 50 , 51 SoE was deemed low for imprecise studies (large performance variability), see Supplemental Table 5.

Diagnostic performance neuropsychological tests, CPTs, activity monitors, biospecimen, EEG.

Seven studies assessed blood or urine biomarkers to diagnose ADHD. These measured erythropoietin or erythropoietin receptor, membrane potential ratio, micro RNA levels, or urine metabolites. Sensitivities ranged from 56% (specificity = 95%) to 100% (specificity = 100% for erythropoietin and erythropoietin receptors levels). 52 Specificities ranged from 25% (sensitivity = 79%) to 100% (sensitivity = 100%). 52 AUCs ranged from 0.68 to 1.00. 52 Little information was provided on reliability of markers or their combinations. SoE was downgraded for inconsistent and imprecise studies ( Supplemental Table 6 ).

Forty-five studies used EEG markers to diagnose ADHD. EEG signals were obtained in a variety of patient states, even during neuropsychological test performance. Two-thirds used machine learning algorithms to select classification parameters. Several combined EEG with demographic variables or rating scales. Sensitivity ranged widely from 46% to 100% (corresponding specificities 74 and 71%). 53 , 54 One study that combined EEG with demographics data supported by machine learning reported perfect sensitivity and specificity. 54 Specificity was also variable and ranged from 38% (sensitivity = 95%) to 100% (specificities = 71% or 100%). 53 , – 56 Reported AUCs ranged from 0.63 to 1.0. 57 , 58 SoE was downgraded for study imprecision (large performance variability) and limitations (diagnostic approaches poorly described), see Supplemental Table 7 .

Nineteen studies used neuroimaging for diagnosis. One public data set (ADHD-200) produced several analyses. All but 2 used MRI: some functional MRI (fMRI), some structural, and some in combination, with or without magnetic resonance spectroscopy (2 used near-infrared spectroscopy). Most employed machine learning to detect markers that optimized diagnostic classifications. Some combined imaging measures with demographic or other clinical data in the prediction model. Sensitivities ranged from 42% (specificity = 95%) to 99% (specificity = 100%) using resting state fMRI and a complex machine learning algorithm 56 to differentiate ADHD from neurotypical youth. Specificities ranged from 55% (sensitivity = 95%) to 100% 56 using resting state fMRI data. AUCs ranged from 0.58 to over 0.99, 57 SoE was downgraded for imprecision (large performance variability) and study limitations (diagnostic models are often not well described, and the number and type of predictor variables entering the model were unclear). Studies generally did not validate diagnostic algorithms or assess performance measures in an independent sample ( Supplemental Table 8 ).

Regression analyses indicated that setting was associated with both sensitivity ( P = .03) and accuracy ( P = .006) but not specificity ( P = .68) or AUC ( P = .28), with sensitivities lowest in primary care ( Fig 4 ). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were also lower when differentiating youth with ADHD from a clinical sample than from typically developing youth (sensitivity P = .04, specificity P < .001, AUC P < .001) ( Fig 4 ), suggesting that clinical population is a source of heterogeneity in diagnostic performance. Findings should be interpreted with caution, however, as they were not obtained in meta-analytic models and, consequently, do not take into account study size or quality.

Diagnostic performance by setting and population.

Supplemental Figs 3–5 in the Supplemental Appendix document effects by age and gender. We did not detect statistically significant associations of age with sensitivity ( P = .54) or specificity ( P = .37), or associations of the proportion of girls with sensitivity ( P = .63), specificity ( P = .80), accuracy ( P = .34), or AUC ( P = .90).

We identified a large number of publications reporting on ADHD diagnostic tools. To our knowledge, no prior review of ADHD diagnostic tools has been as comprehensive in the range of tools, outcomes, participant ages, and publication years. Despite the large number of studies, we deemed the strength of evidence for the reported performance measures across all categories of diagnostic tools to be low because of large performance variability across studies and various limitations within and across studies.

We required that studies report diagnoses when using the tool compared with diagnoses made by expert mental health clinicians. Studies most commonly reported sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate) when a study-specific diagnostic threshold was applied to measures from the tool being assessed. Sensitivity and specificity depend critically on that study-specific threshold, and their values are inherently a trade-off, such that varying the threshold to increase either sensitivity or specificity reduces the other. Interpreting diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity, and comparing those performance measures across studies, is therefore challenging. Consequently, researchers more recently often report performance for sensitivity and specificity in terms of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves, a plot of sensitivity versus specificity across the entire range of possible diagnostic thresholds. The area under this ROC curve (AUC) provides an overall, single index of performance that ranges from 0.5 (indicating that the tool provides no information above chance for classification) to 1.0 (indicating a perfect test that can correctly classify all participants as having ADHD and all non-ADHD participants as not having it). AUC values of 90 to 100 are commonly classified as excellent performance; 80 to 90 as good; 70 to 80 as fair; 60 to 70 as poor; and 50 to 60 failed performance.

Most research is available on parental ratings. Overall, AUCs for parent rating scales ranged widely from “poor” 58 to “excellent.” 59 Analyses restricted to the CBCL, the most commonly evaluated scale, yielded more consistent “good” AUCs for differentiating youth with ADHD from others in clinical samples, but the number of studies contributing data were small. Internal consistency for rating scale items was generally high across most rating scales. Test-retest reliability was good, though only 2 studies reported it. One study reported moderate rater agreement between mothers and fathers for inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity symptoms. Few studies included youth under 7 years of age.

AUCs for teacher rating scales ranged from “failed” 33 to “good.” 34 Internal consistency for scale items was generally high. Teacher ratings demonstrated very low rater agreement with corresponding parent scales, suggesting either a problem with the instruments or a large variability in symptom presentation with environmental context (home or school).

Though data were limited, self-reports from youth seemed to perform less well than corresponding parent and teacher reports, with AUCs ranging from “failed” for CBCL or ASEBA when distinguishing ADHD from other patients 33 to “good” for the SWAN in distinguishing ADHD from neurotypical controls. 36 , 37  

Studies evaluating neuropsychological tests yielded AUCs ranging from “poor” 60 , 61 to “excellent.” 50 Many used idiosyncratic combinations of cognitive measures, which complicates interpretation of the results across studies. Nevertheless, extracting specific, comparable measures of inattention and impulsivity from CPTs yielded diagnostic performance ranging from “poor” to “excellent” in differentiating ADHD youth from neurotypical controls and “fair” in differentiating ADHD youth from other patients. 42 , 60 , 62 No studies provided an independent replication of diagnosis using the same measure.

Blood biomarkers yielded AUCs ranging from “poor” (serum miRNAs) 63 to “excellent” (erythropoietin and erythropoietin receptors levels) 52 in differentiating ADHD from neurotypical youth. None have been independently replicated, and test-retest reliability was not reported. Most EEG studies used machine learning for diagnostic classification. AUCs ranged from “poor” 64 to “excellent” when differentiating ADHD youth from neurotypical controls. 65 Diagnostic performance was not prospectively replicated in any independent samples.

Most neuroimaging studies relied on machine learning to develop diagnostic algorithms. AUCs ranged from “poor” 66 to “excellent” for distinguishing ADHD youth from neurotypically developing controls. 57 Most studies used pre-existing data sets or repositories to retrospectively discriminate youths with ADHD from neurotypical controls, not from other clinical populations and not prospectively, and none assessed test-retest reliability or the independent reproducibility of findings. Reporting of final mathematical models or algorithms for diagnosis was limited. Activity monitors have the advantage of providing inexpensive, objective, easily obtained, and quantified measures that can potentially be widely disseminated and scaled.

Studies of combined approaches, such as integrating diagnostic tools with clinician impressions, were limited. One study reported increased sensitivity and specificity when an initial clinician diagnosis combined EEG indicators (the reference standard was a consensus diagnosis from a panel of ADHD experts). 67 These findings were not independently replicated, however, and no test-retest reliability was reported.

Many studies aimed to distinguish ADHD youth from neurotypical controls, which is a distinction of limited clinical relevance. In clinically referred youth, most parents, teachers, and clinicians are reasonably confident that something is wrong, even if they are unsure whether the cause of their concern is ADHD. To be informed by a tool that the child is not typically developing is not particularly helpful. Moreover, we cannot know whether diagnostic performance for tools that discriminate ADHD youth only from neurotypical controls is determined by the presence of ADHD or by the presence of any other characteristics that accompany clinical “caseness,” such as the presence of comorbid illnesses or symptoms shared or easily confused with those of other conditions, or the effects of chronic stress or current or past treatment. The clinically more relevant and difficult question is, therefore, how well the tool distinguishes youth with ADHD from those who have other emotional and behavioral problems. Consistent with these conceptual considerations that argue for assessing diagnostic performance in differentiating youth with ADHD from those with other clinical conditions, we found significant evidence that, across all studies, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were all lower when differentiating youth with ADHD from a clinical sample than when differentiating them from neurotypical youth. These findings also suggest that the comparison population was a significant source of heterogeneity in diagnostic performance.

Despite the large number of studies on diagnostic tools, a valid and reliable diagnosis of ADHD ultimately still requires the judgement of a clinician who is experienced in the evaluation of youth with and without ADHD, along with the aid of standardized rating scales and input from multiple informants across multiple settings, including parents, teachers, and youth themselves. Diagnostic tools perform best when the clinical question is whether a youth has ADHD or is healthy and typically developing, rather than when the clinical question is whether a youth has ADHD or another mental health or behavioral problem. Diagnostic tools yield more false-positive and false-negative diagnoses of ADHD when differentiating youth with ADHD from youth with another mental health problem than when differentiating them from neurotypically developing youth.

Scores for rating scales tended to correlate poorly across raters, and ADHD symptoms in the same child varied across settings, indicating that no single informant in a single setting is a gold-standard for diagnosis. Therefore, diagnosis using rating scales will likely benefit from a more complete representation of symptom expression across multiple informants (parents, school personnel, clinicians, and youth) across more than 1 setting (home, school, and clinic) to inform clinical judgement when making a diagnosis, thus, consistent with current guidelines. 68 , – 70 Unfortunately, methods for combining scores across raters and settings that improve diagnosis compared with scores from single raters have not been developed or prospectively replicated.

Despite the widespread use of neuropsychological testing to “diagnose” youth with ADHD, often at considerable expense, indirect comparisons of AUCs suggest that performance of neuropsychological test measures in diagnosing ADHD is comparable to the diagnostic performance of ADHD rating scales from a single informant. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of parent rating scales is typically better than neuropsychological test measures in head-to-head comparisons. 44 , 71 Furthermore, the overall SoE for estimates of diagnostic performance with neuropsychological testing is low. Use of neuropsychological test measures of executive functioning, such as the CPT, may help inform a clinical diagnosis, but they are not definitive either in ruling in or ruling out a diagnosis of ADHD. The sole use of CPTs and other neuropsychological tests to diagnose ADHD, therefore, cannot be recommended. We note that this conclusion regarding diagnostic value is not relevant to any other clinical utility that testing may have.

No independent replication studies have been conducted to validate EEG, neuroimaging, or biospecimen to diagnose ADHD, and no clinical effectiveness studies have been conducted using these tools to diagnose ADHD in the real world. Thus, these tools do not seem remotely close to being ready for clinical application to aid diagnosis, despite US Food and Drug Administration approval of 1 EEG measure as a purported diagnostic aid. 67 , 72  

All studies of diagnostic tools should report data in more detail (ie, clearly report false-positive and -negative rates, the diagnostic thresholds used, and any data manipulation undertaken to achieve the result) to support meta-analytic methods. Studies should include ROC analyses to support comparisons of test performance across studies that are independent of the diagnostic threshold applied to measures from the tool. They should also include assessment of test-retest reliability to help discern whether variability in measures and test performance is a function of setting or of measurement variability over time. Future studies should address the influence of co-occurring disorders on diagnostic performance and how well the tools distinguish youth with ADHD from youth with other emotional and behavioral problems, not simply from healthy controls. More studies should compare the diagnostic accuracy of different test modalities, head-to-head. Independent, prospective replication of performance measures of diagnostic tools in real-world settings is essential before US Food and Drug Administration approval and before recommendations for widespread clinical use.

Research is needed to identify consensus algorithms that combine rating scale data from multiple informants to improve the clinical diagnosis of ADHD, which at present is often unguided, ad hoc, and suboptimal. Diagnostic studies using EEG, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological tests should report precise operational definitions and measurements of the variable(s) used for diagnosis, any diagnostic algorithm employed, the selected statistical cut-offs, and the number of false-positives and false-negatives the diagnostic tool yields to support future efforts at synthetic analyses.

Objective, quantitative neuropsychological test measures of executive functioning correlate only weakly with the clinical symptoms that define ADHD. 73 Thus, many youth with ADHD have normal executive functioning profiles on neuropsychological testing, and many who have impaired executive functioning on testing do not have ADHD. 74 Future research is needed to understand how test measures of executive functioning and the real-world functional problems that define ADHD map on to one another and how that mapping can be improved.

One of the most important potential uses of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in improving the clinical diagnosis of ADHD and treatment planning would be identification of effect modifiers for the performance of diagnostic tools: determining, for example, whether tools perform better in patients who are younger or older, in ethnic minorities, or those experiencing material hardship, or who have a comorbid illness or specific ADHD presentation. Future studies of ADHD should more systematically address the modifier effects of these patient characteristics. They should make available in public repositories the raw, individual-level data and the algorithms or computer code that will aid future efforts at replication, synthesis, and new discovery for diagnostic tools across data sets and studies.

Finally, no studies meeting our inclusion criteria assessed the consequences of being misdiagnosed or labeled as either having or not having ADHD, the diagnosis of ADHD specifically in preschool-aged children, or the potential adverse consequences of youth being incorrectly diagnosed with or without ADHD. This work is urgently needed.

We thank Cynthia Ramirez, Erin Tokutomi, Jennifer Rivera, Coleman Schaefer, Jerusalem Belay, Anne Onyekwuluje, and Mario Gastelum for help with data acquisition. We thank Kymika Okechukwu, Lauren Pilcher, Joanna King, and Robyn Wheatley from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Jennie Dalton and Paula Eguino Medina from PCORI, Christine Chang and Kim Wittenberg from AHRQ, and Mary Butler from the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center. We thank Glendy Burnett, Eugenia Chan, MD, MPH, Matthew J. Gormley, PhD, Laurence Greenhill, MD, Joseph Hagan, Jr, MD, Cecil Reynolds, PhD, Le'Ann Solmonson, PhD, LPC-S, CSC, and Peter Ziemkowski, MD, FAAFP who served as key informants. We thank Angelika Claussen, PhD, Alysa Doyle, PhD, Tiffany Farchione, MD, Matthew J. Gormley, PhD, Laurence Greenhill, MD, Jeffrey M. Halperin, PhD, Marisa Perez-Martin, MS, LMFT, Russell Schachar, MD, Le'Ann Solmonson, PhD, LPC-S, CSC, and James Swanson, PhD who served as a technical expert panel. Finally, we thank Joel Nigg, PhD, and Peter S. Jensen, MD for their peer review of the data.

Drs Peterson and Hempel conceptualized and designed the study, collected data, conducted the analyses, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Trampush conducted the critical appraisal; Ms Brown, Ms Maglione, Drs Bolshakova and Padkaman, and Ms Rozelle screened citations and abstracted the data; Dr Miles conducted the analyses; Ms Yagyu designed and executed the search strategy; Ms Motala served as data manager; and all authors provided critical input for the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This trial has been registered at PROSPERO (identifier CRD42022312656).

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at https://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2024-065787 .

Data sharing statement: Data are available in SRDRPlus.

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

area under the curve

Child Behavior Checklist

continuous performance test

functional magnetic resonance imaging

receiver operating characteristics

strength of evidence

technical expert panel

Competing Interests

Supplementary data.

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Journal Blogs
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 1098-4275
• Print ISSN 0031-4005
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account