The rating methods we discussed in Chap. 10 were nonanalytical in nature. They enable us to make classifications, but they do not provide supporting reasons for these classifications. Nevertheless, they serve a useful purpose because there are many situations in which we can be satisfied with classifications without supporting reasons. Many times, however, we need these supporting reasons. So we turn in this chapter to methods of rating that can give us supporting reasons in addition to classifications. We shall be dealing with what we call analytical methods of rating.
Our first example will consist of the forced-choice technique--the Army's current system of appraisal. Our second example will consist of a series of forms designed to assess a number of personality traits in clerical employees. Our third example will consist of a form developed for use in appraising the work performance of traveling field training division representatives of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. In each of these examples we shall see a method that provides a set of reasons to support the resultant classifications. These reasons are found in a series of statements about various aspects of a person's behavior.
One of the major difficulties or disadvantages of the rating techniques that we discussed in Chap. 10 is that they can be manipulated by the rater to give any result that he wishes to produce. It would be most advantageous, therefore, if we could find a method that could not easily be manipulated by the rater. Unfortunately there are no such techniques, but one which has been alleged to suffer somewhat less from rater manipulability than others is the forced-