: Master
: Coursework
: English (U.S.)
: 7 pages/1925 words
:APA 5 sources due in 24 hours

Cavico, Muffler and Mujtaba (2013) claim that appearance discrimination in employment, especially based on perceived “attractiveness,” has emerged as a controversial, and complicated, legal, ethical, and management concern. Your task this week is to assume that you have been asked to consult for a major physical fitness club chain to create an objective employee selection protocol. The owner has heard rumblings through the organization grapevine that attractive females and males tend to be promoted more often than less attractive ones. The owner is very concerned about possible lawsuits. He wants you to develop an objective �appearance blind” job evaluation protocol to ensure that claims of bias cannot be made. Your task is to design an employee evaluation protocol that will focus on objective job criteria and not on physical appearance. You will need to locate at least five tests from the Mental Measurements Yearbook in the NCU library to support your proposal. Reference Cavico, F. J., Muffler, S. C., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2013). Appearance discrimination in employment. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(1), 83-119. doi:

here is one of the test to support objectivity.

EBSCO Publishing    Citation Format: APA (American Psychological

NOTE: Review the instructions at and make
any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to
personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library
resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.


King, J. E. (n.d.). Employee Evaluation Series. Retrieved from

<!–Additional Information:
Persistent link to this record (Permalink):
End of citation–>


Employee Evaluation Series

Review by BRENT BAXTER, Director, Agencies Research Division, The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, Newark, New Jersey:
This series provides an overall package for evaluating most employees in
many companies. It has many practical aspects and attempts to present a
simple formula for supervisors in both reviewing and interpreting the
performance of their employees.
The structure of the series is a list of statements for each of the six
work areas for which a form is provided. There are 50 items for each
type of work (60 in forms are to be published). The value of the forms,
to any given company is limited by the degree to which these general
items apply to the job of the person being rated. The company might well
prefer to add or subtract certain items or put a different emphasis on
the job components than is included in the printed list. The
instructions and language also will not be appropriate for all
companies. Thus, a company which likes this multiple item approach to
rating may choose between the labors of tailor-making its own form or
the adoption of a carefully made form which may not fit its situation
too well.
The author emphasizes that this rating approach minimizes the halo
effect and lays stress on evaluating performance. But there is still
ample opportunity for halo effect. Many items concern attitude rather
than performance behavior, e.g., “Completely sold that this is the ‘best
place in town’ to work,” Responses to this kind of item are subject to
the halo effect.
At present, there is no manual to go with the series to explain
adequately its reliability and other evaluating data. The author reports
one is currently being prepared. He submitted a manuscript of an APA
(1949) paper indicating a corrected split half reliability for the
clerical series of .92. Results from two raters correlated .81 (1). It
correlated .73 with results from a man-to-standard rating scale. From
the APA paper one may conclude that the clerical series has had
extensive statistical analysis. Efforts have been made to weed out
ambiguous items and items which correlate highly with the total score.
Considerable effort has been made to design a scale which will result in
a normal distribution of scores. While this achieves a desirable spread
of scores, there has been some overconcern with this aspect. Each rater
is “expected” to achieve this normal distribution which may not fit his
group at all.
The evaluation “system” is tied in with both percentiles and stanines.
To have both of these scales may be confusing to many and is
unnecessary. The stanine ranges are not calculated as is usually done
(i.e., in equal class intervals).
The present series provides for the rater to check a statement if it is
true about the employee and to leave it blank otherwise. Omissions thus
may be counted “against” the employee. The author reports that a revised
series will provide for a “not true at present” marking. Neither form
allows the rater to mark the statement “not relevant” or “don’t know.”
This may force unjust ratings to be made.
The author claims that by adding the favorable replies on the statements
one achieves a total score “in which the whole is actually greater than
the sum of its parts.” This statement may mislead many readers into
thinking that something special is added in some mysterious way.
Apparently what is meant is that the items really represent a sample of
the total number of statements that might be made about the employee and
that conclusions may now be drawn about the total. In view of how the
sample was drawn, it might be much better to limit interpretations to
the specific statements.
SUMMARY. The series utilizes the multiple item rating approach to
provide industry with a ready-made rating program. Although it is neatly
arranged and has many practical features, it doesn’t live up to some of
its marketing claims, such as being a basis for “getting away from
favoritism and influence.” It is not a cure-all for personnel problems.
It will not fit all companies; a tailor-made instrument is to be

"Get this and other Answers from Experts at an Amazing Discount!"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.