This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Criteria for performance evaluation

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
David J. Weiss
Kristin Brennan
Rick Thomas
Alex Kirlik
Sarah M. Miller
Abstract

Using a cognitive task (mental calculation) and a perceptual-motor task (stylized golf putting), we examined differential proficiency using the CWS index and several other quantitative measures of performance. The CWS index (Weiss \& Shanteau, 2003) is a coherence criterion that looks only at internal properties of the data without incorporating an external standard. In Experiment 1, college students (n = 20) carried out 2- and 3-digit addition and multiplication problems under time pressure. In Experiment 2, experienced golfers (n = 12), also college students, putted toward a target from nine different locations. Within each experiment, we analyzed the same responses using different methods. For the arithmetic tasks, accuracy information (mean absolute deviation from the correct answer, MAD) using a coherence criterion was available; for golf, accuracy information using a correspondence criterion (mean deviation from the target, also MAD) was available. We ranked the performances of the participants according to each measure, then compared the orders using Spearman's r\textsubscript{s}. For mental calculation, the CWS order correlated moderately (r\textsubscript{s} =.46) with that of MAD. However, a different coherence criterion, degree of model fit, did not correlate with either CWS or accuracy. For putting, the ranking generated by CWS correlated .68 with that generated by MAD. Consensual answers were also available for both experiments, and the rankings they generated correlated highly with those of MAD. The coherence vs.\ correspondence distinction did not map well onto criteria for performance evaluation.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/ccw/ccw.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/ccw/ccw.html
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Article provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.

Volume (Year): 4 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Pages: 164-174
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:4:y:2009:i:2:p:164-174

Contact details of provider:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Jonathan Baron).

Related research
Keywords: arithmetic; CWS index; judgment; measurement.;

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-23.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.