Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Frequency of respondents in five scale based on principles of sound evaluation and Standards

From: Contextual adaptation of the Personnel Evaluation Standards for assessing faculty evaluation systems in developing countries: the case of Iran

   Percent addressed and met
Category (Principle) Personnel Evaluation Standards Never = 1 Occasionally = 2 Frequently = 3 Always = 4 No Idea = 0
Propriety       
  P1. Service Orientation 34.6 24.8 40.6 .00 .00
  P2. Appropriate Policies and Procedures 16.25 31 25.23 15.87 11.65
  P3. Access to Evaluation Information 5.75 20.42 23.38 20.6 29.68
  P4. Interactions with Evaluatees 7.48 19.44 29.5 22.6 20.98
  P5. Balanced Evaluation 25.28 31.5 21.26 9.68 12.28
  P6. Conflict of Interest 13.54 28.28 31.04 11.18 15.98
Utility       
  U1. Constructive Orientation 11.38 30.68 28.54 13.62 15.78
  U2. Defined Uses 23.02 28.38 16.46 10.32 21.82
  U3. Evaluator Qualifications 11.51 26.11 27.73 16.96 17.69
  U4. Explicit Criteria 12.6 28.88 26.78 24.88 6.86
  U5. Functional Reporting 13.57 27.02 29.2 12.45 17.76
  U6. Professional Development 16 27.76 33.61 6.63 16
Feasibility       
  F2. Political Viability 24.4 28.52 19.28 10.54 17.26
  F3. Fiscal Viability 9.38 28.34 24.16 12.84 25.28
Accuracy       
  A1. Validity Orientation 20.64 31.8 15.36 6.62 25.58
  A2. Defined Expectations 12.87 30.12 28.95 17.44 10.62
  A4. Documented Purposes and Procedures 5.72 19.28 26.3 19.28 29.42
  A5. Defensible Information 12.28 24.24 29.02 12.2 22.26
  A7. Systematic data control 6.5 17 32.5 18.9 25.1
  A8. Bias Identification and Management 6.54 16.92 32.22 18.96 25.36
  A10. Justified Conclusions 21.8 26.06 17.96 23.4 10.78