Assessment of a consensus-based multiple information source job evaluation system

Abstract

Investigated a job evaluation intervention system that involved developing group consensus ratings for each job's standing on the compensable factors in 10 plant locations of a large manufacturing firm. Two noninteracting groups of evaluators rated 53 jobs using multiple sources of job information rather than only written job descriptions. It was found that (a) there were no systematic rating error differences between the 2 groups of evaluators; (b) intergroup reliability was high for all but 1 compensable factor; and (c) the weighted ratings explained a substantial amount of variance in existing wage rates of the jobs and that this held up in cross-validation. These results are comparable to those derived from studies that have used independent ratings and a single job information source. Implications for job evaluation research and practice are discussed. (13 ref) (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)