Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Introduction

Psychological assessment is subject to various errors of measurement. While some are random, as assumed in classical test theory, others are systematic and lead to consistent distortions of the true value of a characteristic. These latter errors may be partially due to assessor's biases. This term does not refer to elementary professional mistakes such as implementing test instructions incorrectly, but to systematic tendencies in case-related information processing that reduce the validity of data. Although these biases normally impair objectivity and reliability, they remain undetected when they are consistent across individuals and time. In addition, a low interrater agreement is not necessarily a sign of assessor's bias but may be due to valid differences between settings and informants (Lösel, 2002).

Not all types of assessment information are equally susceptible to assessor's biases. Whereas standardized tests or biographical inventories are less affected, their impact may be strong in unstructured interviews, behaviour observations, or trait ratings. For example, some studies on the judgement of job performance have shown that more than half of the variance is due to differences in the assessors (Scullen et al., 2000). In a meta-analysis, approximately 37% of the variance in ratings was attributed to them (Hyot & Kerns, 1999).

This entry concentrates on biases in assessments by other persons (e.g. psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, or lay informants). Although these biases are similar to the numerous response sets and distortions in self-reports, some seem less important (e.g. lying, simulation, dissimulation, social desirability, or positive self-presentation) and others more relevant (e.g. halo, leniency, stringency, or contrast effects). In the following, we will first describe several of these errors and afterwards address factors that differentiate and moderate these distortions. Finally, we will take a brief look at approaches for detecting and reducing assessor's biases.

Examples of Assessor's Biases

Halo and Logical Error

In psychological assessment, a halo effect refers to an overgeneralization from one prominent characteristic of a person to other judgements on this individual. Most typically, it is an overestimation derived from a general impression. For example, if a person is judged to be good in general, he or she will be judged more positively on any specific dimension. Halo errors may arise particularly when there is insufficient information for a detailed assessment or when traits are not well defined. In these cases, the general impression is used to fill information gaps (Saal et al., 1980). A related bias is the logical error. Here, assessors are likely to give similar ratings to traits that seem logically related in their minds (Guilford, 1954). Whereas the halo effect derives from a perceived coherence of characteristics in an individual, the logical error refers to a more explicit and abstract coherence of variables or traits. The latter is often anchored in the assessor's subjective personality theory.

Both biases produce the same outcome, namely spurious and inflated correlations (Murphy et al., 1993). The underlying mechanisms are also related. Occasionally, a halo effect can have some advantage because it accentuates differences between individuals (Murphy et al., 1993). This is the case when a quick decision has to be made and the core determinants of the halo effect are empirically valid. Then, one can simply follow the useful decision rule ‘take the best, ignore the rest’ (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2001).

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading