Performance Appraisal System Knowledge Scale

Abstract

The Performance Appraisal System Knowledge scale (PASK) is a psychological measure developed by Williams and Levy (1992). Its primary function is to quantify the extent to which employees believe they comprehend the crucial elements of the performance appraisal system relevant to their specific occupational roles. Research has demonstrated that an employee’s perceived knowledge of the system is a significant factor in explaining the congruence between their self-ratings of work performance and the corresponding ratings provided by their supervisor.

Keywords

Performance Appraisal System Knowledge, PASK, Performance Appraisal System, Employee Knowledge, Job Performance, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Rating Agreement.

Authors

J. R. Williams, P. E. Levy

Purpose

The central purpose of the PASK scale is to assess the clarity and depth of an employee’s understanding regarding the mechanics, objectives, and criteria utilized within their organization’s formal performance appraisal system. This understanding is critical because perceived knowledge directly impacts the psychological contract and subsequent employee reactions to the appraisal process, including acceptance and perceived utility of the feedback.

Beyond simple measurement, the scale serves a diagnostic function for organizations. By identifying deficits in employee comprehension, management can target specific areas for training or communication improvements concerning appraisal procedures, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and perceived fairness of the system. The PASK is particularly useful for examining factors that predict agreement between self and supervisor ratings.

Construct

The PASK scale measures the construct of Perceived Performance Appraisal System Knowledge. This construct is defined as the subjective awareness and understanding an employee possesses regarding the processes, standards, and consequences related to how their work is formally evaluated within the organization.

This construct is hypothesized to foster trust, reduce ambiguity, and improve the alignment between employee expectations and supervisory assessments. It encompasses both procedural knowledge (understanding how the system works) and substantive knowledge (understanding the criteria and standards expected for successful performance).

Validity

Empirical evidence supports the validity of the PASK scale, particularly its relationships with key organizational outcomes. Levy and Williams (1998) provided support for its concurrent and criterion-related validity through correlation analysis.

Specifically, performance appraisal system knowledge was demonstrated to correlate positively with several beneficial psychological states and attitudes, including higher levels of job satisfaction, increased organizational commitment, and stronger perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness regarding organizational practices. These positive correlations support the scale’s ability to measure a construct central to employee well-being and organizational climate.

Reliability

The PASK scale demonstrates high internal consistency, indicating that its items reliably measure the underlying construct. Across multiple studies, including those by Kacmar & Ferris (1991) and Levy & Williams (1998), the internal consistency was robust across different samples.

Specifically, the Coefficient alpha values reported for the PASK scale ranged consistently from .85 to .89. These values significantly exceed the commonly accepted threshold of .70 for established psychological measures, confirming the scale’s reliability for research and practical application in organizational settings.

Factor Analysis

While the original source material focuses primarily on the scale’s predictive validity and reliability, the structure of the 11 items and the high internal consistency suggest that the PASK scale operates as a strong unidimensional measure. It is designed to capture the overall degree of perceived knowledge rather than separating distinct facets of the appraisal process.

The consistent use of a single, aggregate score in subsequent organizational psychology research confirms its status as a unitary measure of perceived system knowledge, although researchers interested in finer distinctions might explore confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify this structure across diverse organizational contexts.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychometric scale

Format: 11 items utilizing a 7-point Likert-type scale format.

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: Employees and organizational staff undergoing formal performance appraisals.

Age Group: Adult working population.

Population Details: Applicable across various industries and organizational levels where formal performance management systems are implemented, particularly those seeking to measure employee understanding of system procedures and criteria.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement with each statement using a 7-point scale, where 1 represents strongly disagree and 7 represents strongly agree. Several items are designated for reverse scoring to mitigate acquiescence bias.

Keywords

Performance Management, Organizational Behavior, Employee Perception, Organizational Commitment, Fairness, Personnel Psychology, Psychometrics, Rating Accuracy.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source materials.

Affiliation Email addresses: Contact information for authors J. R. Williams and P. E. Levy (1992) not provided in the primary source.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence details not provided in the primary source documentation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was originally published in 1992 in the journal Personnel Psychology. The items were taken from Table 1, p. 841, and were reproduced with copyright permission from 1992.

Researchers intending to use the scale should consult the original publication or contact the authors regarding current usage permissions and potential licensing fees. Academic use typically requires proper citation, referencing Williams and Levy (1992).

Reference’s

Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (1992). The effects of perceived system knowledge on the agreement between self-ratings and supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 45, 835-847.

Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the use of coefficient alpha. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 229-240.

Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (1998). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 24(6), 881-905.

Items of the Performance Appraisal System Knowledge scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Responses are obtained using a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

1. I understand the performance appraisal system being used in my agency
2. My supervisor and I concur on the meaning of the criteria used in the performance appraisal system
3. I understand the objectives of the present performance appraisal system
4. I have a real understanding of how the performance appraisal system works
5. I do not understand how my last performance appraisal rating was determined (R)
6. I know the criteria used by my employer to evaluate my performance
7. I understand the standards of performance my employer expects
8. My employer clearly communicates to me the objectives of the performance appraisal system
9. I would benefit from additional training in the process of the appraisal system (R)
10. Procedures regarding the performance appraisal system are not generally understood by the employees (R)
11. An attempt should be made to increase employees’ understanding of the performance appraisal system (R)

Items denoted with (R) are reverse scored.