TESTING & ASSESSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE
Please follow the instructions on the attached rubric to complete the assignmentPlease, no plagiarized workResearch evaluating 360-degree feedback systems tends to demonstrate superior outcomes to more traditional performance assessments. 360-degree systems rely upon multiple points of evaluation including supervisors, peers, self-rating, subordinates, computer-based ratings, and in some instances outside sources such as customers or clients. Discuss the advantages of a multi-rater system to improve evaluation of leaders and subordinates. Examine the challenges of the 360-degree feedback system especially considering how to increase rater agreement, frame-of-reference, and how to ensure raters know what behaviors and characteristics comprise effective performance. Lastly, analyze the future of 360-degree feedback and the inclusion of computer-based assessment within a 360-degree feedback system.General Requirements:Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:· This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.· Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments.· You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.Directions:Write an essay (1,750-2,000 words) in which you will analyze the 360-degree feedback system. In your essay address the following:1. Examine the advantages of tjhe 360-degree feedback system.2. Evaluate the impact of 360-degree feedback on leadership style from a theoretical perspective of leadership.3. Discuss an empirical examination that challenges the 360-degree feedback system.4. Evaluate current and proposed sources of information within 360-degree feedback.STUDY MATERIALSJabrayilov, R., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2016). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in individual change assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40(8), 559-572. doi:10.1177/0146621616664046URL:http://journals.sagepub.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1177/0146621616664046De Champlain, A. F. (2010). A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education. Medical Education, 44(1), 109-117. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03425.xURL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=46804952&site=ehost-live&scope=siteWhittaker, T. A., & Worthington, R. L. (2016). Item response theory in scale development research: A critical analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(2), 216-225. doi:10.1177/0011000015626273URL:http://journals.sagepub.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1177/0011000015626273Sinharay, S. (2016). Person fit analysis in computerized adaptive testing using tests for a change point. Journal Of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(5), 521-549. doi:10.3102/1076998616658331URL:http://journals.sagepub.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.3102/1076998616658331Lu, H., Hu, Y., Gao, J., & Kinshuk. (2016). The effects of computer self-efficacy, training satisfaction and test anxiety on attitude and performance in computerized adaptive testing. Computers & Education, 100, 45-55. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.012URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131516301014
