Convergent evidence may reinforce a message about strengths and weaknesses. B6. In which areas did your ratings across the rater categories (e.g., “Personal Choice” vs.
IP Teammates”) diverge , or look different? By how much? Disparities between the ratings’ groups shouldn’t be ignored. In some cases, they may signal differences in your behavior, or differences in people’s standards, or other differences across contexts. Such gaps can highlight important dynamics in people’s perceptions of you. B7. Looking at the third chart, in the IP Team context, which areas emerged as relatively weaker and/or relatively stronger for you compared to the average ratings of other students from their IP teammates this term? As you’re interpreting this chart, if there’s a clear pattern of all your scores being above or below the class average score from IP teammates, it could be because your raters have different standards or survey response patterns than the average IP team member across the class. So, be thoughtful and careful about how you interpret such patterns. Where you have one or two particular data points that are significantly (over 1 point) above and/or or below the class average score from IP teammates, though, those areas are much more likely to warrant a closer look regardless of potential differences between your group of raters and others’ raters. B8. Does anything else in these first overview charts draw your attention?
Item-Level Analyses The report proceeds after the box charts to review all individual item scores for each of the 8 major behavioral domains you were looking over above. I1.Which were the specific items in which you got your highest and lowest mean scores? This analysis may help you drill down to identify what, more specifically, you’re doing really well – or not so well. List your 5 Highest mean scores, along with the item text, the domain area and the rater relationship (IP or Personal Choice) if that is relevant: List your 5 Lowest mean scores, along with the item text, the domain area and the rater relationship (IP or Personal Choice) if that is relevant:: I2. Were the items you identified in I1 part of the general behavioral domain areas you identified as key strengths and weaknesses when you analyzed the box charts in the previous section of the worksheet? If they weren’t technically labeled under one of those headings, do you see any relationships between those specific behaviors and the general domain areas you highlighted in the first section of the worksheet via your box chart analysis? I3. Do you have a lot of low or high standard deviations (s.d.s) across the items related to your key areas of strength/weakness, especially on the items you identified via I1? Low s.d.s mean that everyone within a rater group pretty much agreed with the mean score reported and rated you the same way. High s.d.s, by contrast, mean that different raters within that group perceived you very differently – making the mean score slightly less representative of the rater group as a whole. S.d.s of above 1 usually signify something meaningful. You may want to consider whether a high s.d. might be a result of you acting differently with different people within that group (i.e., to due to different relationships or contexts in which you have interacted) or because different people might have had different standards.
I4. For which items related to your key areas of strength/weakness did you get very similarly
- Fall '12
- Big Five personality traits, personal choice, mean scores, behavioral domain areas