Thank you for your and speedy reply w.r.t. my elements. You've made some
valuable insights for me to ponder over and I am indeed grateful. I'll keep
you posted just as soon as I fix these elements of mine :-))
Kind regards,
Robert
Hong Kong
Your last email said:
================
>Dear Robert,
>
>It seems to me that your task as researcher is to ensure that your
>elements are sufficiently representative of the domain of interest to
>enable you to elicit a sample of relevant constructs. I reckon from
>my position of relative ignorance you are well on the way to doing
>this.
>
>We expect that elements will be similar and *different* and your
>participants seem to be having problems coming up with dimensions of
>difference - maybe? This is only a problem if they think you want
>them to tell you how they are similar alone.
>
>In introducing the task it may help to suggest that you are looking
>for issues relevant to your research question, just like when we ask
>participants to contrast elements in terms of 'personality features',
>'your relationship with them', their views on ecology' etc...
>
>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 18:38:52 +0800
>> To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>> From: wright@hkusua.hku.hk (Robert Wright)
>> Subject: New Member from Hong Kong
>> Reply-to: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
>
>> Dear PCP Group Members,
>
>> My Repertory Grid Question:
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Presently, after one pilot test after another (3 in total), I still haven't
>> been able to "WORD MY ELEMENTS" in such a way so that they appear to be
>> comparing APPLES WITH APPLES; rather they apear to be apples with organes -
>> as they presently are.
>>
>> For example, in evaluating the effectiveness of an appraisal system
>> (performance management system), the main elements within my domain would be:
>> E1: Performance Appraisal (PA) training
>> E2: PA annual interview
>> E3: PA communication (including notes and guidelines, brochures)
>> E4: PA progress reveiws (done informally throughout the year)
>> E5: PA standards & critieria used to appraise performance
>> E6: Link to recognition of good performance
>> E7: Self-appraisal
>> E8: PA form design
>> E9: PA objective / work goal setting
>>
>> (these 9 elements fundamentally represent the typical employee performance
>> appraisal system)
>>
>> But my concern is, during my Pilot test Repertory Grid Interviews, the
>> respondents had great difficulty in comparing say E2, E5 & E8 (E2=PA annual
>> interview; E5=stds & criteria; E8=PA form).
>>
>> Onc interviewee objected with great frustration, stating that I was forcing
>> him to compare between a piece of paper with what I actually do in the
>> interview!!!
>>
>> The more I thought about this, the more I realised that my elements may not
>> be apples and apples!
>>
>> I feel confident that the 9 elements do make up the framework - or the four
>> corners - of an appraisaly system. And to appropriately evaluate the
>> effectiveness of any appraisal system, I needed to include these elements.
>> But I can see what some of the respondents are saying. IT IS DIFFICULT TO
>> COMPARE AN APPRAISAL FORM WITH ONE'S ACTUAL APPRAISAL ANNUAL INTERVIEW.
>>
>> So my QUESTION IS: Then how can I evaluate a "system" of performance
>> managment when the KEY ELEMENTS THEMSELVES ARE NOT THE SAME IN NATURE.
>> (remember that Kelly emphasised that elements must be either ALL people, or
>> ALL events, or ALL situations, or ALL objects ...
>
>
>> I suspect that my problem is with the "wording of my elements".
>>
>> Can any one provide me with some insights into what I am doing wrong or not
>> doing right?
>>
>> Many thanks for taking the time to read about my concern.
>> Sincerely yours,
>> Robert
>
>malcolm c. cross
>department of psychology
>city university
>northampton square
>london ec1v ohb
>
>telephone +44 (0)171 477 8531
>facsimile +44 (0)171 477 8590
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%