Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSingh, Darshan
dc.date.accessioned2007-10-19T16:50:47Z
dc.date.available2007-10-19T16:50:47Z
dc.date.issued1986-01
dc.identifier.other1986 .S64
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2092/672
dc.descriptionxii, 91 leaves. Advisor: James R. Halvorsen.en
dc.description.abstractThe Problem: The problem of this study was to analyze the perceptions of Iowa School psychologists about current as well as desired performance evaluators as a basis for developing a performance evaluation model. Procedure: A random sample of Iowa school psychologists responded to a questionnaire designed by the researcher. Sixteen performance criteria were selected based on job descriptions and role functions. They were asked to identify evaluators involved in evaluating them in each performance area at both current and desired levels. They were also asked to identify an evaluator who had major responsibility in evaluating them currently and the one they would desire to be their major evaluator. Differences between current and desired dispersion of evaluators were analyzed. Findings: Differences were found between current and desire dispersion of evaluators for fourteen out of sixteen performance areas. Data indicated that currently, the Supervisor of Psychological Services was the primary evaluator for all performance areas. The principal and school psychologist were involved in providing input. The psychologists desired the supervisor to be their primary evaluator for ten performance areas, and the prinicpal for the other six. They desired more involvement in the evaluation process themselves and also wanted the evaluators to seek input from consumers and peers. The Supervisor of Psychological Services was the desired major evaluator responsible for the composite evaluation. Conclusions: School psychologists perceived: (1) the supervisor to be responsible for composite evaluation, (2) the building principal's and their own involvement to be important, (3) that evaluators should solicit input from consumers and peers, and (4) the supervisor to be the primary evaluator for ten performance areas and the principal, for the other six. Recommendations: (1) Develop performance standards by involving psychologists, administrators and consumers,(2) Establish peer review procedures for quality control,(3) Gather evaluation data for each performance area as specified in the evaluation model,(4) Design an evaluation survey for securing consumer feedback, and (5) Conduct a follow-up study by involving school psychologists representing all fifty states.en
dc.format.extent4553023 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherDrake Universityen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDrake University, School of Graduate Studies;1986
dc.subjectSchool psychologists--Iowa--Analysisen
dc.subjectSchool psychologists--Iowa--Performances--Evaluationen
dc.titleAn Analysis of Iowa School Psychologists' Perceptions of Their Evaluators as a Basis for Developing a Performance Evaluation Modelen
dc.typeThesisen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record