Evaluation of two new assessment methods case study

Ace your studies with our custom writing services! We've got your back for top grades and timely submissions, so you can say goodbye to the stress. Trust us to get you there!


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Develop case study, must be a minimum of 3 FULL pages of original discussion and analysis, not counting the title page, reference page, figures, tables, and appendixes. The statements in each Case Study must be supported by at least 1 scholarly reference, cited throughout the narrative and placed on the reference list in the APA format. Organize content under Level 1 headings.  

CASE INFORMATION & GRADING RUBRIC ATTACHED

Evaluation of Two New Assessments for Selecting Telephone Customer Service Representatives

The Phonemin Company is a distributor of men’s and women’s casual clothing. It sells exclusively through its merchandise catalog, which is published four times per year to coincide with seasonal changes in customers’ apparel tastes. Customers may order merchandise from the catalog via mail or over the phone. Currently, 70% of orders are phone orders, and the organization expects this to increase to 85% within the next few years.

The success of the organization is obviously very dependent on the success of the telephone ordering system and the customer service representatives (CSRs) who staff the system. There are currently 185 CSRs; that number should increase to about 225 CSRs to handle the anticipated growth in phone order sales. Though the CSRs are trained to use standardized methods and procedures for handling phone orders, there are still seemingly large differences among them in their job performance. CSR performance is routinely measured in terms of error rate, speed of order taking, and customer complaints. The top 25% and lowest 25% of performers on each of these measures differ by a factor of at least three (i.e., the error rate of the bottom group is three times as high as that of the top group). Strategically, the organization knows that it could substantially enhance CSR per­for­mance (and ultimately sales) if it could improve its staffing “batting average” by more accurately identifying and hiring new CSRs who are likely to be top performers.

The current staffing system for CSRs is straightforward. Applicants are recruited through a combination of employee referrals and newspaper ads. Because turnover among CSRs is so high (50% annually), recruitment is a continuous process at page 357the organization. Applicants complete a standard application blank, which asks for information about education and previous work experience. The information is reviewed by the staffing specialist in the HR department. Only obvious misfits are rejected at this point; the others (95%) are asked to have an interview with the specialist. The interview lasts 20–30 minutes, and at the conclusion the applicant is either rejected or offered a job. Due to the tightness of the labor market and the constant presence of vacancies to be filled, 90% of the interviewees receive job offers. Most of those offers (95%) are accepted, and the new hires attend a one-­week training program before being placed on the job.

The organization has decided to investigate the possibilities of increasing CSR effectiveness through sounder staffing practices. It is not pleased with its current methods of assessing job applicants; it feels that neither the application blank nor the interview provides an accurate and in-­depth assessment of the applicant KSAOs that are truly needed to be an effective CSR. Consequently, it engaged the services of a consulting firm that offers various methods of KSAO assessment, along with validation and installation services. In cooperation with the HR staffing specialist, the consulting firm conducted the following study for the organization.

A special job analysis led to the identification of several specific KSAOs likely to be necessary for successful performance as a CSR. Three of these (clerical speed, clerical accuracy, and interpersonal skills) were singled out for further consideration because of their seemingly high impact on job performance. Two new methods of assessment provided by the consulting firm were chosen for experimentation. The first is a paper-­and-pencil clerical test assessing clerical speed and accuracy. It contains 50 items and has a 30-minute time limit. The second is a brief work sample that could be administered as part of the interview process. In the work sample, the applicant must respond to four different phone calls: a customer who is irate about an out-­of-stock item, a customer who wants more product information about an item than was provided in the catalog, a customer who wants to change an order placed yesterday, and a customer who has a routine order to place. Using a 1–5 rating scale, the interviewer rates the applicant on tactfulness (T) and concern for customers (C). The interviewer is provided with a rating manual containing examples of exceptional (5), average (3), and unacceptable (1) responses by the applicant.

A random sample of 50 current CSRs were chosen to participate in the study. At Time 1 they were administered the clerical test and the work sample; performance data were also gathered from company records for error rate (number of errors per 100 orders), speed (number of orders filled per hour), and customer complaints (number of complaints per week). At Time 2, one week later, the clerical test and the work sample were re-­administered to the CSRs. A member of the consulting firm sat in on all the interviews and served as a second rater of performance on the work sample at Time 1 and Time 2. It is expected that the clerical test and work sample will have positive correlations with speed and negative correlations with error rate and customer complaints.

After reading the description of the study and observing the results above,

1.
How do you interpret the reliability results for the clerical test and work sample? Are they favorable enough for Phonemin to consider using them “for keeps” in selecting new job applicants?

2.
How do you interpret the validity results for the clerical test and work sample? Are they favorable enough for Phonemin to consider using them “for keeps” in selecting new job applicants?

3.
What limitations in the above study should be kept in mind when interpreting the results and deciding whether to use the clerical test and work sample?

image1.tmp

Criteria Ratings Points

Topic,
domains
and
concepts

35 to >31 pts

Advanced

Clearly addresses the
topic assigned, stays on
topic, evaluates all
domains,
comprehensive in
content, uses terms and
concepts from reading,
demonstrates clarity of
expression. Statements
are supported by at
least 1 scholarly source
published within the past
five years, correctly
cited throughout the
narrative.

31 to >28 pts

Proficient

Addresses the topic
assigned, stays on
topic, evaluates most
domains, discusses
content, uses terms
and concepts from
reading, and
demonstrates clarity of
expression. Statements
are supported by at
least 1 scholarly source
published within the
past five years, cited at
least once in the
narrative.

28 to >0 pts

Developing

Does a poor to fair job of
addressing the topic
assigned, stays on topic,
evaluates some domains,
discusses content, does
not use terms and
concepts from reading,
does not demonstrate
clarity of expression.
Statements are not
supported by at least 1
scholarly source
published within the past
five years and cited in the
narrative.

0 pts

Not Present

Failing.
Student shows
evidence of
refusal or
inability to
provide the
required
content.

35 pts

Work
Habits

30 to >27 pts

Advanced

Superior work in all
areas. Student
consistently exceeds
minimal expectations in
all areas regarding
content analysis,
synthesis, and
evaluation of topics,
participation, timeliness,
and writing style.

27 to >24 pts

Proficient

Good work in most
areas. Student
demonstrates minor
deficiencies in some
areas regarding
content, analysis,
writing style, and/or
participation.

24 to >0 pts

Developing

Poor to fair work in most
areas. Student exhibits
need for improvement in
most areas regarding
content, analysis, writing
style, and/or participation.

0 pts

Not Present

Failing.
Student shows
evidence of
refusal or
inability to
meet minimum
standards of
work.

30 pts

Personal
application

5 to >4 pts

Advanced

The student provides
thorough applications as
a result of his/her
professional life.

4 to >3 pts

Proficient

The student provides
good applications as a
result of his/her
professional life.

3 to >0 pts

Developing

The student provides poor
to fair applications as a
result of his/her
professional life.

0 pts

Not Present

The student
provides zero
applications as
a result of
his/her
professional
life.

5 pts

Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320

Criteria Ratings Points

APA
Formatting

10 to >9 pts

Advanced

APA format followed,
organizes content under
APA headings, no large
filler quotes, clearly
does not plagiarize,
clearly finds supportive
reasons in reading and
applies them in the case
study. APA-formatted
reference list and in-text
citations are included.

9 to >7 pts

Proficient

APA format followed
most of the time,
headings contained
some errors, has no
large filler quotes, does
not plagiarize, finds
supportive reasons in
reading and applies
them in the case study.
Reference list and
in-text citations contain
2 – 5 errors.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

APA format inconsistent
throughout; missing
headings; some large filler
quotes; does not
plagiarize; finds few
supportive reasons in
reading and applies them
in the case study;
reference list, in-text
citations, and headings
contain more than 5
errors.

0 pts

Not Present

APA format
was not
followed; large
filler quotes
present; does
not plagiarize;
does not find
supportive
reasons in
reading or
apply them in
the case study;
reference list
and in-text
citations are
not included.

10 pts

Spelling,
Grammar
and
Mechanics

10 to >9 pts

Advanced

The Case Study begins
with a title page and was
typed in 12-point Times
New Roman fonts on all
pages; all pages were
double-spaced; 1-inch
margins on all four sides
were used.
Correct grammar and
punctuation were
present throughout.
Correct spelling and
spacing were present
throughout.
The paper was typed in
a formal style and
written in the third
person.

9 to >7 pts

Proficient

Some errors with the
title page, 12-point
Times New Roman
fonts, double-spacing;
or 1-inch margins were
present.
Some errors with errors
with one or more of the
following were present:
• Grammar, and/or;
• Punctuation, and/or,
• Spelling, and/or;
• Spacing.
Some errors with
formal style and/or third
person were present.
1 – 3 errors were
present.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

Significant errors with the
title page, 12-point Times
New Roman fonts,
double-spacing; align text
left; extra spacing; or
1-inch margins were
present.
Significant errors with one
or more of the following
were present:
• Grammar, and/or;
• Punctuation, and/or,
• Spelling, and/or;
• Spacing.
Significant errors with
formal style and/or third
person were present.
More than 3 errors were
present.

0 pts

Not Present

Errors with
spelling,
grammar,
and/or
mechanics
were so
pervasive that
the readability
and level of
scholarship of
the paper were
substantially
reduced.

10 pts

Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320

Criteria Ratings Points

Page
count

10 to >9 pts

Advanced

At least 3 complete
pages of original
graduate-level analysis,
evaluation, and
discussion (plus title
page, reference page,
and tables or figures).

9 to >7 pts

Proficient

At least 2.9 pages of
original graduate-level
analysis, evaluation,
and discussion (plus
title page, reference
page, and tables or
figures).

7 to >0 pts

Developing

2.0 – 2.8 pages of original
graduate-level analysis,
evaluation, and
discussion (plus title
page, reference page,
and tables or figures).

0 pts

Not Present

Less than 2
pages
submitted.

10 pts

Total Points: 100

Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI643_B01_202320

Writerbay.net

Looking for top-notch essay writing services? We've got you covered! Connect with our writing experts today. Placing your order is easy, taking less than 5 minutes. Click below to get started.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper