FACTOR RATING METHOD MAP MANUAL

Harvard makes use of multiple rating scales within their organization, including overall performance ratings of employees, goals, competencies, and direct report ratings.

Their 5-point scale assigns abbreviations that coincide with each numerical ranking: This company uses a rating system that is both numerical and alphabetical, focused on whether or not employees meet company goals. High-performing employees often receive a Level 4 (Exceeds Expectations) or Level 3 (Meets Expectations) rating. This plan is developed to improve or correct poor performance, containing timelines that are outlined and monitored to measure the employee’s progress.Ī Level 5 (Exceptional) rating is said to be achievable, but given fairly infrequently. Supervisors that assign a Level 2 (Improvement Needed) or Level 1 (Unsatisfactory) rating to an employee must complete a performance improvement plan for that employee. The University of California, Berkeley Human Resources Department currently conducts performance appraisals with a 5-level rating scale, ranging from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. Examples of Rating Scales in Action UC Berkeley No matter which rating scale you choose, PerformYard makes it easy to automate and track objectives, goals, and employee progress. This could be as simple as different levels of agreement or complex as a set of specific actions an employee should have taken to achieve each level. a 5 when it comes to subjective competencies like “assertiveness.”Įxample: Everything from Agree to Disagree, all the way to Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales.ĭescriptive rating scales include descriptions of what each step up on the scale looks like. It can be really hard for managers to understand what constitutes a 4 vs. Numeric scales only include numbers and rightfully get a lot of pushback. Numeric: Just NumbersĮxample: “Score the employee’s leadership ability between 1 and 5.” There are two common ways to present rating scale answers: numeric and descriptive. The answers to a question will be a list of possibilities that have a clear order or ranking.Īs you move up the scale, options should clearly be better/more and as you move down the scale, the options should be worse/less. For more information about site-specific rating curves, contact the USGS Water Science Center that manages the site.Ordinal data is collected when we ask rating scale questions. Or if you know the site number for a USGS streamgage, plug it into the Customized Rating Curve Builder. That generates a pop-up window with a rating tab on the far right. Place your cursor over the site of interest and left-click. Provisional rating curves for many USGS streamgages are posted in WaterWatch. These changes might require only minor or temporary adjustments to the rating curve, or they could require the development of a new one. There are often subtle changes to a natural stream channel, such as the growth of aquatic vegetation in the summer, frequent shifting of a sand-bed stream bottom, catastrophic changes due to floods, or man-made changes such as construction of a bridge. The rating curve depends on the physical characteristics of the stream channel and floodplain, and will vary over time at almost every station.

FACTOR RATING METHOD MAP MANUAL

It’s developed by making frequent manual discrete discharge measurements at stream gaging stations. In order to convert gage height (or 'stage', usually expressed as feet) into streamflow (or 'discharge', usually expressed as cubic feet per second), USGS hydrographers must establish a relationship between them. This stage-discharge relationship is called a rating curve.

Factor rating method map