I don't think that is a good assumption. Either the cheaters hate someone
or like someone, but then you can't do anything to change to questions to do
much about that or they are lazy and just pick things out quickly which is
what my ideas help with (can't just go down one column as that answer
doesn't always have the same meaning and allows for detection of what needs
to be thrown out by opposing questions) Laziness is not the same thing as
actively trying to protest.
Eli
----- Original Message -----
At 10:27 PM 01/06/2005, Eli Allen wrote:
Reverse the meaning of what a 1 and 5 mean in the test. So basically make
1 be strongly agree and 5 be strongly disagree but then change around the
questions so strongly agreeing is bad in some cases but good in others.
Also include in there some questions that contradict each other, i.e. if
they strongly agree with one question that same question is in reverse
somewhere else so they better disagree then or else the result should be
thrown out.
That doesn't help in this case. So far as I can tell, the cheaters aren't
trying to give someone good or bad scores, they are just trying to skew
the results so that they can't be trusted (so they either enter all 1s or
all 5s. I think it's being done in protest of the idea of performance
reviews. It's probably only going to be fixed if management convinces the
employees that the reviews aren't there to punish employees, but to help
improve team work. Hard to say if this will ever happen.
T
