Two evaluation questions were formulated for this study. The results of the research performed for the study are pre sented in this chapter, and the results are presented separ ately for each of the evaluation questions. As indicated earlier in this study, two research samples were selected, each including 35 individuals. In the non supervisory sample, only 32 of the 35 individuals (91.4 per cent) participated in the study, while in the supervisory sam ple, only 33 of the 35 individuals (94.3 percent) of the indi viduals participated in the study.
Mean perceptions of the two sample groups with respect to the characteristics (objectivity, validity, reliability, rele vancy, equitability, and accountability) of the performance evaluation process are presented in Table 1, which may be found on the following page. As the data presented in the table indicate, neither of the sample groups gave high marks to the existing performance evaluation process. Most perceptions of each of the sample groups indicated that the existing perfor mance evaluation process was below average with respect to each of the six measured characteristics. The supervisory sample indicated that the existing performance evaluation process was slightly above average with respect to equity; however, the non supervisory sample rated the existing performance evalua tion process well below average with respect to this character istic.
Mean Perceptions, By Sample Group, of theCharacteri
18 
)
= 3189
= 13 (250 words per page)
