Do you ever complete, select, write, or administer rating scales to provide data for decision making? NO? Then you must be working in a storm drain. Most faculty developers I know have a wide variety of rating scales that fly across their desk tops as their incremental program activities unfold during the academic year. The primary issue for this column is: What is the quality of those ratings used for decisions about people and programs? When students, faculty, and administrators rate a program or someone's performance, we assume that they will read each item carefully and make their honest assessment with scrupulous impartiality (LOL). Are we dreaming in 3D IMAX like Avatar? The problem is that human tendencies may contaminate their responses, rendering them less than honest and impartial. In fact, these tendencies may be driven by demonic forces, such as those seen on Fringe or The Vampire Diaries or appearing in Stephen King's books. However, they may be conscious and intentional or unconscious. These tendencies are known as response sets or biases. More than 10 types of bias can affect ratings, such as halo effect; end-aversion bias; extreme-response bias; acquiescence bias; and gender, racial/ ethnic, and sexual orientation bias. There are four that particularly afflict faculty or administrator ratings: leniency-stringency bias, incompetence bias, buddy bias, and back-scratching bias. Your awareness of these biases and the techniques to minimize or eliminate them can produce more accurate ratings and foster more perceptive decisions than those currently being made. These biases are briefly described next along with suggestions for minimizing their effects. For a more detailed, rollicking treatment of the topic with research citations, see Berk (2006), Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), and Streiner and Norman (1995). 1. Halo Effect This effect is the extent to which a rater's overall impression of a person will affect his or her rating on each item. For example, if the global impression is positive and a student really likes her instructor, she may simply mark Strongly Agree to all positive statements. However, despite the positive image of a halo on an angel (Remember: The TV series Touched by a Halo?), this effect can also be negative, such as when a student hates the course. Possible solutions: Since this is an individual bias, the larger the group of raters, the greater the chance that positive and negative halo effects will cancel each other out. Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to control or minimize halo effect. 2. End-Aversion/Central Tendency Bias This is the tendency to ignore the extreme response options or anchors on the scale because they may be viewed as too strong. When the extremes are not selected, the ratings may be squished into the middle of the scale, which restricts the range of responses. Possible solutions: This bias should not be a problem on most rating scales in the agree-disagree format. However, scales consisting of several evaluation anchors, such as excellent-poor, or frequency anchors with absolutes, such as always-never, can produce this type of bias. Either soften the extreme anchors with Almost Always and Almost Never, or extend the number of anchors with the expectation that the extremes will rarely be chosen. 3. Extreme-Response Bias This is the opposite of end-aversion bias. In this case, the respondents may mark the extreme anchors rather than those in between. This bias is difficult to detect because the reason for the choice of the extremes may also be due to their honest ratings or the halo effect. Possible solution: This type of bias may occur less often than the other sources of bias. However, there is no direct solution. 4. Acquiescence/Affirmation/ Agreement/Yea-Saying Bias This is the tendency to agree or give positive responses to statements irrespective of their content. …