Compare methods

	Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales	Assessment Center Method
Field	Organizational Behavior	Organizational Behavior
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	1963	1982
Originator	Patricia Cain Smith & L. M. Kendall	George C. Thornton III & William C. Byham
Type	Behaviorally anchored performance-rating scale construction	Behavioral selection and development assessment procedure
Seminal source	Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 149-155.	Thornton, G. C., III, & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance. Academic Press. ISBN: 9780126906202
Aliases	BARS, Behavioral Expectation Scales, Smith-Kendall Scales, Behaviorally Anchored Scales	Assessment Centers, AC Method, Development Center, Multiple-Exercise Assessment
Related	3	3
Summary	Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) are performance-appraisal instruments whose scale points are defined by concrete examples of job behavior rather than by vague adjectives like 'good' or 'excellent.' Patricia Cain Smith and L. M. Kendall introduced the method in 1963 with their technique of retranslation of expectations, a procedure for constructing unambiguous behavioral anchors. The core problem they tackled is that ordinary rating scales leave raters to guess what each numerical point means, so that one supervisor's 4 is another's 2, fatally undermining reliability and fairness. BARS solves this by attaching specific behavioral descriptions, drawn from critical incidents and vetted by independent expert judges, to each level of each performance dimension. The construction process is deliberately participatory and quantitative, which both improves measurement and builds rater understanding. BARS became one of the most influential and widely studied formats in performance appraisal.	The assessment center method evaluates people, most often candidates for managerial roles, by observing their behavior across multiple job-relevant simulations and pooling the judgments of several trained assessors. It is a method, not a place: a standardized procedure in which candidates work through exercises such as in-baskets, role-plays, leaderless group discussions, and case analyses while assessors rate defined behavioral dimensions. George Thornton and William Byham's 1982 book consolidated the approach and its evidence, establishing assessment centers as a rigorous, behavior-based alternative to interviews and paper tests for selection and development. The method's logic is to sample behavior directly under realistic conditions and to triangulate across exercises and raters to reach defensible judgments. Arthur, Day, McNelly, and Edens's 2003 meta-analysis quantified the criterion-related validity of the underlying dimensions, sharpening understanding of what assessment centers actually measure. Professional guidelines from the International Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines govern sound practice.