The critical decision method (CDM)

The critical decision method (CDM) was the main tool used for collecting
data. The methodology by Hoffman et al. (1998) was used as guidance for the
CDM procedure. Each CDM interview was conducted in the participants’ offices
by the primary author.
The CDM has been found to elicit certain kinds of knowledge (e.g., decision
requirements and aspects of cases that make them tough) that are richer in quantity,
specificity, and variety compared with unstructured interviews (Crandall,
1989; Hoffman et al., 1998). In addition, CDM coding has shown high reliability
(interrater and test-retest) in multiple past studies (Crandall & Getchell-Reiter,
1993; Kaempf et al., 1996; Pascual & Henderson, 1997; Taynor, Crandall, &
Wiggins, 1987).
Participants were given a briefing sheet explaining the aims of the study and
what tasks were involved. Participants signed a consent form that included agreement
to be video-recorded. CDM interview sessions lasted 1.5–2 hr. During the
sessions, participants first selected promotion cases in which they had a significant
role and that they considered especially difficult (Step 1). Merely attending
and observing an assessment activity would not suffice. The manager then walked
the interviewer through the selected case (Step 2). Then the interviewer repeated
the account to the manager to identify any errors (Step 3). Using Wong’s (2004)
methodology for CDM administration, a decision chart was then constructed
using Post-it™ notes on a large sheet of paper. The decision chart is a visual

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

The critical decision method (CDM) was the main tool used for collecting data
. The methodology by Hoffman et al (1998 ) was used as guidance for the
CDM procedure.Each CDM interview was conducted in the participants' offices by the primary author
.
The CDM has been found to elicit certain kinds of knowledge (e. g., decision
requirements and aspects of cases that make them tough) that are richer in quantity,
specificity, and variety compared with unstructured interviews (Crandall,
1989 ; Hoffman et al ., 1998 ). In addition, CDM coding has shown high reliability
(interrater and test-retest) in multiple past studies (Crandall & Getchell - Reiter,
1993 ; Kaempf et al ., 1996 ; Pascual & Henderson, 1997 ; Taynor, Crandall, &
Wiggins, 1987 ) .
Participants were given a briefing sheet explaining the aims of the study and
what tasks were involved. Participants signed a consent form that included agreement
to be video-recorded. CDM interview sessions lasted 1.5 - 2 Hr.During
the sessions, participants first selected promotion cases in which they had a significant role
and that they considered especially difficult (Step 1).
Merely attending and observing an assessment activity would not suffice.
the interviewer The Manager then walked through the selected case (Step 2) .The interviewer repeated Then
the account to the manager to identify any errors (Step 3) .Using Wong' s (2004) methodology for
CDM administration, a decision chart was then constructed using
Post - itTM notes on a large sheet of paper.The decision chart is a visual