I-O Program Doctoral Student Annual Evaluation The second form used to monitor doctoral student progress, this one issued by the I-O Program, is shown on the following pages. It is to be completed by the student and her or his advisor by February 15 each year. The completed form serves as a basis for individual student performance review by the I-O Program Committee in light of academic, ethical, and professional standards. The student’s current transcript, formal evaluation(s) from previous years, and available intern performance appraisals (pp. 61-62) may be considered in the evaluation. The completed form is retained in the student's file following IOPC review. The evaluation form covers student performance in the following eight areas: coursework, pre-candidacy research, comprehensive examinations, doctoral research, other research (e.g., conference participation) fieldwork/internships, departmental citizenship, and professional / ethical conduct. The I-O Program Committee records relevant information (e.g., GPA, stage of progress) and rates performance in each area, as well as overall, on a 1 (unsatisfactory), 2 (satisfactory), 3 (exemplary) scale. Comments, recommendations, and developmental goals are articulated, and an optional letter describing any specific difficulties and remedies may be appended to the evaluation. The advisor meets with the student within two weeks following IOPC review to discuss the review and, in particular, any remedial strategies and goals identified by the IOPC. A meeting with the entire IOPC may be requested by either the student or the advisor to discuss the evaluation, but is not required. The student signs and returns the evaluation to his or her advisor, who submits it to the Graduate Program Assistant for filing. It is the student's responsibility to ensure that factual statements (e.g., regarding research projects in which the student is actively involved) are accurate. If a student has two years (consecutive or otherwise) in which the overall evaluation is unsatisfactory, the program committee will entertain a motion to recommend dismissal of the student from the program. The student and his or her advisor will be asked to speak to the committee on this issue before the vote.
Ideal Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 very low moderately low slightly low slightly high moderately high very high Actual Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 very low moderately low slightly low slightly high moderately high very high Importance of the Gap 1 2 3 4 5 6 not at all slightly somewhat moderately considerably very important important important important important important Ideal Actual Imp. Comments (1) Workload (consider:) • the amount of work expected to be completed in a given time period • pressure to complete tasks well, accurately, thoroughly, quickly (2) Relevance to IO Psychology (consider:) • the nature of the work as requiring knowledge of I-O principles and practices • e.g., job analysis, selection, training, perf. appraisal, leadership, motivation, job attitudes (3) Task Structure (consider:) • clarity of work objectives, timelines, and instructions • how often work progress is monitored continued . . . Ideal Actual Imp. Comments (4) Autonomy (consider:) • expectations to work without supervision, set own goals, evaluate own progress • expectations to be self-motivated (5) Supervisor's Accessibility (consider:) • the degree to which your supervisor is available for discussing work-related issues • your supervisor's willingness to speak with you about your assignments (6) Coaching / Mentoring (consider:) • frequency and quality of developmental feedback provided by your supervisor • availability of others to "show you the ropes" when needed (7) Teamwork (consider:) • expectations to be relied upon by co-workers and to rely on them in group projects • working closely with others in team projects