Date of Award


Degree Name

Doctor of Education


Counseling and Personnel

First Advisor

Dr. Beverly A. Belson

Second Advisor

Dr. Paul Griffeth

Third Advisor

Dr. Sid Dykstra

Fourth Advisor

Dr. John Nangle


The purpose of this study was to seek answers to the following question: What is the present status of performance evaluation practices as perceived by student personnel administrators in Michigan four-year colleges and universities.

The participants, consisting of 25 chief student personnel administrators and 68 student service department heads, were surveyed by means of a questionnaire soliciting information concerning the existence of essential elements in their department head evaluation system.

An analysis of the data revealed 64% of the institutions surveyed had an established department head evaluation program. In addition, the majority of both groups observed their system as fair and accurate with the predominant number following the same timetable and procedures for every department head, designating the chief as the evaluator, and using a predetermined standard scale for rating performance once per year.

Analysis of the data also identified several performance evaluation problem areas. First, the majority of department heads did not believe their performance evaluation system helped to verify their position, nor did they view it as an employment motivator. Second, the majority of chiefs and department heads responded that in-service training related to the methods and procedures of the performance evaluation system was not provided. Using the Large Sample Test for population proportions, ten statistically significant differences of perception between chief and department head responses were revealed suggesting a void in this important area of training. Finally, the majority of both the chiefs and department heads perceived no expectation to specify the evidence used in making performance evaluation decisions or to define the measures used.

Private institution respondents, as well as small and medium institution participants, appeared to have a more comprehensive system and positive judgment of their program than public or large institution respondents.

Access Setting

Dissertation-Open Access