J Aî @C@D F Jîxéhbd Ðké @hof Gém D @ - Nèh @éhbì Ì Ak

eB&f:;:
;XXXXXX:I;f:b_:^;
b;OG:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
;XXXXXXXXX<b:^@XXXXXXg

@zh@AdsBk@gcAX

JA@c@dF
JXHBdk

@hoF
nh@HBAk.gMd@
A@g@cFMlTA@Tgct@OAIMAMk@Akh@fNd

ii

iii

i

ii
iii
iv
vii
ix
xii

iv

Reliability

vi

1-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov

vii

t

viii

ix

98.3%
SPSS

x

xi

Abstract
This study aims at studying performance appraisal system and its
impact on the performance level of employees, at Patient's Friends
Benevolent Society Gaza (PFBS). The study investigates the
effectiveness of the performance appraisal system in order to learn the
best methods and tools that make a crucial enhancement of the employees
performance .
The study population represents all the full time employees at the
PFBS. The study samples consists of (121) employees, and the response
was (98.3%). The researcher used questionnaire as study tool to collect
the necessary data. Also, the descriptive analytic approach was adopted to
conduct the study. Moreover, SPSS was used for analyzing the data of the
study.
The most important findings of the study were:
1- There is significant relationship between the effectiveness of the
performance appraisal system and each of the job analysis, applied
criteria, methods of assessment, feedback, professional appraisal
system and the level of performance
2- There is no significant differences in the responses of the study
sample due to the personality variable were gender, age, years of
experience, qualifications, job title and job grade.
3- The job analysis in the PFBS is not revised regularly.
4- The criteria which have used to assess performance not clear
enough, or suitable to the nature of the basis work.
5- There are a negative opinions towards the feedback process as it is
not practiced.
6- The performance appraisal system is not designed by professionals.
7- The performance appraisal process is not followed by any
decisions related to incentives and adjustments of wages, salaries
or non financial incentives .
As well the most important recommendations were:
1. Revising and updating of the process of job analysis periodically
and continually .
2. The necessity to develop the performance standards taking into
account job requirements.
xii
3. It is important to apply valid performance criteria and to update it

according to work requirements.
4. It is important to use a variety of performance appraisal methods
and tools to be fitted with job requirements.
5. Conduct feedback to reveals the weaknesses and to consolidate the
strengths.
6. Provide incentives based on appraisal results to enhance the
performance.

xiii

SIKHULA

.

(

15%
20%
30%
20%
15%

PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE

SECONDARY MEDICAL CARE

ENT

ENT

B

2- Count`s Study (2004) :

"Police office performance appraisal system :how good are they"

3- Ebrahim s Study (2004):

"Towards a TQM-driven HR performance Evaluation"

`

`
4- Rusli s Study (2004) :
"performance appraisal decision in Malaysian public service"

5- poon`s Study(2003)

"Effects of performance appraisal politics on jop satisfaction and turnover
intention".

6- Pettijon`s Study(2001):

"Performance appraisal :usage criteria and observations".

7- Abraham`s Study ( 2001):

Managerial competence and the managerial performance appraisal process"

8- Cawely`s Study (1998):
"Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee
Reaction"

(Statistical Package for Social Science) SPSS

0.000
0.613

0.000
0.600

0.003
0.526

0.000
0.706

0.013
0.447

0.000
0.729

0.001
0.594

0.033
0.390

0.025
0.409

0.001
0.591

0.600

0.000

28r

rr
0.390
(0.729

0.000
0.718

0.000
0.656

0.014
0.445

0.000
0.660

0.013
0.448

0.000
0.606

0.009
0.470

0.000
0.626
0.001
0.559

0.000
0.638

0.000
0.716
0.000
0.661

r

rr

0.7180445

0.017
0.433
0.005
0.502
0.005
0.497

0.008
-0.473

0.003

0.516

0.000
0.610

0.013
0.446

0.027
0.404

0.021
0.418

0.001
0.572

0.000
0.718

28r

r
r
0.718 -0.473

0.004
0.514

0.000
0.637

0.007
0.482

0.031
0.395

0.000
0.714
0.004
0.510

28r

r
r
0.7140.395

0.020
0.424

0.002
0.536

0.000
0.725

0.002
0.552
0.000
0.604
0.000
0.640

0.000
0.606
0.001
0.578

0.000
0.659

0.001
0.577

0.016
0.438

0.000
0.803

0.000
0.864

0.007
0.483

28r

rr

0.864 0.424

0.001
0.573
0.000
0.630
0.031
0.394
0.018
0.431
0.006
0.488
0.004
0.515
0.000
0.629

0.006
0.493
0.001
0.591
0.011
0.459
0.025
0.407

28r

r r

0.6300.394

0.000
0.645
0.000
0.706
0.000
0.709

0.000
0.706

0.000
0.851

0.000
0.742

28r

rr
0.645
0.851
Reliability

Split-Half Coefficient

0.000
0.820337
0.6954
11
0.000
0.79988
0.6665
12
0.000
0.833547
0.7146
11

0.000
0.853277
0.7441

0.000
0.846863
0.7344
14

0.000
0.825464
0.7028
11

0.000
0.843797
0.7298
65

r

Spearman-Brown Coefficient

2

1
(0.8532770.79988)
0.843797
Cronbach's Alpha

0.8362
11
0.8052
12
0.8476
11

0.8547

0.8712
14

0.8527
11

0.6978
65

0.8476

0.6978

SPSS

1- Sample K-S
One sample t testt
Independent samples t testt

One Way ANOVA-8

(1- Sample K-S)

1-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Z

0.159
1.126
11
0.889
0.581
12
0.205
1.067
11

0.516
0.817

0.262
1.007
14

0.459
0.854
11

0.428
0.875
65

sig . 0.05

One Sample T testT
t
t
t
t

t
0.637
-0.473
58.99 1.163
2.95
0.363
0.913
61.85 1.105
3.09
0.000
-4.849
50.76 1.040
2.54
0.000
8.175
74.12 0.942
3.71
0.000
7.234
72.77 0.963
3.64
0.000
4.626
68.74 1.030
3.44
0.041
2.071
64.03 1.062
3.20
0.000
5.369
69.75 0.990
3.49
0.001
3.346
66.89 1.123
3.34
0.234
-1.195
57.14 1.304
2.86
0.096
1.679
63.36 1.092
3.17
0.002
3.109
64.40 0.772
3.22

t
t

0.000 74.12

0.00072.77

0.000 69.75

0.000 68.74

0.00166.89

0.04164.03

0.096 63.36

0.36361.85

0.637 58.99

0.234 57.14

0.00050.76

t t

t
0.000
-7.699
47.06 0.917 2.35
0.000
-9.536
44.37 0.894 2.22
0.000
-5.505
49.75 1.016 2.49
0.000
-8.105
46.22 0.927 2.31
0.024
2.286
64.37 1.043 3.22
0.001
-3.403
53.45 1.050 2.67
0.934
0.083
60.17 1.101 3.01
0.188
1.325
62.52 1.038 3.13
0.495
0.684
61.34 1.071 3.07
0.000
-3.745
53.11 1.004 2.66
0.000
-8.232
43.03 1.125 2.15
0.000
-5.839
48.07 1.115 2.40
0.000
-5.387
52.79 0.730 2.64

t
t

0.024 64.37

0.18862.52

0.49561.34

0.93460.17

0.001 53.45

0.00053.11

0.000 49.75

0.00048.07

0.00047.06

0.000 46.22

0.000 44.37

0.000 43.03

tt

Rusli`s Study (2004)
Pettijon`s(2001)

Gawely`s Study (1998)

0.653 -0.451
58.99
1.220
t

2.95

0.000 -4.452
51.26
1.071
2.56

0.003 -3.039
53.95
1.086
2.70
0.000
6.210
73.95
1.225
3.70
0.096
1.678
63.53
1.147
3.18

0.000 -6.138
48.98
0.975
2.45

0.000 -6.522
47.73
1.026
2.39

t

0.001 -3.495
52.94
1.102
2.65

0.000 -7.798
44.03
1.117
2.20
0.000 -8.587
44.37
0.993
2.22
0.000 -5.128
49.41
1.126
2.47
0.000 -5.171
53.55
0.681
2.68

t
t

0.000 73.95

0.09663.53

0.65358.99

0.003 53.95

0.001 52.94

0.000 51.26

0.00049.41

0.00048.98

0.000 47.73

0.00044.37

0.00044.03

t t

t
0.000
-14.230
37.14 0.876 1.86
0.000
-11.614
40.50 0.916 2.03
0.062
-1.887
55.63 1.263 2.78
0.000
-8.292
44.71 1.006 2.24

0.000
-5.958
48.40 1.062 2.42

0.005
2.856
66.72 1.284 3.34
0.000
-7.626
48.85 0.797 2.44

t
t

0.005 66.72

0.06255.63

0.000 48.40

0.00044.71

0.000 40.50

0.000 37.14

t t

.Count`s
(2004)

t
0.000
-4.984
50.42 1.048 2.52
0.000
-6.575
47.73 1.018 2.39
0.000
43.36 0.886 2.17

10.243
0.000
-9.018
44.20 0.956 2.21
0.000
-8.254
43.36 1.099 2.17
0.461
-0.740
58.32 1.239 2.92

0.000
-6.457
46.55 1.136 2.33

0.000
-7.058
46.05 1.078 2.30
0.002
-3.180
53.95 1.038 2.70
0.038
-2.094
55.46 1.182 2.77
0.267
-1.115
57.65 1.151 2.88
0.000
-6.141
47.56 1.105 2.38

t
-9.212
43.70 0.965 2.18

0.000
-9.067
44.37 0.940 2.22

0.000
-7.984
48.76 0.768 2.44

0.000
t
t

0.46158.32

0.26757.65

0.03855.46

0.002 53.95

0.000 50.42

0.000 47.73

0.00047.56

0.000 46.55

0.000 46.05

0.00044.37

0.00044.20

0.00043.70

0.00043.36

0.000 43.36

t t

t

0.683
0.409
61.01
1.346 3.05

0.000 -4.125
52.44
1.000 2.62

0.000 -5.914
0.045
1.977
48.74
65.04
1.039 2.44

1.391 3.25
t

0.000 -5.760
48.07
1.130 2.40

0.000 -5.854
47.73
1.143 2.39
0.549 -0.601
58.82
1.068 2.94

0.437 -0.780
58.32
1.176 2.92

0.004
2.938
65.88
1.092 3.29

0.001
3.268
67.39
1.234 3.37

0.000
5.746
72.77
1.212 3.64
0.382 -0.878
58.75
0.779 2.94

t
t

0.00072.77

0.00167.39

0.00465.88

0.04565.04

0.68361.01

0.54958.82

0.43758.32

0.000 52.44

0.00048.74

0.00048.07

0.00047.73

t
t

Count`s Study (2004)

t
0.002
3.109
64.40 0.772 3.22
0.382
-0.878
58.75 0.779 2.94

0.000
-5.171
53.55 0.681 2.68

0.000
-5.387
52.79 0.730 2.64
0.000
-7.626
48.85 0.797 2.44

0.000
-7.984
48.76 0.768 2.44

0.000
-4.608
54.66 0.632 2.73

t

t
t

0.05

0.723
0.000
119
r

0.05
0.723r0.000
0.184r
0.05

0.05

0.846
0.000
119

r

0.05
0.846r0.000
0.184r
0.05

0.05

0.867
0.000
119

r

0.05
r 0.000
0.184r 0.867
0.05

0.867
0.000
119

r

0.05
0.867r0.000
0.184r
0.05

0.05

0.905
0.000
119

r

0.05
0.905r0.000
0.184r
0.05

0.05

0.835
0.000
119

r

0.05
r
r
0.05

0.05

0.05

t

0.001
0.333
0.935
0.506
0.207
0.387
0.141
t
3.332
0.7257
3.3543
88

0.7837
2.8387
31

0.7614
2.6780
88

0.6323
2.5296
31
0.7043
2.6804
88
0.6199
2.6686
31
0.8146
2.4716
88
0.7529
2.3602
31
0.8019
2.4911
88
0.6490
2.2880
31
0.8009
2.9742
88
0.7132
2.8328
31
0.6500
2.7838
88
0.5624
2.5891
31

0.973
0.082
0.667
1.270
0.868
1.483

t
t
t

tt
1.99

t

t

0.05

0.05

( One Way ANOVA)

F
0.515
1.546
0.598
115
68.793
118
70.339
0.129
0.388
0.544
115
62.544
118
62.932
0.283
0.848
0.468
115
53.836
118
54.684
0.269
0.806
0.645
115
74.218
118
75.024
0.162
0.486
0.600
115
69.043
118
69.530
0.095
0.286
0.619
115
71.230
118
71.516
0.051
0.152
0.408
115
46.963
118
47.116
0.463 0.861
0.870 0.238
0.614 0.604
0.742 0.416
0.847 0.270
0.927 0.154
0.946 0.124

F

F
F

F
F

0.05

0.05

( One Way ANOVA)

F
1.244
2.488
0.585
116
67.851
118
70.339
0.216
0.432
0.539
116
62.500
118
62.932
0.429
0.858
0.464
116
53.826
118
54.684
0.616
1.233
0.636
116
73.792
118
75.024
0.092
0.184
0.598
116
69.346
118
69.530
0.655
1.309
0.605
116
0.124 2.126
0.670 0.401
0.399 0.925
0.383 0.969
0.858 0.154
0.342 1.082

70.207

F
118
71.516
0.285
0.570
0.401
116
46.546
118
47.116
0.494 0.710
F

F
F

F
F

0.05

0.05

( One Way ANOVA)

F
1.610
6.439
0.561
114
63.900
118
70.339
0.550
2.199
0.533
114
60.733
118
62.932
0.408
1.630
0.465
114
53.054
118
54.684
3.263
0.026 2.872
0.394 1.032
0.481 0.876
0.276 1.296
0.816

F
0.629
114
71.761
118
75.024
1.049
4.196
0.573
114
65.334
118
69.530
1.555
6.220
0.573
114
65.296
118
71.516
0.796
3.185
0.385
114
43.931
118
47.116
0.128 1.830
0.033 2.715
0.090 2.066
2.451144F

F
F

F F

F
F

0.05

-0.017
-0.721*
-0.623
-0.346
-0.704
-0.606
-0.329
-0.375
-0.277

0.017

0.329
0.346

0.277
0.606
0.623

0.098
0.375
0.704
0.721*
-0.909*
-0.735
-0.553
-0.343
-0.566
-0.392
-0.210
-0.356
-0.182
-0.098
-0.174
0.174

0.343
0.210
0.553
0.182
0.392
0.735
0.356
0.566
0.909*

0.05

( One Way ANOVA)

F
0.969
3.878
0.583
114
66.461
118
70.339
0.337
1.347
0.540
114
61.585
118
62.932
0.251
1.005
0.471
114
53.680
118
54.684
0.163 1.663
0.647 0.624
0.711 0.533

F
0.987
3.948
0.623
114
71.076
118
75.024
1.071
4.285
0.572
114
65.245
118
69.530
0.679
2.715
0.604
114
68.801
118
71.516
0.579
2.316
0.393
114
44.800
118
47.116
0.184 1.583
0.120 1.872
0.348 1.125
0.215 1.473
2.451144F

F
F

F
F

0.05

0.05

( One Way ANOVA)

F
0.006 5.274
2.931
5.863
0.556
116

64.476

F
118
70.339
4.002
8.005
0.474
116
54.927
118
62.932
2.955
5.909
0.420
116
48.775
118
54.684
3.424
6.849
0.588
116
68.176
118
75.024
4.385
8.771
0.524
116
60.759
118
69.530
2.248
4.496
0.578
116
67.020
118
71.516
3.248
6.497
0.350
116
40.619
118
47.116
0.000 8.453
0.001 7.027
0.004 5.827
0.000 8.373
0.023 3.891
0.000 9.276

F

F
F

F
F

0.05

*
-0.749
1.158

0.903

-0.237
0.997*

-0.237
0.997*

-0.396
1.045*
0.760*
0.396
-1.045*
0.760*
0.237
-0.997*
0.237
-0.997*
0.903*
-0.255
-1.158

0.255
-0.650*
0.749*
-0.255
1.158*
-0.760*

0.255
-1.158*
-0.760*
0.749*

-0.245

0.994*
-0.903
0.245
-0.994*
-0.245
0.994*
-0.903*
0.245
-0.994*
-0.749*
0.650*

A- B00ks :
- Dessler, Gary, Personal Human Resource Management, Fifth Edition,
New Jersey, Prentic Hall, (1991) .
- Mondy, Wayne, Noe, Robert, Human Resource Management, Ninth
Edition, (2005) .

B- Periodical:
- Abraham, Steven and other, Managerial competence and the managerial
performance appraisal process, journal of Management Development,
Vol.20, No.10, pp 842-852,(2001).
- Cawley, Brian D. et al, Participation in the Performance Appraisal
Process and Employee Reaction, Journal of Aplied Psychology, Vol. 83,
No. 4, (1998) .
- Cook, Jill and Alf Crossman, Satisfaction with performance appraisal
system, , journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.19, No. 5, pp 526-541,
(2004) .
- Coutts, Lary and Schneider, Frank, Police office performance appraisal
system :how good are they, Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
Vol. 27, No. 9, pp 67-81, (2004) .
- Khoury, Grace, Innovative Management Model for Performance
Appraisal: the case of the Palestian Public Universities, Journal
Management Research News, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp56-73, (2004).
- Pettijohn, Linda, Parker, Stephen, Pettijhon, Charles and Kent, John,
Performance appraisal: usage criteria and observations, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp 754-771, (2001).
- Poon, June, Effects performance appraisal politics on jop satisfaction and
turnover intention, Journal Personal Review, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp322-334,
(2003) .
- Soltani, Ebrahim, Towards a TQM-driven HR performance Evaluation,
Employee Relation, Vol.25, No.4, pp 347-370, (2003) .

!*"bS

eB&f:;:
;XXXXXX:I;f:b_:^;
b;OG:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
;XXXXXXXXX<b:^@XXXXXXg

J Aî @C@D F Jîxéhbd Ðké @hof Gém D @ - Nèh @éhbì Ì Ak

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Aî @C@D F Jîxéhbd Ðké @hof Gém D @ - Nèh @éhbì Ì Ak

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3. It is important to apply valid performance criteria and to update it

 



 

 

 

2- Count`s Study (2004) :

3- Ebrahim s Study (2004):

5- poon`s Study(2003)

6- Pettijon`s Study(2001):

7- Abraham`s Study ( 2001):

 

 0.718 -0.473

 0.864 0.424

 Spearman-Brown Coefficient

0.8476

One Way ANOVA-8

(1- Sample K-S) 

47.06 0.917 2.35

44.37 0.894 2.22

49.75 1.016 2.49

46.22 0.927 2.31

64.37 1.043 3.22

53.45 1.050 2.67

60.17 1.101 3.01

62.52 1.038 3.13

61.34 1.071 3.07

53.11 1.004 2.66

43.03 1.125 2.15

48.07 1.115 2.40

52.79 0.730 2.64

t

0.024 64.37 

37.14 0.876 1.86

40.50 0.916 2.03

55.63 1.263 2.78

44.71 1.006 2.24

48.40 1.062 2.42

66.72 1.284 3.34

48.85 0.797 2.44

50.42 1.048 2.52

47.73 1.018 2.39

43.36 0.886 2.17

44.20 0.956 2.21

43.36 1.099 2.17

58.32 1.239 2.92

46.55 1.136 2.33

46.05 1.078 2.30

53.95 1.038 2.70

55.46 1.182 2.77

57.65 1.151 2.88

47.56 1.105 2.38

43.70 0.965 2.18

44.37 0.940 2.22

48.76 0.768 2.44

t

1.346 3.05

1.039 2.44

1.176 2.92

1.092 3.29

1.234 3.37

64.40 0.772 3.22

58.75 0.779 2.94

0.718 -0.473

0.864 0.424

Spearman-Brown Coefficient

(1- Sample K-S)

0.024 64.37

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

t

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05