Labels in Buddycheck

The overall team rating for this student is greater than 3, but the student rated themselves at least a point lower than this value. This would indicate that the student is 'underconfident' or too critical of their own contributions.

Below is an example of the results that a student lacking confidence may get.

It seems this group is bypassing this peer evaluation. This is indicated when there are zero differences in the scoring and there are two or more peer questions in the evaluation. It is unlikely that each score of each peer is exactly the same. Perhaps ask the group to fill in the evaluation again and take it more seriously.

Below is an example of the bypass results:

Note: if all of the group members rate each other in the same way, it may indicate a highly functional group, where all team members have agreed to give each other equal scores.

One of the students on the team appears to be trying to 'skew the curve' by giving themselves high ratings while rating the other team members poorly (it's possible that the student honestly believes that they were a star performer and the other team members failed to contribute). Strictly speaking, the student has to have given themselves an overall rating of 4 or higher while rating all of the other members on their team at least two points below this rating. The 'Skewed' condition is one that can cause erroneous 'Adjustment Factor' values and will result in the 'Adjustment Factor' column being highlighted.

Below is an example of the skewed results: the student has given themselves a 5, while rating other team members much lower.

This student did not contribute greatly to the team's success-- their average overall rating is less than 2.5. This is difficult to achieve without a significant lack of effort.

This condition is best summarized as 'somebody didn't get along'. Specifically, this student rated another team member at 2 or less, while the median rating for that student from the other team members is 3 or more. Note that the system checks for the 'Tension' condition described above before evaluating the data for potential personality conflicts. This is another condition that can result in erroneous 'Adjustment Factor' values, and so the 'Adjustment Factor' column will be highlighted in this case.

Below is an example of a conflict: the student has given another team member a score of 1, while giving scores of 4 and 5 to other members.

This is essentially the opposite of the 'Underconfident' situation described above. The overall rating for the student is less than 3, but the student rated themselves a full point or more higher than their average rating. Possibly the student contributed but managed to alienate the other team members, or more likely they tend to overstate their own contributions.

Below is an example of an overconfident student: they gave themselves a score of 5, while the other team members gave them scores between 3 and 3.5.

There is still significant disagreement between the ratings from various team members. 'Significant disagreement' here is defined as the sum of the standard deviations for the ratings in each behavioral category being greater than the total number of behaviors surveyed (typically 5). When this occurs, it usually means that the team has split into multiple non-cooperating groups-- hence 'Tension'. This is another situation that can lead to erroneous 'Adjustment Factor' values, and so the 'Adjustment Factor' column will be highlighted in this case.