National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix B: Biographical Sketches
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

Index

A

Advisory Committee on Federal Pay, 95

Age effects on performance ratings, 64-65

Air Force task inventory, 49, 139

American College Testing, 59

Applied tradition, 3, 45-46, 137-138, 145-146, 150

Army Selection and Classification Project, 61

Automatic step system, 101

B

Behaviorally anchored rating scales, 56, 66-67n.2, 75, 78

validity of, 62-63, 71, 142, 143, 149

Behavioral measures, objective, 59

Bias, demographic, 64-65, 66, 106, 141

Bonus plans

civil service, 20, 27, 29

executives and managers, 79, 87, 88, 114, 125-126, 157

negative effects of, 83

Brownlow Commission, 17

Bureau of National Affairs, 117

C

Campbell, Alan, 18

Carter, Jimmy, 17-19

Civil Rights Act (1964), 35, 138

Civil Service Commission, 15, 19

Civil Service Reform Act (1978)

employee expectations of, 22-26

merit pay, 14, 17, 21-22, 27-28, 135-136

Merit Pay System, 8, 21-22, 28

Merit Systems Protection Board, 19, 29-30, 32, 163

performance appraisal, 21, 54, 133, 135-136, 138, 140, 163

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

Performance Management and Recognition System, 28-30

Reagan administration and, 26-27

Senior Executive Service, 19-20

Classification Act (1923), 15-16

Classification Act (1949), 16

Cognitive ability tests, 60, 63-64, 66

Cognitive models, supervisor appraisal, 50, 66-67, 144

Collective bargaining agreements, 10

Communication, management-employee, 36-37, 108, 118, 120, 136, 145 , 148

Comparability increases, 20, 22, 29

Conference Board survey, 102, 104, 113, 115, 117

Constructionist school, 49

Construct validity, 58, 63-65, 66

Content validation, 58-59, 66

Context variables. See Organizational context

Contingency theory, 67-68

Contingent labor, 124

Convergent validity, 58, 61-63

Cost-effectiveness, organizational, 36-37

Criterion-referenced appraisal, 55

Criterion-related validation, 58, 59-61, 63, 142

Critical incident technique, 49-50, 58, 66, 139

Critical job behaviors, 21, 56, 62, 70

D

Defense Department, 51

Demographic bias, 64-65, 66, 106, 141

Devine, Donald, 26-27

Discriminant validity, 58, 61-63

Distributive justice, 92, 93, 95, 154, 155

Due process requirements, 10, 133

E

Economic environment, 83, 89, 90, 130-131

Employee motivation

group incentive plans, 10-11, 86-89, 115

individual incentive plans, 81-84

merit pay and, 5, 84-86, 99, 165

organizational context and, 122, 129, 130-131, 158-159

pay for performance and, 5, 36-37, 80-81, 89-90, 136, 153-154, 165

performance appraisal and, 3, 28, 67-69, 146

public sector, 163

Employee perceptions

economic pressures and, 130-131

of fairness, 11, 92, 95-96, 101, 112, 129, 148, 150, 155, 156

meaningfulness of pay increases, 5, 30, 81, 85, 99, 153, 165

of performance appraisal systems, 106, 111, 145, 161

of performance goals, 5, 81, 85, 97, 99, 153, 165

of performance-pay link, 5, 21, 27-28, 29, 32, 68, 81, 85, 117, 120 , 153, 161, 165

trust in management, 69, 83, 89, 95, 130, 133, 153

Employees

attraction and retention of, 90-92, 98, 100, 113, 154

decision-making participation, 86-87, 93

fair and equitable treatment of, 5, 11, 36-37, 92-96, 100-101, 113 , 154-155

individual incentive plans and, 83-84, 89, 99, 133

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

information sharing with, 10, 118-119, 120, 125-126, 156-157

legal protections, 5, 132-133, 163

organizational commitment, 88

participation in setting performance goals, 99, 104, 105, 108

performance appraisal feedback, 63, 65, 69, 72, 75, 146

personal characteristics, 56, 62

supervisors' knowledge of, 50-51, 60-61, 66-67, 142, 150-151

See also Federal employees;

Individual job performance;

Performance appraisal

Employment discrimination, 132

Environmental factors

economic climate, 83, 89, 90, 130-131

laws and regulations, 132-133, 160, 162

rating distortion, 147-148

unionization, 90, 131-132, 160

Environmental Protection Agency, 31, 126

Equity and fair treatment, 32-33, 92-96, 154-155, 165

cost trade-offs, 97, 98

employee perceptions of, 11, 92, 95-96, 100-101, 112, 129, 148, 150 , 155, 156

Equity pay plans, 10, 152

Equity theory, 73-74

Evolutionary (dynamic) strategies in organizations, 125-126, 159

Executive Position Description Questionnaire, 49, 52

Executives, 38, 88, 113, 114, 125

See also Managers

Expectancy theory, 80-81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 99, 146, 153

Expectancy X Valence model, 67-68

External factors. See Environmental factors

F

Federal Employee Attitude Survey, 22

Federal employees

attitudes toward Civil Service Reform, 22-26, 28, 136

attitudes toward employment conditions, 7, 26, 29-30, 32

attitudes toward pay for performance, 94-95, 101, 111, 155

managers, 5, 13, 19-20, 21, 27, 28, 30-31, 118-119, 124, 155

merit system, 7, 8, 14-17, 21-22, 23, 27-30, 31, 44

organizational commitment, 28

pay information, 10, 118-119, 157

performance appraisal, 13, 16, 23, 28, 38, 54, 76, 126, 133, 135

private-sector pay gap, 7, 30, 32, 136, 165-166

recruitment, 30-31

regulatory protections, 132-133, 163

unions and professional associations, 131-132

Federal Labor Relations Authority, 19

Federal policy implications

merit pay, 42-44, 160-166

pay for performance research, 98-101, 134

performance appraisal, 3, 5, 138, 150, 160, 164-165

private-sector practice, 5-6, 7-8, 31, 40, 119-121, 135

Federal Reorganization Act (1939), 17

Forced-choice scales, 57, 147-148

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

Fortune 100 firms survey, 102, 106, 108, 113, 118, 120, 156

G

Gainsharing plans

employee acceptance of, 131

and organizational performance, 8, 11, 79-80, 86, 87-88, 90, 114, 115, 116, 154, 157, 158

Garfield, James Abram, 14

Gender effects, 64

General Accounting Office, 28, 30, 32, 132, 163

General Aptitude Test Battery, 63

General Schedule, 16, 22, 27, 28, 136

General Services Administration, 30

Global ratings, 54-55, 67, 74-75, 144, 149

Goal-setting theory, 81, 82, 86, 88, 89, 99, 152, 153

Graphic scales, 55-56, 143

Group incentive plans

context, 97

pay increases, 10, 79-80, 95, 155

performance effects, 86-89, 154

private-sector practice, 90, 114, 134, 151, 157, 159

H

Halo error, 55, 62, 67, 144, 147

Hawthorne effect, 40-41

Hay Company, 10

Health and Human Services Department, 31

Hewitt Associates survey, 114, 115

Hoover Commission, 16

Hourly employees, 103, 113, 114

I

Incentive Awards Act (1954), 16

Individual incentive plans

definition, 10, 151-152

economic pressures and, 130-131

negative consequences of, 83-84, 89, 99, 133

performance effects, 81-84, 153, 158-159

unions and, 97-98

Individual job performance

measurement of, 45, 48-55, 58, 66, 78, 126, 132-133, 137-138, 140-141, 149-150

merit pay and, 4, 9, 99, 100, 157-158

and organizational effectiveness, 21, 76, 112-113

perceived link with pay increases, 5, 21, 27-28, 29, 32, 68, 81, 85, 117, 120, 153, 161, 165

See also Performance appraisal

Information sharing about performance and pay, 88, 118-119, 120, 156-157

Instrumentality models of motivation, 73

Internal Revenue Service, 126

Intrinsic motivation, 68

J

Job analysis, 2, 49-52, 74, 124, 138, 139-140, 150

validity of measures, 58-59, 66, 148

Job complexity and interdependence, 97, 99-100, 123

Job element method, 49, 139

Job knowledge, 60-61, 66

Job (work) samples, 60, 63-64, 66

Job satisfaction, 85, 154

Job security, 131

Job-specific ratings, 54-55, 67, 74-75, 144, 149

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

Joint-Service Job Performance Measurement Project, 51-52, 54

L

Labor cost regulation, 8, 10-11, 79, 80, 96-98, 100, 113, 115, 120 , 155-156

Labor productivity. See Employees;

Productivity

Labor regulations, 132-133, 160, 162

Office of Personnel Management, 19, 21, 132, 138

Labor relations, 87, 130

Labor unions, 7, 97-98, 100, 131-132, 160

Leniency error, 55, 62, 147

Litigation, 31, 35, 67, 94, 144

M

McKinley, William, 15

Management

labor relations, 87, 130

and pay risks, 11, 95

systems, 127-129

Management by objective, 9, 47-48n.1, 76, 84, 104, 108, 124

Management Excellence Inventory, 53

Managers (supervisors)

beliefs about performance and pay, 94, 95, 106-107, 110-111, 118-119, 155

employee appraisal, 2, 3, 50-51, 60-61, 63-65, 66-67, 74, 96, 108-110, 142, 148, 149, 150-151, 164

employee trust in, 69, 83, 89, 95, 130, 133, 153

federal, 5, 13, 19-20, 21, 27, 28, 30-31, 118-119, 124, 155

flexibility and discretion, 5, 23, 31, 32, 120-121, 133, 156, 161, 163, 164

group incentive plans, 88-89

merit pay plans, 38, 84, 85-86, 156, 157

performance of, 47, 49, 52-54, 59, 66, 74, 75-76, 105, 133, 139, 140, 159

rater training, 70-72, 75, 106, 108, 146-147

rating distortion, 72-74, 145-146

use of performance appraisal systems, 5, 10, 11, 84-85, 105-106, 108, 149, 164-165

Measurement

errors in, 55, 56;

see also Rating errors

individual job performance, 45, 48-55, 58, 66, 78, 126, 132-133, 137-138, 140-141, 149-150

organizational performance, 116

performance appraisal system success, 3, 106, 112

quantitative, 54, 81, 86, 90, 96, 97, 99, 124

rating scale formats, 55-57

validity and reliability of, 37-38, 57-67

Mechanistic organization, 127-128

Merit grid, 9, 78

Merit pay

effectiveness of, 4, 117-118, 119

employee attraction and retention, 91, 100, 154

employee motivation, 5, 84-86, 89, 99-100, 131, 153-154, 165

federal civil service, 7, 8, 14-17, 21-22, 23, 27-30, 31, 44

performance ratings, 81-82, 96-97, 109-110, 149, 151-152, 164-165

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

plan administration, 116-117

plan budgets, 115

plan design, 115-116

private-sector practice, 9-10, 113-121, 156-157, 160-161

public-sector attitudes toward, 94-95, 101, 111, 155

See also Pay for performance

Merit Pay System, 8, 21-22, 27-28, 30, 136

Merit Systems Protection Board, 19, 29-30, 32, 163

Meta-analysis, 59-60, 63, 64, 65

Mid-level managers, 1, 21, 27, 28, 88-89, 110, 157.

See also Managers

Military job performance, 51-52, 60, 61, 142

Mixed Standard Scale, 56-57, 61, 143

Motivation theory, 11-12, 152.

See also Employee motivation

Multimethod-multirater technique, 61-62

N

National Commission on the Public Service, 30-31

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 31

National Institutes of Health, 31

National Science Foundation, 31

Navy studies, 22, 24-25, 73, 91

Neutral competence, 14, 17, 31-32

Nixon, Richard M., 18

Norm-referenced appraisals, 55

O

Objectivity in measurement, 48, 59, 140

Office of Personnel Management, 1, 7, 36, 135

federal employee survey, 22, 24-25

Management Excellence Inventory, 53

politicization of, 26-27, 28

regulations, 19, 21, 132, 138

Opinion surveys, 106, 112, 120

Organic organization, 127

Organizational context

boundary, 162-163

culture and personnel practice, 39, 43, 110-111, 112, 118, 119, 120 , 152

effect on employees, 86-88, 93

labor cost control, 96, 98

labor relations, 130

and rating distortion, 72

research and, 4, 40-41, 47, 137, 158

size, 129-130

strategy and goals, 124-127, 133, 134

structure and management systems, 127-129, 134, 159-160

technological fit, 123-124, 158-159

Organizational justice, 42, 92, 93, 154

Organizational performance

individual performance effects, 10-11, 48, 76, 112-113, 145-146, 158

pay for performance systems and, 36-37, 38, 41-42, 79, 89, 90, 114 -115, 136, 158

P

Pay for performance

definitions, 3-4, 8-9

economic climate and, 130-131

effectiveness criteria, 36-37, 43

employee attraction and retention, 90-92, 98, 100, 113, 154

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

employee motivation, 4, 80-90, 136, 153-154, 157-158

fair treatment and equity, 92-96, 154-155

federal civil service, 13, 20, 21-22, 26, 27-33, 98-101, 161

labor cost regulation, 96-98, 155-156

organizational context and, 4, 122, 130, 134, 158-160

and organizational performance, 36-37, 38, 41-42, 79, 89, 90, 114-115, 136, 158

and rating distortion, 73-74, 75

research on, 11-12, 35-36, 77, 80

unions and, 131-132, 160

See also Individual job performance;

Merit pay

Pay increases

group incentive plans, 86, 95

merit plans, 5, 9, 85, 89, 95

seen as meaningful, 5, 30, 81, 85, 99, 153, 165

See also Performance-pay link

Pay satisfaction and dissatisfaction, 29-30, 32, 92-94, 95

Pay system objectives, 77, 80, 96, 98, 101, 113, 114, 151

Peer ratings, 65

Pendleton Act (1883), 14-15

Performance appraisal

applied tradition, 3, 45-46, 145-146

confidentiality of information, 39

effectiveness of, 43, 106-107, 112, 145, 148

employee feedback, 63, 65, 69, 72, 75, 146

employee performance objectives, 5, 54, 81, 84, 85, 94, 97, 99, 108 , 148, 153, 165

federal civil service, 3, 5, 13, 15-16, 20, 21, 22-23, 28-29, 135, 138, 160, 162-163

intended use of ratings, 3, 72, 73, 147

job analysis, 139-140

job performance measurement, 2-3, 45, 48-55, 138-139

legal protections and, 132-133, 163

legitimation aspects, 44, 75, 133

managerial judgment in, 2, 3, 109-110, 148, 149, 151

managerial performance, 47, 49, 52-54, 59, 66, 74, 75-76, 133, 139 , 140, 159

and motivation, 3, 28, 67-69, 146

organizational context and, 4, 47, 122, 125-126, 128, 134, 158, 160

private-sector practice, 5, 67, 102, 103-113, 119-120, 124, 148, 164

process emphasis, 42, 109, 112, 120, 148, 149

psychometric properties, 55-67, 74-75, 140-144, 150

quantitative measures, 54, 81, 86, 90, 96, 97, 99, 124

rater training, 70-72, 75, 106, 108

rating distortion, 72-74, 75, 147-148

rating quality, 69-72, 146-147, 149

reliability, interrater, 55, 65-66, 140-141

research on, 34-35, 46-48, 137-138

technology and, 123-124

unions and, 131, 160

validity of measures, 57-65, 141-142

Performance management, 109

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

Performance Management and Recognition System, 1, 5-6, 7, 8, 28-30, 43, 135-136, 146, 164, 166

Performance-pay link, 5, 21, 27-28, 29, 32, 68, 81, 85, 117, 120, 153, 161, 165

Performance Rating Act (1950), 16

Performance Review Board, 20, 27

Performance Standards Review Boards, 29

Personnel Management Project, 18-19

Personnel managers. See Managers;

Organizational context

Piece rates

cost of implementation, 96, 97, 100

distortion of data, 83

and productivity, 82, 96, 153

Political appointments, 14-15, 18, 136, 161-162

Political neutrality. See Neutral competence

Position Analysis Questionnaire, 49

Private-sector practice

attitudes toward pay for performance, 29, 94, 95, 110-111, 155

federal government implications, 31, 40, 44, 119-121, 135, 160-166

merit pay, 9-10, 113-119, 156-157, 160-161

performance appraisal, 5, 54, 67, 102, 103-113, 119-120, 124, 148, 164

unions and, 131, 160

See also Pay for performance;

Performance appraisal

Procedural justice, 42, 43, 120

employee perceptions of, 93, 94, 95-96, 101, 154, 155

Productivity, 7-8, 37

pay for performance and, 82, 87-88, 96, 157

performance appraisal feedback and, 63, 65, 146

See also Individual job performance;

Organizational performance

Profit-sharing plans, 8, 10, 90, 152

performance effects, 88-89, 154

private-sector practice, 79, 86, 114, 157

unions and, 131

Psychological testing, 58;

see also Standardized tests

Psychometric properties

interrater reliability, 46, 65-66, 76, 140-141, 149-150

scale formats, 55-57, 66-67, 74-75, 138-139, 143-144

validity of measures, 57-65, 66, 141-142, 149-150

See also Performance appraisal

Q

Quality step increase, 16-17, 22

Quantitative performance measures, 54, 81, 86, 90, 96, 97, 99, 124

Questionnaires, 49, 52, 139

R

Race effects, 64, 141

Ramspeck Act (1940), 16

Rank in person, 15, 19

Rank in position, 15

Rating distortion, 72-74, 147-148

Rating errors, 2, 46, 55, 70, 71, 143, 147

See also Halo error;

Leniency error;

Reliability

Rating quality, 69-70, 71-72, 146-147

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

rater training, 70-72, 75, 106, 108

rating sequence, 71

Rating scale formats

behaviorally based, 56, 62, 71, 75

evaluation of 66-67, 74-75, 143-144

federal civil service, 16

forced-choice, 57, 147-148

graphic 55-56, 143

mixed standard 56-57, 61, 143

number of anchors, 3, 65-66, 75, 144

Reagan, Ronald, 26-27

Reliability, 139, 140-141, 148, 149

interrater, 55, 65-66, 74, 76

See also Performance appraisal

Reorganization Plan No. 2, 17-18, 19

Research findings

convergence with private-sector practice, 102, 112-113, 119

cost regulation, 96-98, 155-156

employee motivation, 67-69, 80-90, 153-154

employee retention, 90-92

fair treatment and equity, 92-96, 154-155

pay for performance, government implications, 42-44, 98-101

performance appraisal, 35, 46, 67-69, 74-75, 149-151

quality of rating data, 69-72

rating distortion, 72-74

Restriction in range error, 55

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 15, 17

S

Salary Reform Act (1962), 16-17

Sales commissions, 10, 38, 78-79, 114, 151-152

Scholastic Aptitude Test, 58, 59

Selection tests, 59

Self-rating, 65, 69, 146

Senior Executive Association, 27

Senior Executive Service, 16, 19-20, 21, 26, 27

Social Security Administration, 31, 85-86

Standard Descriptive Rating Scale, 63

Standardized tests, 46, 138-139, 142

Statistical analysis, 41, 142, 147

Steady-state organizations, 125-126, 134, 159

Supervisors. See Managers

Surveys, 39, 42

T

Task inventory, 49, 50, 51, 52, 90

Technological fit, 123-124, 158-159

Temporary employees, 17

Traits, 53-54, 66-67, 144

Trait scales, 56, 61, 75

U

Unionized employees, 103, 113

V

Validity, 37-38, 57-58, 67, 74, 76, 133, 139, 141-142, 148, 149, 150

construct, 58, 63-65, 66

content, 58-59, 66

convergent and discriminant, 58, 61-63

criterion, 59-61, 63, 142

See also Performance appraisal

Variable pay plans, 3, 103, 151-152, 155

performance effects, 4, 10-11, 119, 157-158

private-sector practice, 113-118, 156

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×

W

Whistleblower protections, 23

Work climate, 130

Work group cooperation, 83, 87

Work (job) samples, 60, 63-64, 66

Wyatt Company, 29, 105-106, 108, 109, 112, 117

Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Index." National Research Council. 1991. Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/1751.
×
Page 210
Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $44.95
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

"Pay for performance" has become a buzzword for the 1990s, as U.S. organizations seek ways to boost employee productivity. The new emphasis on performance appraisal and merit pay calls for a thorough examination of their effectiveness. Pay for Performance is the best resource to date on the issues of whether these concepts work and how they can be applied most effectively in the workplace.

This important book looks at performance appraisal and pay practices in the private sector and describes whether—and how—private industry experience is relevant to federal pay reform. It focuses on the needs of the federal government, exploring how the federal pay system evolved; available evidence on federal employee attitudes toward their work, their pay, and their reputation with the public; and the complicating and pervasive factor of politics.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!