Graphic rating scales may not yield the depth of information that narrative essays or critical incidents do, but they (1) are less time consuming to develop and administer, (2) permit quantitative results to be determined, (3) promote consideration of more than one performance dimension, and (4) are standardized and, therefore, comparable across individuals. On the other hand, graphic rating scales give maximum control to the rater, thereby exercising no control over leniency, severity, central tendency, or halo. For this reason, they have been criticized. However, when simple graphic rating scales have been compared against more sophisticated forced-choice ratings, the graphic scales consistently proved just as reliable and valid (King, Hunter, & Schmidt, 1980) and were more acceptable to raters (Bernardin & Beatty, 1991).