Research on the comparative utility of varying numbers of rating statements per set--using an external criterion of recognition of rater profiles for evaluating "goodness" of the sets--was conducted on 132 noncommissioned Air Force officers. Groups of subjects rated groups of their peers on 20 factors, on a subset of 10 factors, and on a subset of five factors. Rating statements included: learning ability; leadership; quality of work; motivation; ability to follow instructions; bearing and behavior; accuracy; oral communication; problem analysis; initiative; quality of work; written communication; punctuality; adaptability; dependability; emotional stability; human relations; judgment; knowledge of duties; and honesty. Profiles, based on group ratings, were developed for each subject and given to the group members to identify. Profiles made from 20 rating statements were identified no better than profiles developed from 5 rating statements. Also, the use of two rating statements, learning ability and knowledge of duties, were found to produce information about a rate which could not be improved by the addition of many more rating factors. When the external criterion was used, results indicated that sets of statements larger than five did not provide better recognition of peers. (MH)