Prior investigation of a new rater training paradigm, rater variability training (RVT), found no clear empirical distinction between RVT and the more established frame-of-reference training (FOR), (Hauenstein, Facteau, & Schmidt, 1999). The purpose of the present study was to expand upon this previous investigation by including a purpose manipulation, alternative operationalizations of Cronbach's accuracy components, finer-grained distinctions in the rating stimuli, and a second control group receiving quantitative accuracy feedback void of a substantive training lecture. Results indicate that finer-grained distinctions in the rating stimuli result in the best differential elevation accuracy for RVT trainees. Furthermore, RVT may be best suited for improving raters' abilities to accurately evaluate average performing ratees when the performance appraisal is used for an administrative purpose. Evidence also suggests that in many cases, the use of Cronbach's accuracy components obscures underlying patterns of rating accuracy. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that accuracy feedback without a training lecture improves some types of rating accuracy.