Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-n7qbj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T07:39:30.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correcting the Correction: When Individual Raters Offer Distinct but Valid Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

Dan J. Putka ,
Brian J. Hoffman  and
Nathan T. Carter
Dan J. Putka*
Affiliation:
Human Resources Research Organization
Brian J. Hoffman
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Nathan T. Carter
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Human Resources Research Organization, 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 700, Alexandria, VA 22314
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 543 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borman, W. C. (1974). The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 105–124.Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2002). True scores, latent variables, and constructs: Comment on Schmidt and Hunter. Intelligence, 30, 505–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.Google Scholar
Hoffman, B. J., Lance, C., Bynum, B., & Gentry, B. (2010). Rater source effects are alive and well after all. Personnel Psychology, 63, 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lance, C. E., Hoffman, B. J., Gentry, B., & Baranik, L. E. (2008). Rater source factors represent important subcomponents of the criterion construct space, not rater bias. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 223–232.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Scherer, K. T., & James, L. R. (2014). Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: A false prophet in a land of suspended judgment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(4), 478–500.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.Google Scholar
Miller, I., & Miller, M. (1999). John E. Freund's mathematical statistics (6th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873–900.Google Scholar
Putka, D. J., & Hoffman, B. J. (2014). “The” reliability of performance ratings equals 0.52. In Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (Eds.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Putka, D. J., Le, H., McCloy, R. A., & Diaz, T. (2008). Ill-structured measurement designs in organizational research: Implications for estimating interrater reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 959–981.Google Scholar
Rothstein, H. R. (1990). Interrater reliability of job performance ratings: Growth to asymptote level with increasing opportunity to observe. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 322–327.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183–198.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Reliability is not validity and validity is not reliability. Personnel Psychology, 53, 901–912.Google Scholar
Sutton, A. W., Baldwin, S., Wood, L., & Hoffman, B. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the influence between rater liking and performance ratings. Human Performance, 26, 409–429.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574.Google Scholar