You Zhou, Paul R Sackett, Winny Shen, Adam S Beatty
{"title":"An updated meta-analysis of the interrater reliability of supervisory performance ratings.","authors":"You Zhou, Paul R Sackett, Winny Shen, Adam S Beatty","doi":"10.1037/apl0001174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given the centrality of the job performance construct to organizational researchers, it is critical to understand the reliability of the most common way it is operationalized in the literature. To this end, we conducted an updated meta-analysis on the interrater reliability of supervisory ratings of job performance (<i>k</i> = 132 independent samples) using a new meta-analytic procedure (i.e., the Morris estimator), which includes both within- and between-study variance in the calculation of study weights. An important benefit of this approach is that it prevents large-sample studies from dominating the results. In this investigation, we also examined different factors that may affect interrater reliability, including job complexity, managerial level, rating purpose, performance measure, and rater perspective. We found a higher interrater reliability estimate (<i>r</i> = .65) compared to previous meta-analyses on the topic, and our results converged with an important, but often neglected, finding from a previous meta-analysis by Conway and Huffcutt (1997), such that interrater reliability varies meaningfully by job type (<i>r</i> = .57 for managerial positions vs. <i>r</i> = .68 for nonmanagerial positions). Given this finding, we advise against the use of an overall grand mean of interrater reliability. Instead, we recommend using job-specific or local reliabilities for making corrections for attenuation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"949-970"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001174","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Given the centrality of the job performance construct to organizational researchers, it is critical to understand the reliability of the most common way it is operationalized in the literature. To this end, we conducted an updated meta-analysis on the interrater reliability of supervisory ratings of job performance (k = 132 independent samples) using a new meta-analytic procedure (i.e., the Morris estimator), which includes both within- and between-study variance in the calculation of study weights. An important benefit of this approach is that it prevents large-sample studies from dominating the results. In this investigation, we also examined different factors that may affect interrater reliability, including job complexity, managerial level, rating purpose, performance measure, and rater perspective. We found a higher interrater reliability estimate (r = .65) compared to previous meta-analyses on the topic, and our results converged with an important, but often neglected, finding from a previous meta-analysis by Conway and Huffcutt (1997), such that interrater reliability varies meaningfully by job type (r = .57 for managerial positions vs. r = .68 for nonmanagerial positions). Given this finding, we advise against the use of an overall grand mean of interrater reliability. Instead, we recommend using job-specific or local reliabilities for making corrections for attenuation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including:
1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses).
2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research.
3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
