Literature DB >> 11125659

Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings.

S E Scullen1, M K Mount, M Goff.   

Abstract

This study quantified the effects of 5 factors postulated to influence performance ratings: the ratee's general level of performance, the ratee's performance on a specific dimension, the rater's idiosyncratic rating tendencies, the rater's organizational perspective, and random measurement error. Two large data sets, consisting of managers (n = 2,350 and n = 2,142) who received developmental ratings on 3 performance dimensions from 7 raters (2 bosses, 2 peers, 2 subordinates, and self) were used. Results indicated that idiosyncratic rater effects (62% and 53%) accounted for over half of the rating variance in both data sets. The combined effects of general and dimensional ratee performance (21% and 25%) were less than half the size of the idiosyncratic rater effects. Small perspective-related effects were found in boss and subordinate ratings but not in peer ratings. Average random error effects in the 2 data sets were 11% and 18%.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11125659     DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.956

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9010


  9 in total

1.  A trifactor model for integrating ratings across multiple informants.

Authors:  Daniel J Bauer; Andrea L Howard; Ruth E Baldasaro; Patrick J Curran; Andrea M Hussong; Laurie Chassin; Robert A Zucker
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2013-09-30

2.  Workplace-based assessment: raters' performance theories and constructs.

Authors:  M J B Govaerts; M W J Van de Wiel; L W T Schuwirth; C P M Van der Vleuten; A M M Muijtjens
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 3.853

3.  Recreational Diving Practice for Stress Management: An Exploratory Trial.

Authors:  Frédéric Beneton; Guillaume Michoud; Mathieu Coulange; Nicolas Laine; Céline Ramdani; Marc Borgnetta; Patricia Breton; Regis Guieu; J C Rostain; Marion Trousselard
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-12-18

4.  A large-scale examination of the effectiveness of anonymous marking in reducing group performance differences in higher education assessment.

Authors:  Daniel P Hinton; Helen Higson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Leniency Bias in Performance Ratings: The Big-Five Correlates.

Authors:  Kevin H C Cheng; C Harry Hui; Wayne F Cascio
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-04-10

6.  When Teams Fail to Self-Regulate: Predictors and Outcomes of Team Procrastination Among Debating Teams.

Authors:  Edwin A J Van Hooft; Heleen Van Mierlo
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-04-05

7.  We Know the Yin-But Where Is the Yang? Toward a Balanced Approach on Common Source Bias in Public Administration Scholarship.

Authors:  Bert George; Sanjay K Pandey
Journal:  Rev Public Pers Adm       Date:  2017-03-15

8.  The Negative and Positive Aspects of Employees' Innovative Behavior: Role of Goals of Employees and Supervisors.

Authors:  Ying Zhang; Jian Zhang; Jacques Forest; Chunxiao Chen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-10-01

9.  Examining the accuracy of residents' self-assessments and faculty assessment behaviours in anesthesiology.

Authors:  Melinda Fleming; Danika Vautour; Michael McMullen; Nicholas Cofie; Nancy Dalgarno; Rachel Phelan; Glenio B Mizubuti
Journal:  Can Med Educ J       Date:  2021-09-14
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.