Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/12561
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Salgado, JF | - |
dc.contributor.author | Moscoso, S | - |
dc.contributor.author | Anderson, N | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-04-21T13:52:27Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-01-01 | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-04-21T13:52:27Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 32(1): pp.17 - 23, (2016) | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1576-5962 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2174-0534 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1576596215000687 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/12561 | - |
dc.description.abstract | There is criticism in the literature about the use of interrater coefficients to correct for criterion reliability in validity generalization (VG) studies and disputing whether.52 is an accurate and non-dubious estimate of interrater reliability of overall job performance (OJP) ratings. We present a second-order meta-analysis of three independent meta-analytic studies of the interrater reliability of job performance ratings and make a number of comments and reflections on LeBreton et al.'s paper. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that the interrater reliability for a single rater is.52 (k = 66, N = 18,582, SD =.105). Our main conclusions are: (a) the value of.52 is an accurate estimate of the interrater reliability of overall job performance for a single rater; (b) it is not reasonable to conclude that past VG studies that used.52 as the criterion reliability value have a less than secure statistical foundation; (c) based on interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, and coefficient alpha, supervisor ratings are a useful and appropriate measure of job performance and can be confidently used as a criterion; (d) validity correction for criterion unreliability has been unanimously recommended by "classical" psychometricians and I/O psychologists as the proper way to estimate predictor validity, and is still recommended at present; (e) the substantive contribution of VG procedures to inform HRM practices in organizations should not be lost in these technical points of debate. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | The research reported was partially supported by Grant PSI2014-56615-P from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness to Jesús F. Salgado and Silvia Moscoso and by a Leverhulme Trust grant number IN-2012-095 to Neil Anderson. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 17 - 23 | - |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
dc.subject | Interrater | en_US |
dc.subject | Reliability | en_US |
dc.subject | Validity generalization | en_US |
dc.subject | Job performance | en_US |
dc.subject | Ratings | en_US |
dc.title | Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: The consistency of Hermes, the utility of Midas | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.12.001 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones | - |
pubs.issue | 1 | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
pubs.volume | 32 | - |
Appears in Collections: | Brunel Business School Research Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fulltext.pdf | 286.85 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.