Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 250Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementManagement and Performance EvaluationHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rater bias in performance ratings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings.

Holzbach, Robert L.·1978·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Leniency errors, halo effects, and differential dimensionality were explored in an analysis of superior, self-, and peer performance ratings of 107 managerial and 76 professional employees in a medium-sized manufacturing location, representing 95% of the managerial and professional staff. Self-ratin

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.579

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

Items 101–200 of 250

Metadata

Authors
Holzbach, R. L.
Corresponding author
Holzbach, Robert L.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
1978-10
Volume
63
Issue
5
Pages
579-588
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W1969548676
Cited by
249
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 11
FWCI
10.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Performance Evaluation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Keywords
rater bias, performance ratings, self-ratings, peer ratings, leniency effect, halo effect, managers, working professionals, manufacturing workforce

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.