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.
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Halo effects have been documented for various kinds of evaluations, ranging from performance ratings of employees (14), to licensing of university inventions (15), to student (16, 17) and instructor (18) assessments.”
From Nobel and novice: Author prominence affects peer review (2022) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
A General Method for Analysis of Covariance Structures
Jöreskog, K. G. (1970) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/57.2.239 · Cited by 1,235
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047060 · Cited by 838
The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance.
Lawler, E. E. (1967) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0025095 · Cited by 304
Comparisons of self- and superior ratings of managerial performance.
Heneman, H. G. (1974) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037341 · Cited by 286
The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternate approach
Borman, W. C. (1974) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90040-3 · Cited by 218
Issues in managerial performance: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of ratings.
Kavanagh, M. J., MacKinney, A. C., & Wolins, L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0030412 · Cited by 208
Role of the rater in performance appraisal.
Klimoski, R. J., & London, M. (1974) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037332 · Cited by 166
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUPERVISORY‐ AND SELF‐APPRAISALS OF EXECUTIVE PERFORMANCE
Thornton, G. C. (1968) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1968.tb02044.x · Cited by 132
EFFECT OF INSTRUCTIONAL CONDITIONS IN PRODUCING LENIENCY ON TWO TYPES OF RATING SCALES1
Sharon, A. T., & Bartlett, C. J. (1969) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1969.tb00330.x · Cited by 92
Cited by
CHRISTIAN, M. S., GARZA, A. S., & SLAUGHTER, J. E. (2011) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x · Cited by 2,903
Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814002 · Cited by 1,380
A META‐ANALYSIS OF SELF‐SUPERVISOR, SELF‐PEER, AND PEER‐SUPERVISOR RATINGS
HARRIS, M. M., & SCHAUBROECK, J. (1988) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x · Cited by 1,080
A competence‐based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability
der Heijde, C. M. V., & HEIJDEN, B. I. J. M. V. D. (2006) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.20119 · Cited by 1,191
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-t · Cited by 807
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.
