CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,774Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementPsychometric Methodologies and TestingSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias

James, Lawrence R., Demaree, Robert G., Wolf, Gerrit·1984·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract : This article presents methods for assessing agreement among the judgments made by a single group of judges on a single variable in regard to a single target. For example, the group of judges could be editorial consultants, members of an assessment center, or members of a team. The single target could be a manuscript, a lower-level manager, or a team. The variable on which the target is judged could be overall publishability in the case of the manuscript, managerial potential for the lower-level manager, or team cooperativeness for the team. The methods presented are based on new procedures for estimating interrater reliability. For situations such as the above, these procedures are shown to furnish more accurate and interpretable estimates of agreement than estimates provided by procedures commonly used to estimate agreement, consistency, or interrater reliability. In addition, the proposed methods include processes for controlling for the spurious influences of response biases (e.g., positive leniency, social desirability) on estimates of interrater reliability. (Author)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • In couples where only one partner reported pain, spouses reported greater depressive symptoms when both partners expressed anger and contempt.

    “Furthermore, in couples where only one partner reported pain, spouses reported greater depressive symptoms when both partners expressed anger and contempt.”

    From Empathic and nonempathic interaction in chronic pain couples. (2008) · cites this paper as [20]

  • Spouses rated patients' pain as more severe when patients expressed anger and contempt.

    “Johansen and Cano 20 demonstrated that spouses rated the patients’ pain as being more severe when patients expressed anger and contempt.”

    From Empathic and nonempathic interaction in chronic pain couples. (2008) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1984-02
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
85-98
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
OpenAlex
W1971711030
Cited by
4,774
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 127 · 2025: 164 · 2024: 145 · 2023: 162 · 2022: 173 · 2021: 210 · 2020: 204 · 2019: 231 · 2018: 202 · 2017: 222 · 2016: 207 · 2015: 216 · 2014: 229 · 2013: 227 · 2012: 232
FWCI
4.17
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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
inter-rater reliability, response bias, leniency bias, social desirability bias, judgment consistency

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