The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus
Abstract
James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984) developed an indes, r WG , for assessing within-group agreement appropriate when only a single target is rated. The assessment of interperceiver agreement in such situations is of particular relevance to the composition model for climate. Schmidt and Hunter (1989) have criticized the conceptual foundation of r WG because it is not consistent with the classical model of reliability. They proposed an alternative approach, the use of the rating standard deviation (SD X ), the standard error of the rating mean (SE M ), and the associated confidence intervals for SE M to index interrater agreement. This comment argues that the critique of r WG dit not clearly distinguish the concepts of interrater consensus (i.e., agreement) and interrater consistency (i.e., reliability)
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
“Newton-John 29 noted that operant models cannot explain the fact that negative or punishing spouse responses are associated with increased pain behaviors and pain severity 3, 22.”
From Empathic and nonempathic interaction in chronic pain couples. (2008) · cites this paper as [22]
Citations
Cites
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
The Social Psychology of Organizations.
Hackman, J. R., Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2989929 · Cited by 12,243
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
TRANSFER OF TRAINING: A REVIEW AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x · Cited by 3,662
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, I. T. (2003) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0470013311.oth1 · Cited by 2,787
Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.
James, L. R. (1982) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219 · Cited by 2,139
Personality, affect, and behavior in groups
George, J. M. (1990) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107 · Cited by 1,372
Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks: Replication and extension.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.423 · Cited by 1,344
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kristof‐Brown, A. L. (1996) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x · Cited by 5,243
Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428106296642 · Cited by 3,608
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 · Cited by 2,994
Chan, D. K. (1998) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 · Cited by 2,981
(2000) · Cited by 2,531
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- ORCID
- Kozlowski, Steve W.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 1992-04
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 161-167
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2069294908
- Cited by
- 514
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 12.78
- 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 › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- interobserver agreement, confidence intervals, classical test theory, reliability statistics
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