The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison.
Abstract
Much of the recent research on counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) has used multi-item self-report measures of CWB. Because of concerns over self-report measurement, there have been recent calls to collect ratings of employees' CWB from their supervisors or coworkers (i.e., other-raters) as alternatives or supplements to self-ratings. However, little is still known about the degree to which other-ratings of CWB capture unique and valid incremental variance beyond self-report CWB. The present meta-analysis investigates a number of key issues regarding the incremental contribution of other-reports of CWB. First, self- and other-ratings of CWB were moderately to strongly correlated with each other. Second, with some notable exceptions, self- and other-report CWB exhibited very similar patterns and magnitudes of relationships with a set of common correlates. Third, self-raters reported engaging in more CWB than other-raters reported them engaging in, suggesting other-ratings capture a narrower subset of CWBs. Fourth, other-report CWB generally accounted for little incremental variance in the common correlates beyond self-report CWB. Although many have viewed self-reports of CWB with skepticism, the results of this meta-analysis support their use in most CWB research as a viable alternative to other-reports.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
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
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Moorman, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.6.845 · Cited by 3,422
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.762 · Cited by 762
Cited by
The rules of the game called psychological science
Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612459060 · Cited by 800
Shockley, K. M., Shen, W., DeNunzio, M. M., Arvan, M. L., & Knudsen, E. A. (2017) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000246 · Cited by 451
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0030687 · Cited by 368
Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000002 · Cited by 337
Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. (2018) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.1325 · Cited by 244
Metadata
- Authors
- Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 613-636
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1973851865
- Cited by
- 618
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 47.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0026739
- The paper
- Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026739
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.