The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A META‐ANALYSIS OF SELF‐SUPERVISOR, SELF‐PEER, AND PEER‐SUPERVISOR RATINGS
Abstract
Reviews of self–supervisor, self–peer, and peer–supervisor ratings have generally concluded that there is at best a modest correlation between different rating sources. Nevertheless, there has been much inconsistency across studies. Accordingly, a meta‐analysis was conducted. The results indicated a relatively high correlation between peer and supervisor ratings (ρ= .62) but only a moderate correlation between self‐supervisor (ρ= .35) and self‐peer ratings (ρ= .36). While rating format (dimensional versus global) and rating scale (trait versus behavioral) had little impact as moderators, job type (managerial/professional versus blue‐collar/service) did seem to moderate self‐peer and self‐supervisor ratings.
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
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings.
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.56 · Cited by 376
Rater bias in performance ratings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings.
Holzbach, R. L. (1978) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.579 · Cited by 249
Cited by
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
The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 · Cited by 4,760
Ethical leadership: A review and future directions
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004 · Cited by 4,029
HELPING AND VOICE EXTRA-ROLE BEHAVIORS: EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCT AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256902 · Cited by 3,178
Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827 · Cited by 3,005
Metadata
- Authors
- HARRIS, M. M., & SCHAUBROECK, J.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1988-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-62
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2152983331
- Cited by
- 1,080
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.91
- 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: A META‐ANALYSIS OF SELF‐SUPERVISOR, SELF‐PEER, AND PEER‐SUPERVISOR RATINGS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x
- The paper
- HARRIS, M. M., & SCHAUBROECK, J. (1988). A META‐ANALYSIS OF SELF‐SUPERVISOR, SELF‐PEER, AND PEER‐SUPERVISOR RATINGS. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x
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.
