The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
INTERRATER CORRELATIONS DO NOT ESTIMATE THE RELIABILITY OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS
Abstract
Interrater correlations are widely interpreted as estimates of the reliability of supervisory performance ratings, and are frequently used to correct the correlations between ratings and other measures (e.g., test scores) for attenuation. These interrater correlations do provide some useful information, but they are not reliability coefficients. There is clear evidence of systematic rater effects in performance appraisal, and variance associated with raters is not a source of random measurement error. We use generalizability theory to show why rater variance is not properly interpreted as measurement error, and show how such systematic rater effects can influence both reliability estimates and validity coefficients. We show conditions under which interrater correlations can either overestimate or underestimate reliability coefficients, and discuss reasons other than random measurement error for low interrater correlations.
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
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 BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
THEORY OF GENERALIZABILITY: A LIBERALIZATION OF RELIABILITY THEORY†
Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963) · British Journal of Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1963.tb00206.x · Cited by 737
Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.199 · Cited by 567 · cited 7×
“A number of methods exist for estimating the reliability of most tests or measures, and choice of the appropriate reliability estimate is often a complex and important matter ( Schmidt & Hunter, 1996 ).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA 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
Cited by
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
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
Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 · Cited by 3,190
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66 · Cited by 1,545
The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36 · Cited by 1,265
Metadata
- Authors
- MURPHY, K. R., & DESHON, R.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 873-900
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2124843723
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 14.05
- 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: INTERRATER CORRELATIONS DO NOT ESTIMATE THE RELIABILITY OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02421.x
- The paper
- MURPHY, K. R., & DESHON, R. (2000). INTERRATER CORRELATIONS DO NOT ESTIMATE THE RELIABILITY OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02421.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.
