The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MEASUREMENT ERROR IN RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: ADDITIONAL DATA AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Abstract
Gerhart and colleagues (2000) and Huselid and Becker (2000) recently debated the presence and implications of measurement error in measures of human resource practices. This paper presents data from 3 more studies, 1 of large organizations from different industries at the corporate level, 1 from commercial banks, and the other of autonomous business units at the level of the job. Results of all 3 studies provide additional evidence that single respondent measures of HR practices contain large amounts of measurement error. Implications for future research into the HR firm performance relationship are discussed.
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
HUSELID, M. A. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256741 · Cited by 9,342
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
rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 · Cited by 2,221
A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus
Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161 · Cited by 514
Cited by
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00154.x · Cited by 1,538
Human Resource Management and Labor Productivity: Does Industry Matter?
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.15993158 · Cited by 1,317
Self-citationTHE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HR PRACTICES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: EXAMINING CAUSAL ORDER
WRIGHT, P. M., GARDNER, T. M., MOYNIHAN, L. M., & ALLEN, M. R. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00487.x · Cited by 1,085
Self-citationGuerci, M., Longoni, A., & Luzzini, D. (2016) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431 · Cited by 589
Metadata
- Authors
- WRIGHT, P. M., GARDNER, T. M., MOYNIHAN, L. M., PARK, H. J., GERHART, B., & DELERY, J. E.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 875-901
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2163824853
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 14.93
- 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: MEASUREMENT ERROR IN RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: ADDITIONAL DATA AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00235.x
- The paper
- WRIGHT, P. M., GARDNER, T. M., MOYNIHAN, L. M., PARK, H. J., GERHART, B., & DELERY, J. E. (2001). MEASUREMENT ERROR IN RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: ADDITIONAL DATA AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00235.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.
