The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MULTIPLE RATERS IN SURVEY‐BASED OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW AND TUTORIAL
Abstract
Research in the area of operations strategy has made significant progress during the past decade in terms of quantity of articles published, as well as the quality of these articles. Recent studies have examined the published literature base and determined that, in general, the field has progressed beyond an exploratory stage to a point where there is a core set of basic terminology and models. Concurrent with the formation and solidification of a core terminology, there is an increasing emphasis on developing and employing a set of reliable, valid, and reproducible methods for conducting research on operations strategy. We provide a review of common methods for assessing the degree of reliability and agreement of the responses provided by multiple raters within a given organization to a set of qualitative questions. In particular, we examine four methods of determining whether there is evidence of disagreement or bias between multiple raters within a single organization in a mail survey.
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
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 5×
“Jick (1979) recommends a more holistic approach toward triangulation, one that involves the use of multiple research methods to ensure greater accuracy and capture more complex relationships.”
BackgroundInfluentialEstimating 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
Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Ebel, R. L. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288803 · Cited by 976
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
Defining and developing measures of lean production
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019 · Cited by 2,399
Information Processing, Knowledge Development, and Strategic Supply Chain Performance
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/20159575 · Cited by 813
Linking routines to operations capabilities: A new perspective
Peng, D. X., Schroeder, R. G., & Shah, R. (2008) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.11.001 · Cited by 612
e‐Integration in the Supply Chain: Barriers and Performance*
Frohlich, M. T. (2002) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2002.tb01655.x · Cited by 382
Metadata
- Authors
- Boyer, K. K., & Verma, R.
- Venue
- Production and Operations Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 128-140
- ISSN
- 1059-1478 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-5956
- OpenAlex
- W2069752203
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 5.62
- 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: MULTIPLE RATERS IN SURVEY‐BASED OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW AND TUTORIAL. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00329.x
- The paper
- Boyer, K. K., & Verma, R. (2000). MULTIPLE RATERS IN SURVEY‐BASED OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT RESEARCH: A REVIEW AND TUTORIAL. Production and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00329.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.