The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN WORK SETTINGS
Abstract
▪ Abstract Recent research from 1993 on performance evaluations in work settings is reviewed and integrated with the prior reset and historical bases. Contemporary research reflects several themes: General models of job performance are being developed, the job performance domain is being expanded, research continues to explore the psychometric characteristics of performance ratings, research is developing on potential bias in ratings, rater training is examined, and research continues in terms of efforts to attach utility values to rated performance. We conclude that research is progressing in traditional content areas as well in the exploration of new ground. Researchers are recognizing that job performance is more than just the execution of specific tasks and that it involves a wider array of important organizational activities. There is also an increased optimism regarding the use of supervisory ratings and recognition that such “subjective” appraisal instruments do not automatically translate into rater error or bias.
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
Whither Industrial and Organizational Psychology in a Changing World of Work?
Cascio, W. F. (1995) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.50.11.928 · Cited by 455
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
Cited by
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.20004 · Cited by 2,565
Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance
Côté, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.51.1.1 · Cited by 873
McKnight, P. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.01.005 · Cited by 400
Guillén, L., & Kunze, F. (2019) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.21953 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1998-02
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 141-168
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W2103752566
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 58.92
- 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: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN WORK SETTINGS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.141
- The paper
- Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R. (1998). PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN WORK SETTINGS. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.141
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.
