Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 461

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

Arvey, R. D., Murphy, K. R.·1998·Annual Review of Psychology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.141

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 461

Metadata

Authors
Arvey, R. D., & Murphy, K. R.
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
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

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.