The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Restriction of Variance Hypothesis and Interrater Reliability and Agreement: Are Ratings from Multiple Sources Really Dissimilar?
Abstract
The fundamental assumption underlying the use of 360-degree assessments is that ratings from different sources provide unique and meaningful information about the target manager’s performance. Extant research appears to support this assumption by demonstrating low correlations between rating sources. This article reexamines the support of this assumption, suggesting that past research has been distorted by a statistical artifact—restriction of variance in job performance. This artifact reduces the amount of between-target variance in ratings and attenuates traditional correlation-based estimates of rating similarity. Results obtained from a Monte Carlo simulation and two field studies support this restriction of variance hypothesis. Noncorrelation-based methods of assessing interrater agreement indicated that agreement between sources was about as high as agreement within sources. Thus, different sources did not appear to be furnishing substantially unique information. The authors conclude by questioning common practices in 360-degree assessments and offering suggestions for future research and application.
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
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
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
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Hammer, T. H., Anderson, J., Gurdon, M., Jick, T., Petit, A., Stern, R., Schwartz, H., Vardi, Y., & Dunnette, M. D. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391755 · Cited by 11,945
Review of Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
SITGREAVES, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 11,425
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
Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores
Rozeboom, W. W., Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1969) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162101 · Cited by 8,022
Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.30 · Cited by 6,903
YUKL, G. A. (1981) · Cited by 5,266
KRISTOF, A. L. (1996) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x · Cited by 4,831
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
Self-citation
Cited by
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
Self-citationA meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance.
Poropat, A. E. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0014996 · Cited by 2,729
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
Stemler, S. E. (2020) · Scholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · doi:10.7275/96jp-xz07 · Cited by 992
VAN IDDEKINGE, C. H., & PLOYHART, R. E. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00133.x · Cited by 101
Metadata
- Authors
- Lebreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James, L. R.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 80-128
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W1989275687
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 108
- FWCI
- 1.81
- 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: The Restriction of Variance Hypothesis and Interrater Reliability and Agreement: Are Ratings from Multiple Sources Really Dissimilar? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428102239427
- The paper
- Lebreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James, L. R. (2003). The Restriction of Variance Hypothesis and Interrater Reliability and Agreement: Are Ratings from Multiple Sources Really Dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428102239427
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.
