Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis.

By P. Bliese. 2000

4,667 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c55bc2b1e0cde86f29634c1bbfbd91ed9552371

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Abusive Supervision and Contextual Performance: The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion and the Moderating Role of Work Unit Structure (2008, background): “The ICC(1) value is higher than the recommended value of 0.30, and the ICC(2) value exceeds 0.70, the commonly considered lowest acceptable reliability value (Bliese, 2000).”
Negative reciprocity and the association between perceived organizational ethical values and organizational deviance (2010, methodology): “While relatively high (the thresholds for r WG and ICC 2 are 0.7 and 0.5, respec- tively), these statistics provide insufficient evidence for an organizational effect on the basis of the aggregated measures (Bliese, 2000).”
Authentic Leadership, Authentic Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance (2015, methodology): “In support of our aggregation decision (Bliese, 2000), we obtained an average rwg of .82 (Mdn = .82, range = .70–.86), using a uniform null distribution, an ICC(1) of .28, and an ICC(2) of .67.”
High-performance work systems and occupational safety. (2005, methodology): “To affirm our decision to operationalize safety climate as an individual difference variable, we undertook additional analyses (i.e., within and between analysis; see Bliese, 2000; Castro, 2002; Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984, for procedures).”
Self-Regulation of Creativity at Work: The Role of Feedback-Seeking Behavior in Creative Performance (2011, methodology): “…ICC1, ICC2, and rwg(j) values, which here would respectively indicate the proportion of variance in ratings due to team membership (Bliese, 2000), the reliability of the team mean differences (Bliese, 2000), and within-group agreement for multiple item measures (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984).”
Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement (2008, methodology): “Basically, the values obtained for the ICC(K) and ICC(A,K) asymptotically approach the values one would obtain by placing the ICC(1) and the ICC(A,1) into the SpearmanBrown prophesy formula (the correction factor being K, the number of raters; Bliese, 1998, 2000).”
Facing Differences With an Open Mind: Openness to Experience, Salience of Intragroup Differences, and Performance of Diverse Work Groups (2008, unknown): “To control whether aggregation to the group level was appropriate, we computed ICC(1), ICC(2), and r wg (Bliese, 2000).”
The Effects of Group Conflict and Work Stress on Employee Performance (2013, result): “These results supported the appropriateness of aggregating the two conflict variables to the team level (Bliese 2000).”
The Promise and Problems of Organizational Culture (2014, methodology): “firm membership, and ICC(2), which informs us how reliable the firm-level culture-factor scores are (Bliese, 2000).”
Do Workgroup Faultlines Help or Hurt? A Moderated Model of Faultlines, Team Identification, and Group Performance (2009, methodology): “In addition, we performed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC[1]) analysis to estimate the proportion of variance in the variable between groups over the sum of between- and within-group variance (Bliese 2000).”
Proactive personality and proactive behaviour: Perspectives on person–situation interactions (2018, background): “12 falls into the typical range (Bliese, 2000) and provides evidence of within-group agreement.”
Intellectual Property Protection and the Formation of Entrepreneurial Growth Aspirations (2010, background): “%) that can be expected of grouped data of this nature (Bliese, 2000: 361).”