INTERRATER CORRELATIONS DO NOT ESTIMATE THE RELIABILITY OF JOB PERFORMANCE RATINGS

By Kevin J. Murphy, Richard P. DeShon. 2000

198 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ed1b2a29e96de8d4ccfe41dca1a9c4e61e815be9

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

Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement (2008, methodology): “Readers interested in learning more about the use of correlations to index IRR are directed to articles by Viswesvaran, Ones, and Schmidt (1996), Murphy and DeShon (2000a, 2000b), Schmidt et al. (2000), LeBreton et al. (2003), and, most recently, Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and Ones (2005).”
What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta‐analytic review of team and leader social exchange (2014, methodology): “…that when we correct for measurement error of supervisor ratings of job performance, interrater reliability should be used as opposed to other indicators of reliability, such as coefficient alpha (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2008), but see Murphy and DeShon (2000) for an alternative view.”
The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. (2001, background): “Because it seemed unlikely that statistical artifacts would ex - plain all of the variability in the correlations across studies , we 1 Murphy and DeShon ( 2000 ) argued against the practice of correcting correlations based on current estimates of interrater reliability .”
Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. (2004, background): “There has been some controversy over the appropriate correction for reliability in the criterion (Murphy & DeShon, 2000; Schmidt, Viswesvaran , & Ones, 2000).”
The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. (2004, background): “To be sure, there is an argument that interrater reliability estimates would be the more appropriate corrections (see Murphy & DeShon, 2000, and Schmidt, Viswesvaran, & Ones, 2000).”
Correction for Unreliability of Multifactor Measures: Comparison of Alpha and Parallel Forms Approaches (2002, unknown): “Furthermore, determinations about the measurement model should always include concern for theory (what is considered true and error variance) and the content of the items in a measure (Murphy & DeShon, 2000).”
Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. (2002, background): “K. R. Murphy and DeShon (2000) argued that raters may disagree for reasons other than random error (e.g., differential opportunity to observe subordinates).”