RATER SOURCE EFFECTS ARE ALIVE AND WELL AFTER ALL

By Brian J. Hoffman, C. Lance, Bethany H. Bynum, William A. Gentry. 2010

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management Information Systems, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1082b561d6a13da094af12c9dfb9d55f2441dfb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

1. Hans De Witte
2. Arnold B. Bakker
3. Tinne Vander Elst
4. Nele de Cuyper
5. Joseph A. Allen
6. A. van den Broeck
7. Rick D. Hackett
8. Wilmar B. Schaufeli

In Management Information Systems

1. John P. Campbell
2. Brenton M. Wiernik

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. J. Conway
2. C. Lance
3. Hans De Witte
4. Wilmar B. Schaufeli
5. Lawrence J. Williams
6. Arnold B. Bakker
7. Nele de Cuyper
8. Tinne Vander Elst

Citations in the corpus

• Let the evidence speak again! Financial incentives are more effective than we thought (2015, unknown): “Indeed Hoffman et al. (2010) demonstrated that idiosyncratic rater source”
• What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research (2010, background): “547), the pervasive and strong rater (source) effects that are routinely found in multisource ratings (Mount et al. 1998; Scullen et al. 2000, 2003; Hoffman et al. 2010) create the impression that these ratings are seriously flawed, biased, and inaccurate measures of ratees' actual performance.”
• The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance (2015, background): “Source effects for supervisors, peers, and subordinates have been reviewed by Hoffman et al. (2010), Hoffman & Woehr (2009), and Lance et al. (2008).”