Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T21:16:44.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Let's Correct Ourselves and How We Handle Unreliability in Performance Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

Christopher J. L. Cunningham*
Affiliation:
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and Logi-Serve
Neil Morelli
Affiliation:
Logi-Serve
*
E-mail: chris@logi-serve.com, Address: The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 1701 Starboard Dr, Hixson, TN 37343

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hoffman, B., Lance, C. E., Bynum, B., & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Rater source effects are alive and well after all. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 119151.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Scherer, K. T., & James, L. R. (2014). Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: A false prophet in a land of suspended judgment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(4), 478500.Google Scholar
Reb, J., & Greguras, G. J. (2010). Understanding performance ratings: Dynamic performance, attributions, and rating purpose. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 213220.Google Scholar
Yun, G. J., Donahue, L. M., & Dudley, N. N. (2005). Rater personality, rating format, and social context: Implications for performance appraisal ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 97107.Google Scholar