Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:09:31.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No New Terrain: Reliability and Construct Validity of Job Performance Ratings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Deniz S. Ones ,
Chockalingam Viswesvaran  and
Frank L. Schmidt
Deniz S. Ones*
Affiliation:
Florida International University
Chockalingam Viswesvaran
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Frank L. Schmidt
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
*
E-mail: deniz.s.ones-1@tc.umn.edu, Address: Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 174 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota

**

Department of Psychology, Florida International University

***

Department of Management and Organizations, University of Iowa

The order of authorship is arbitrary; all authors contributed equally to this manuscript

References

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1992). Direct estimates of SD-sub(y) and the implications for utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 227–233.Google Scholar
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587–605.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01772.xGoogle Scholar
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.10.1111/1468-2389.00163Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258–299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313–333.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb01561.xGoogle Scholar
Cesare, S. J., Blankenship, M. H., & Giannetto, P. W. (1994). A dual focus of SD-sub(y) estimations: A test of the linearity assumption and multivariate application. Human Performance, 7, 235–255.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1947). Test “reliability”: Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika, 12, 1–16.10.1007/BF02289289Google Scholar
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.xGoogle Scholar
Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811–826.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00596.xGoogle Scholar
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Shaffer, J. A., & Schmidt, F. L. (2007). Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from recent developments in meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 6–15.Google Scholar
Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A., Scullen, S. E., Sytsma, M. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (1998). Trait, rater and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51, 557–576.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00251.xGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 148–160.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873–900.Google Scholar
Nathan, B. R., & Alexander, R. A. (1988). A comparison of criteria for test validation: A meta-analytic investigation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 517–535.10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00642.xGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005a). Cognitive ability in personnel selection decisions. In Evers, A., Voskuijl, O., & Anderson, N. (Eds.), Handbook of selection (pp. 143–173). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005b). Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18, 389–404.10.1207/s15327043hup1804_5Google Scholar
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679–703.10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1, 199–223.10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.199Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183–198.10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00024-0Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual-differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8, 206–224.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Reliability is not validity and validity is not reliability. Personnel Psychology, 53, 901–912.10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb02422.xGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C. (2002). Absenteeism and measures of job performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 12–17.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574.10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.557Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2002). The moderating influence of job performance dimensions on convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of job performance: Unconfounding construct-level convergence and rating difficulty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 345–354.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108–131.10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.108Google Scholar