The use of interrater reliability (IRR) and interrater agreement (IRA) indices has increased dramatically during the past 20 years. This popularity is, at least in part, because of the increased role of multilevel modeling techniques (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling and multilevel structural equation modeling) in organizational research. IRR and IRA indices are often used to justify aggregating lower-level data used in composition models. The purpose of the current article is to expose researchers to the various issues surrounding the use of IRR and IRA indices often used in conjunction with multilevel models. To achieve this goal, the authors adopt a question-and-answer format and provide a tutorial in the appendices illustrating how these indices may be computed using the SPSS software.

Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement

Social Psychology of Organizations

The study of affect in the workplace began and peaked in the 1930s, with the decades that followed up to the 1990s not being particularly fertile. Whereas job satisfaction generally continues to be loosely but not carefully thought of and measured as an affective state, critical work in the 1990s has raised serious questions about the affective status of job satisfaction in terms of its causes as well as its definition and measurement. Recent research has focused on the production of moods and emotions at work, with an emphasis, at least conceptually, on stressful events, leaders, work groups, physical settings, and rewards/punishment. Other recent research has addressed the consequences of workers' feelings, in particular, a variety of performance outcomes (e.g., helping behaviors and creativity). Even though recent interest in affect in the workplace has been intense, many theoretical and methodological opportunities and challenges remain.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: Affect in the Workplace

The automatic or blind inclusion of control variables in multiple regression and other analyses, intended to purify observed relationships among variables of interest, is widespread and can be cons...

Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables

The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future

Interpersonal affect has been found, in prior laboratory research, to be related to ratings of job performance. Such findings have been taken to mean that affect creates bias in ratings. The present study was conducted to determine if this relationship would hold up in a field setting. The present study was also designed to examine how structured diary-keeping, and the nature of the appraisal instrument, might be related to affect-appraisal relationships. The results for 85 raters, and 404 ratees, suggested that affect was significantly related to all ratings, but more strongly related to trait-like ratings than task/outcome-like ratings, and that having raters keep performance diaries actually increased the strength of the relationship between affect and ratings. We concluded that affect may not be a biasing influence on ratings, but may be a result of better subordinate performance. Results from an analysis of the diary content supported this conclusion. Implications for the role of affect on ratings and the nature of the relationship between past performance and interpersonal affect in field settings are discussed.

Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: a field study

SUMMARY Two groups of part-time employees were compared to full-time employees on several organizationally relevant reactions and behaviours in order to replicate and extend research on potential employment status differences. After controlling for demographics, it was found that there were mean differences between the groups; however, no evidence was found for differences in how the various groups 'process' organizational experience. Based on the results, irnplications for managing part- versus full-time employees are discussed. An examination of recent trends in the employment pattern reveals that an increasing number of persons work on a part-time basis. Statistics indicate that the percentage of part-time workers has increased from 13 per cent in 1967, to over 18 per cent by 1984 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982, 1984; Monthly Labor Review, 1968). These data underscore the importance of examining issues associated with the management of the portion of the labour force who work part-time in addition to those who work fulltime. To the extent that important differences exist, such distinctions need to be reflected in an organization's policies that are directed at the effective utilization of human resources. While research comparing part-time and full-time employees' reactions to work has produced inconsistent findings (see, for example, Eberhardt and Shani, 1984; Logan, O'Reilly and Roberts, 1973; Miller and Terborg, 1979), other evidence suggests that full- and part-time employees may 'process' organizational experience differently. Evidence for this conclusion is based on research by Kline and Peters (1984), Logan et a!. (1973), Peters, Jackofsky and Salter (1981), and Salter, Peters and Jackofsky

Part-time versus full-time employment status differences: A replication and extension

The impact of perceptions of volition, revocability, and publicness on behavioral commitment and the impact of behavioral commitment on employee tenure were examined in a group of 315 newly hired c...

Behavioral Commitment and Tenure of New Employees: A Replication and Extension

Based on the construct of "partial inclusion," it was hypothesized that the turnover of full-time employees would be best explained by jobrelated reasons and that of part-time employees by nonjob-related reasons. To test these hypotheses, data were collected from 155~ part-time and 640 full-time persons who voluntarily quit their jobs. With the exception of three items dealing with work schedules, the results tended to support the hypotheses. These results were discussed with regard to the management of turnover within full-time and part-time employee groups and the importance of continued research aimed at identifying company controllable factors which influence the turnover decisions among part-time employees. Reasons for Quitting: A Comparison of Part-Time and Full-Time Employees 2 The purpose of the present investigation was to explore differences in 11 reasons for quitting 11 across part-time and full-time employment status groups. This investigation was prompted by (a) the increasingly evident suggestion from the research literature that part-time and full-time employees differ in important ways, and thus, might represent different employee populations, (b) the need to assess the predictability of turnover across different, distinctive populations of working adults (Muchinsky, 1978), and (c) the increasingly larger percentage of part-time employees in today's labor force (Ratchford & Roberts, 1982). With few exceptibns, recent studies (Allen, Keaveny, & Jackson, 1979; Hall & Gordon, 1973; Hom, 1979; Logan, O'Reilly, & Roberts, 1973; Miller & Terborg, 1979; Peters, Jackofsky, & Salter, 1981) have pointed to the conclusion that part-time employees cannot be regarded simply as full-time employees who happen to work for less than 40 hours each week. Hall and Gordon (1973), for example, found that part-time working women reported less career satisfaction and greater role ambiguity and overload than their full-time counterparts. With regard to job satisfaction, Miller and Terborg (1979) found significant differences in reported satisfaction levels on three job facets, all of which were predicted based on their analysis of the specific employment situation under study. Hom (1979) also provided data of some interest but not directly relevant to this issue. While never directly comparing part-time and full-time workers, he did show that (a) job peripherality (based on the number of hours worked per week and steady versus seasonal employment) was associated with various

/pdf/reasons-for-quitting-a-comparison-of-part-time-and-full-time-1z9a54m8d0.pdf

Reasons for Quitting: A Comparison of Part-time and Full-time Employees

In this article, the authors argue that turnover correlations do not need to be corrected. First, they maintain that correction formulas cannot correct for poor construct validity. Second, they dis...

/pdf/correcting-turnover-correlations-a-critique-3q6jxtfxfm.pdf

Lawrence H. Peters

Papers

Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: a field study

Part-time versus full-time employment status differences: A replication and extension

Behavioral Commitment and Tenure of New Employees: A Replication and Extension

Reasons for Quitting: A Comparison of Part-time and Full-time Employees

Correcting Turnover Correlations: A Critique: