This study used meta-analytic methods to compare the interrater and intrarater reliabilities of ratings of 10 dimensions of job performance used in the literature; ratings of overall job performance were also examined. There was mixed support for the notion that some dimensions are rated more reliably than others. Supervisory ratings appear to have higher interrater reliability than peer ratings. Consistent with H. R. Rothstein (1990), mean interrater reliability of supervisory ratings of overall job performance was found to be .52. In all cases, interrater reliability is lower than intrarater reliability, indicating that the inappropriate use of intrarater reliability estimates to correct for biases from measurement error leads to biased research results. These findings have important implications for both research and practice.

Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings

Searching for the Inverted U-Shaped Relationship Between Time and Performance: Meta-Analyses of the Experience/Performance, Tenure/Performance, and Age/Performance Relationships

Creation d'un test de simulation de faible fidelite pour selectionner a l'entree les dirigeants de l'industrie des telecommunications. La simulation montre des postulants en diverses situations de travail et 5 alternatives de reponse pour chaque situation. Les sujets choisissent la reponse qu'ils feraient le plus volontiers et le moins volontiers dans chaque situation. Correlations avec les evaluations de la performance des superviseurs

An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation.

Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age and job performance.

On the basis of a distinction between test content and method of testing, the present study examined several conceptually and practically important effects relating race, reading comprehension, method of assessment, face validity perceptions, and performance on a situational judgement test using a sample of 241 psychology undergraduates (113 Blacks and 128 Whites). Results showed that the Black-White differences in situational judgment test performance and face validity reactions to the test were substantially smaller in the video-based method of testing than in the paper-and-pencil method. The Race x Method interaction effect on test performance was attributable to differences in reading comprehension and face validity reactions associated with race and method of testing. Implications of the findings were discussed in the context of research on adverse impact and examinee test reactions.

Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions.

Summary

For 113 managerial personnel, a new supervisory judgment test, the Leadership Evaluation and Development Scale (LEADS) was found to be the best (r = .36) of four predictors of salary corrected for age and length of service. Other predictors were a verbal comprehension measure and the two Leadership Opinion Questionnaire scores. The R involving all four predictors was .39. LEADS was also found to be the best predictor of personnel department ratings on performance in the employee relations area. None of the predictors was significantly related to supervisors' ratings. Meaningful dimensions of supervisory performance not indicated by the other predictors appear to be measured by LEADS.

Mary L. Tenopyr

Papers

The comparative validity of selected leadership scales relative to success in production management

Social Intelligence And Academic Success