No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Let's Correct Ourselves and How We Handle Unreliability in Performance Evaluation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 April 2015
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.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS1754942600006842/resource/name/firstPage-S1754942600006842a.jpg)
- Type
- Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014
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), 119–151.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), 478–500.Google Scholar
Reb, J., & Greguras, G. J. (2010). Understanding performance ratings: Dynamic performance, attributions, and rating purpose. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 213–220.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, 97–107.Google Scholar