COMPARATIVE-ANALYSIS OF THE RELIABILITY OF JOB-PERFORMANCE RATINGS

This study used meta-analytic methods to compare the interrater and in trarater reliabilities of ratings of 10 dimensions of job performance used in the literature; ratings of overall job performance were also e xamined. There was mixed support for the notion that some dimensions a re 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, interra ter reliability is lower than intrarater reliability, indicating that the inappropriate use of intrarater reliability estimates to correct f or biases from measurement error leads to biased research results. The se findings have important implications for both research and practice .