Construct Validity of Multi-Source Performance Ratings: An Examination of the Relationship of Self-, Supervisor-, and Peer-Ratings with Cognitive and Personality Measures

Although more and more organizations prefer using multi‐source performance ratings or 360° feedback over traditional performance appraisals, researchers have been rather skeptical regarding the reliability and validity of such ratings. The present study examined the validity of self‐, supervisor‐, a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of selection and assessment 2006-03, Vol.14 (1), p.67-81
Main Authors: van Hooft, Edwin A. J., van der Flier, Henk, Minne, Marjolein R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Feedback
Intelligence tests
Performance appraisal
Public sector
Ratings & rankings
Studies
Validation studies
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Although more and more organizations prefer using multi‐source performance ratings or 360° feedback over traditional performance appraisals, researchers have been rather skeptical regarding the reliability and validity of such ratings. The present study examined the validity of self‐, supervisor‐, and peer‐ratings of 195 employees in a Dutch public organization, using scores on an In‐Basket exercise, an intelligence test, and a personality questionnaire as external criterion measures. Interrater agreement ranged from .28 to .38. Variance in the ratings was explained by both method and content factors. Support for the external construct validity was rather weak. Supervisor‐ratings were not found to be superior to self‐ and peer‐ratings in predicting the scores on the external measures.
ISSN:0965-075X
1468-2389
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00334.x