An Analysis of Peer Ratings as Predictors and Criterion Measures and a Proposed New Application

Nisi, Angelo S. de; Mitchell, Jimmy L.

doi:10.2307/257678

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, the finding that employees are more favorable toward the developmental use of peer appraisals than toward their evaluative use was predictable from prior research (Koadman, 1964) and theory (DeNisi & Mitchell, 1978). However, this does not automatically lead to the recommendation that peer appraisals should be used for developmental but not for evaluative purposes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Smith (1976) suggested a third possibility: relinquishing control of the performance appraisal process may be threatening to managers. DeNisi and Mitchell (1978) voiced other concerns with peer appraisals: (1) friendship bias, (2) subgroup effects (the tendency for members of any identifiable subgroup to give inflated ratings to fellow group members), (3) reliance of peers on stereotypes in rating, and (4) the possibility of retaliation in subsequent ratings when receiving low ratings from peers at one point in time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Industrial Setting

McEvoy

Buller

1987

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of 218 industrial employees who had used a peer evaluation system for over a year found a higher degree of user acceptance than that reported in previous research. Users were significantly more favorable in their attitudes toward peer appraisals when the appraisals were used for developmental rather than evaluative purposes. Favorable user reactions were positively associated with the satisfaction that employees expressed with prior peer ratings and with the amount of leniency perceived in the peer rating process. User reactions were negatively associated with perceived friendship bias and years of company experience. No relationship was found between peer or self‐ratings of performance and reactions to the peer appraisal process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Industrial Setting

McEvoy

Buller

1987

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1. There is a debate over whether to use peer evaluation for personnel decisions because of the concerns that peer ratings might be biased and harm cooperation among workers (DeNisi and Mitchell, 1978;DeNisi et al, 1983;Peiperl, 2001). However, once the data are collected, it is hard to ignore the information contained therein when making personnel decisions, and this clearly seems the current trend (Bohl, 1996;Edwards and Ewen, 1996). observes the worker and reports such information to the firm's decision makers in a manner that satisfies the properties of the signal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Performance Evaluation: Information Aggregation Approach

Kim¹

2011

Economics Manag Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies how peer performance evaluation can elicit information on a group of workers when coworkers are competing for promotion. Although raters may have an incentive to game the system and free-ride on others' information, the firm can implement the optimal peer evaluation system that induces truth revelation and complements supervisory evaluation. Implications are also drawn for human resource management practices.

show abstract

“…f ) Finally, as expected, the peer rating measure emerged as highly valid (r = .51) in relation to performance in training. This is not surprising considering the evidence provided elsewhere (e.g., DeNisi and Mitchell, 1978) although this fact is not confirmed in assessment centre literature. In this connection, a further stage in the analysis was undertaken, which aimed at examining whether peer rating, above the other predictors, makes any unique contribution to prediction of performance.…”

Section: 05tmentioning

confidence: 63%

Prediction of Peer Rating in a Military Assessment Center

Tziner

1984

Can J Adm Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One hundred and two female applicants were accepted for officer training after having first been evaluated for fitness as officers in an assessment centre. Peer rating score, a composite score of situational exercise ratings, assessors' consensus ratings and intelligence scores obtained in the assessment program were validated against performance in training. Whereas the last three were found to be very effective predictors, the peer rating had no unique contribution to explained variance in performance in training. Of the one hundred and two, only sixty‐seven were then observed in military units. After a year their performance as officers was appraised. The predicting measures of the assessment program were correlated against this type of performance criteria also, and only one emerged as valid. However, when combined using regression weights, a multiple correlation coefficient of .34 was obtained. The peer rating measure proved to have no unique contribution to explained variance even in this type of performance. Résumé Cent deux candidates ont été acceptées dans un programme de formation d'officiers après que leurs aptitudes eurent été évaluées dans un bureau d'évaluation. Les résultats de l'évaluation par les pairs, des exercices de mise en situation, du jugement collectif des spécialistes et des tests d'intelligence furent comparés au succès à l'entraînement. Alors que la valeur prédictive des trois dernières méthodes est élevée, celle de l'évaluation par les pairs ne contribue pas à l'explication de la variance des résultats de l'entraînement. Le comportement de soixante‐sept des cent deux candidates a été étudié pendant l'année qui a suivi leur incorporation à l'armée. On a également établi une corrélation entre les résultats des diverses méthodes d'évaluation et le succès comme officiers: une seule d'entre elles a semblé valable. Cependant, une mesure combinée fondée sur une analyse de régression permet d'obtenir un coefficient de corrélation multiple de .34. Même dans ce cas, l'évaluation par les pairs ne contribue pas à l'explication de la variance des résultats.

show abstract

An Analysis of Peer Ratings as Predictors and Criterion Measures and a Proposed New Application

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Industrial Setting

User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Industrial Setting

Peer Performance Evaluation: Information Aggregation Approach

Prediction of Peer Rating in a Military Assessment Center

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About