2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
275
0
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 269 publications
(290 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
5
275
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The F-ratios were all highly significant, and the ICC(1) values were far above the minimum effect size of .05 (Biemann et al, 2012;LeBreton & Senter, 2008). This indicated that classes differed significantly in teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.…”
Section: Data Aggregationmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The F-ratios were all highly significant, and the ICC(1) values were far above the minimum effect size of .05 (Biemann et al, 2012;LeBreton & Senter, 2008). This indicated that classes differed significantly in teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence.…”
Section: Data Aggregationmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The intra-class correlation 2 (ICC(2)) was calculated for teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence to measure within-class agreement, and intra-class correlation 1 (ICC(1)) was calculated as an index of betweenclass differences (Biemann, Cole, & Voelpel, 2012;Conway & Briner, 2012;Glisson & James, 2002;LeBreton & Senter, 2008;Lüdtke et al, 2006;Zohar & Luria, 2010).…”
Section: Data Aggregationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To ensure that ratings could be aggregated, we evaluated inter-rater agreement (IRA) following literature recommendations [61,62], using three families of indices: James et al's r WG(J) [63,64] (based on multiple null distributions) [65], Brown and Hauenstein's a WG(J) [66]; and the adjusted average deviation index A DMJ(adj) [67]. In addition to the arithmetic mean of each uMARS score, we calculated a "response databased weighted mean" (WDMEAN) [68].…”
Section: Data Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This index refers to the irregular results of distributional properties of one's sample and provide accurate and interpretable estimates of rater agreement which allow researcher to control the response biases such as central tendency and social desirability (Biemann et al, 2012). r wg is a measure of inter rater agreement as unifying factor and procedure to justify aggregating individual perceptions to the proposed level of analysis (Biemann et al, 2012).…”
Section: The R Wg Indexmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biemann et al (2012) have suggested that within-group agreement (r wg values) above the conventional acceptable value of 0.7 can be sufficient to support the aggregation to the group level for variables. Since the agreement is tested for each shared property measure of each unit, the high values of r wg for intended variables provide empirical support for inter-rater agreement within the unit.…”
Section: The R Wg Indexmentioning
confidence: 99%