Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-02T08:13:45.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decoding variance and predictive ability in selection systems: an application of Gauthier’s framework of rater cognitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2024

Peyton Anderson
Peyton Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA
*
Email: pmande4@ilstu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, J., Steel, P., Harms, P., O’Neill, T., & Wood, D. (2024). Selection tests work better than we think they do and have for years. Industrial and Organizational Psychology Journal, 17.Google Scholar
Gauthier, G., St-Onge, C., & Tavares, W. (2016). Rater cognition: review and integration of research findings. Medical Education, 50(5), 511–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12973 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gingerich, A., Regehr, G., & Eva, K. W. (2011). Rater-based assessments as social judgments: Rethinking the etiology of rater errors. Academic Medicine, 86, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31822a6cf8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gingerich, A., Schokking, E., & Yeates, P. (2018). Comparatively salient: Examining the influence of preceding performances on assessors’ focus and interpretations in written assessment comments. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 23(5), 937–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9841-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harari, M. B., Rudolph, C. W., & Laginess, A. J. (2014b). Does rater personality matter? A meta-analysis of rater big five-performance rating relationships. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(2), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, H. A. (2021). A study to identify factors of rater cognition from different rater perspectives during performance-based assessments. University of Kansas ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Google Scholar
Mills, N. E. (1998). A cognitive approach to rater training. Kansas State University.Google Scholar
Mishra, V., & Roch, S. G. (2013). Cultural values and performance appraisal: Assessing the effects of rater self-construal on performance ratings. Journal of Psychology, 147(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.694377 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 956–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebok, S. S., & Syer, M. D. (2015). Seeing things differently or seeing different things? Exploring raters’ associations of noncognitive attributes. Academic Medicine, 90, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, J. R., & Keeping, L. (2011). Conscious rating distortion in performance appraisal: A review, commentary, and proposed framework for research. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar