Exploring differential item functioning in a 360-degree assessment: Rater source and method of delivery

被引:10
|
作者
James, JA [1 ]
机构
[1] CASTLE Worldwide Inc, Morrisville, NC 27560 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1177/1094428102239426
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
This research used logistic regression to model item responses from a popular 360-degree assessment-for-development survey. The model used method of survey delivery and rater group to identify items exhibiting differential item functioning (DIF). The methods of survey delivery were pencil-and-paper and online by Web page. The rater groups were self, boss, peer, and direct report, The sample consisted of 374 survey families where a survey family was a set of four surveys: self boss, peer, and direct report, Half the survey families were pencil-and-paper administration; half were online administration. The flagging procedure used effect size from Wald chi-square statistics. Results indicated little evidence that DIF existed due to method of survey delivery, lending additional support for the use of the Internet to deliver 360-degree surveys. Approximately 10% of items exhibited DIF attributable to rater group, though in even, instance the magnitude of the DIF was small, suggesting that the impact of DIF on the 360-degree feedback could be slight. There was no evidence of an interaction between method of delivery and rater group. The maximum likelihood parameter estimates indicated DIF resulted from either hierarchical complexity or contingency, theory. This research suggested that such forms of DIF could be naturally occurring phenomena in 360-degree assessment because both contingency and complexity can influence the perceptions by raters of a manager's performance.
引用
收藏
页码:61 / 79
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Multi-Rater or 360-degree Emotional Intelligence Assessment
    Palmer, Benjamin R.
    Stough, Con
    EUROPES JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 1 (02):
  • [2] Trait, rater and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings
    Mount, MK
    Judge, TA
    Scullen, SE
    Sytsma, MR
    Hezlett, SA
    PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 51 (03) : 557 - 576
  • [3] Preventing Rater Biases in 360-Degree Feedback by Forcing Choice
    Brown, Anna
    Inceoglu, Ilke
    Lin, Yin
    ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2017, 20 (01) : 121 - 148
  • [4] Exploring Visual Guidance in 360-degree Videos
    Speicher, Marco
    Rosenberg, Christoph
    Degraen, Donald
    Daiber, Florian
    Krueger, Antonio
    TVX 2019: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCES FOR TV AND ONLINE VIDEO, 2019, : 1 - 12
  • [5] 360-Degree Assessment: Time for Reinvention
    Toegel, Ginka
    Conger, Jay A.
    ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT LEARNING & EDUCATION, 2003, 2 (03) : 297 - 311
  • [6] Exploring the empathic potential of 360-degree documentary
    Mikelli, Danai
    STUDIES IN DOCUMENTARY FILM, 2024, 18 (03) : 205 - 224
  • [7] Impact of a 360-degree Professionalism Assessment on Faculty Comfort and Skills in Feedback Delivery
    Rachel Stark
    Deborah Korenstein
    Reena Karani
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2008, 23 : 969 - 972
  • [8] Impact of a 360-degree professionalism assessment on faculty comfort and skills in feedback delivery
    Stark, Rachel
    Korenstein, Deborah
    Karani, Reena
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2008, 23 (07) : 969 - 972
  • [9] Evaluation of Dermatology Residents Using the Multisource (360-Degree) Assessment Method
    Senol, Yesim
    Dicle, Ozlem
    Durak, Halil Ibrahim
    KUWAIT MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 41 (03): : 205 - 209
  • [10] 360-degree assessment in a multidisciplinary team setting
    Potter, TB
    Palmer, RG
    RHEUMATOLOGY, 2003, 42 (11) : 1404 - 1407