Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fisicaro, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Vance, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comments on the Measurement of Halo

Sebastiano A. Fisicaro

Wayne State University

Robert J. Vance

Pennsylvania State University

The most frequently used measures of halo are based on interdimension correlations (the correlation, or r, measure) or within-ratee variability across dimensions (the standard deviation, or SD, measure). Pulakos, Schmitt, and Ostroff argued that the r measure is conceptually appropriate and demonstrated that the SD measure does not always yield results consistent with the r measure. They therefore concluded that the SD measure should not be used. This article critiques the r measure, responds to criticisms of the SD measure, and describes conditions under which halo effects can occur and (a) both measures can be obtained, (b) one of the measures can be obtained, but the other measure either cannot be obtained or should not be used, and (c) neither measure can be obtained. Thus neither measure is uniformly superior to the other. It is therefore recommended that both measures be obtained when possible and when there is no basis for selecting one over the other.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54, No. 2, 366-371 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164494054002010
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
J. M. LeBreton and J. L. Senter
Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement
Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2008; 11(4): 815 - 852.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
J. M. Lebreton, J. R. D. Burgess, R. B. Kaiser, E. K. Atchley, and L. R. James
The Restriction of Variance Hypothesis and Interrater Reliability and Agreement: Are Ratings from Multiple Sources Really Dissimilar?
Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2003; 6(1): 80 - 128.
[Abstract] [PDF]