Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessments of research, teaching, and service
dc.contributor.author | Root, Lawrence S. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-09-08T21:36:52Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-09-08T21:36:52Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1987-03 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Root, Lawrence S.; (1987). "Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessments of research, teaching, and service." Research in Higher Education 26(1): 71-84. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/43600> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0361-0365 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1573-188X | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/43600 | |
dc.description.abstract | In this paper, assessments of faculty performance for the determination of salary increases are analyzed to estimate interrater reliability. Using the independent ratings by six elected members of the faculty, correlations between the ratings are calculated and estimates of the reliability of the composite (group) ratings are generated. Average intercorrelations are found to range from 0.603 for teaching, to 0.850 for research. The average intercorrelation for the overall faculty ratings is 0.794. Using these correlations, the reliability of the six-person group (the composite reliability) is estimated to be over 0.900 for each of the three areas and 0.959 for the overall faculty rating. Furthermore, little correlation is found between the ratings of performance levels of individual faculty members in the three areas of research, teaching, and service. The high intercorrelations and, consequently, the high composite reliabilities suggest that a reduction in the number of raters would have relatively small effects on reliability. The findings are discussed in terms of their relationship to issues of validity as well as to other questions of faculty assessment. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 819254 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3115 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Kluwer Academic Publishers; Agathon Press, Inc. ; Springer Science+Business Media | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Education (General) | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Education Research | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Developmental Psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Pedagogic Psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Education | en_US |
dc.title | Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessments of research, teaching, and service | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Education | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | School of Social Work, The University of Michigan, 48109-1285, Ann Arbor, MI | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus | Ann Arbor | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43600/1/11162_2004_Article_BF00991934.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00991934 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Research in Higher Education | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.