Reconsidering the Equivalence of Multisource Performance Ratings: Evidence for the Importance and Meaning of Rater Factors

Purpose

The study specified an alternate model to examine the measurement invariance of multisource performance ratings (MSPRs) to systematically investigate the theoretical meaning of common method variance in the form of rater effects. As opposed to testing invariance based on a multigroup design with raters aggregated within sources, this study specified both performance dimension and idiosyncratic rater factors.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data was obtained from 5,278 managers from a wide range of organizations and hierarchical levels, who were rated on the BENCHMARKS^® MSPR instrument.

Findings

Our results diverged from prior research such that MSPRs were found to lack invariance for raters from different levels. However, same level raters provided equivalent ratings in terms of both the performance dimension loadings and rater factor loadings.

Implications

The results illustrate the importance of modeling rater factors when investigating invariance and suggest that rater factors reflect substantively meaningful variance, not bias.

Originality/Value

The current study applies an alternative model to examine invariance of MSPRs that allowed us to answer three questions that would not be possible with more traditional multigroup designs. First, the model allowed us to examine the impact of paramaterizing idiosyncratic rater factors on inferences of cross-rater invariance. Next, including multiple raters from each organizational level in the MSPR model allowed us to tease apart the degree of invariance in raters from the same source, relative to raters from different sources. Finally, our study allowed for inferences with respect to the invariance of idiosyncratic rater factors.