arbiter
JournalsAccount

Multisource Performance Management: Comparing Rater Convergence and Leniency Using the Graphic Rating Scale and the Relative Percentile Method

Justin R. Feeney et al.

Journal of Personnel Psychology2026https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000383article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Abstract: Multisource performance management systems are common but often face issues with low rater convergence and inflated ratings. We studied the effectiveness of the relative percentile method (RPM) compared to the Graphic Rating Scale (GRS) in enhancing rater convergence and reducing inflated ratings. In our experiment with 263 participants, organized into groups, each participant developed sales pitches for evaluation by their peers, supervisors, and themselves. The findings revealed that GRS led to significantly greater self-supervisor rater convergence than the RPM. However, the RPM led to lower rater leniency across peer and self (but not supervisor) ratings. The implications for multisource performance evaluations are discussed.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000383

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{justin2026,
  title        = {{Multisource Performance Management: Comparing Rater Convergence and Leniency Using the Graphic Rating Scale and the Relative Percentile Method}},
  author       = {Justin R. Feeney et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Personnel Psychology},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000383},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Multisource Performance Management: Comparing Rater Convergence and Leniency Using the Graphic Rating Scale and the Relative Percentile Method

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.