↓ Skip to main content

Do Other-Reports of Counterproductive Work Behavior Provide an Incremental Contribution Over Self-Reports? A Meta-Analytic Comparison

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Psychology, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
520 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Do Other-Reports of Counterproductive Work Behavior Provide an Incremental Contribution Over Self-Reports? A Meta-Analytic Comparison
Published in
Journal of Applied Psychology, May 2012
DOI 10.1037/a0026739
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Much of the recent research on counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) has used multi-item self-report measures of CWB. Because of concerns over self-report measurement, there have been recent calls to collect ratings of employees' CWB from their supervisors or coworkers (i.e., other-raters) as alternatives or supplements to self-ratings. However, little is still known about the degree to which other-ratings of CWB capture unique and valid incremental variance beyond self-report CWB. The present meta-analysis investigates a number of key issues regarding the incremental contribution of other-reports of CWB. First, self- and other-ratings of CWB were moderately to strongly correlated with each other. Second, with some notable exceptions, self- and other-report CWB exhibited very similar patterns and magnitudes of relationships with a set of common correlates. Third, self-raters reported engaging in more CWB than other-raters reported them engaging in, suggesting other-ratings capture a narrower subset of CWBs. Fourth, other-report CWB generally accounted for little incremental variance in the common correlates beyond self-report CWB. Although many have viewed self-reports of CWB with skepticism, the results of this meta-analysis support their use in most CWB research as a viable alternative to other-reports.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 520 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 9 2%
Germany 3 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 500 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 116 22%
Student > Master 78 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 61 12%
Student > Bachelor 34 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 28 5%
Other 74 14%
Unknown 129 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 164 32%
Business, Management and Accounting 149 29%
Social Sciences 33 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 3%
Arts and Humanities 5 <1%
Other 11 2%
Unknown 143 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,503,052
of 34,709,857 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Psychology
#763
of 4,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,319
of 213,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Psychology
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,709,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 213,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.