Peer assessments of performance and ability: An exploratory meta-analysis of statistical artifacts and contextual moderators

The validity of peer assessments as an additional source of information in personnel decision-making was assessed via Hunter and Schmidt's (1989) meta-analytic approach. Fifty-six correlations on peer assessments of ability and performance were located. After correcting for sampling error and imperfect reliability, the mean correlation was estimated to be .69, with a 95% confidence interval of .46 to .92. Also, contextual factors hypothesized to affect observed validities were evaluated. Although much potentially important information is not reported in available studies, the data suggested that use of peer assessment data, time of acquaintance, and type of criterion affect observed validity. Implications for future research are discussed.