English Full Article Citation


Matthew D. Marmet , Utica University, USA


Performance prediction and evaluation (rating) have been investigated by psychologists for years. One aspect of performance description that has increased in popularity is multisource feedback. This process typically involves a focal person receiving feedback on their performance from the perspectives of others. Additionally, these multisource feedback systems call on this focal person to rate their own performance, so an evaluation of the discrepancy between self and others’ ratings can be made. The current study aims to assess the impact of self-other rating congruence in an academic setting. Specifically, can team performance be predicted by the level of agreement between self and others’ ratings? The magnitude of the discrepancy between self and others’ ratings on a student peer evaluation form was appraised, and the correlation between discrepancy magnitude and team performance on a final project was assessed. Initial data analysis yielded results contrary to the proposed hypothesis, but also called into question the overall utility of the evaluation process itself.

performance appraisal, peer evaluation, self-other rating agreement, team performance, student engagement


Los psicólogos han investigado durante años la predicción y evaluación del rendimiento (calificación). Un aspecto de la descripción del desempeño que ha ganado popularidad es la retroalimentación de múltiples fuentes. Este proceso generalmente involucra a una persona focal que recibe retroalimentación sobre su desempeño desde las perspectivas de los demás. Además, estos sistemas de retroalimentación de múltiples fuentes requieren que esta persona central califique su propio desempeño, de modo que se pueda realizar una evaluación de la discrepancia entre las calificaciones propias y las de los demás. El estudio actual tiene como objetivo evaluar el impacto de la congruencia de calificación entre uno mismo y otros en un entorno académico. Específicamente, ¿se puede predecir el desempeño del equipo por el nivel de acuerdo entre las calificaciones propias y las de los demás? Se evaluó la magnitud de la discrepancia entre las calificaciones propias y las de los demás en un formulario de evaluación por pares de estudiantes, y se evaluó la correlación entre la magnitud de la discrepancia y el desempeño del equipo en un proyecto final. El análisis inicial de los datos arrojó resultados contrarios a la hipótesis propuesta, pero también puso en duda la utilidad general del proceso de evaluación en sí.

Palabras clave
evaluación del desempeño, evaluación por pares, acuerdo de calificación entre uno mismo, desempeño del equipo, participación de los estudiantes

28 February 2022

19 May 2022

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license.


Marmet, M.D. (2022). Discrepancy in student peer and self-evaluations: a predictor of team performance? Journal of Management and Business Education, 5(3), 198-212.


Altman, W.S. (2018). Rubric for assessing group members’ ability to participate effectively as part of a team. Retrieved from:

Andrade, M., Miller, R., & Ogden, M. (2020). Teamwork for business majors –The impact of peer evaluation. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 14, 1-18.

Atwater, L.E. & Yammarino, F.J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.

Chen, Y. & Lou, H. (2004). Students’ perception of peer evaluation: An expectancy perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 275-282.

Church, A.H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 281-292.

Church, A.H. (2000). Do higher performing managers actually receive better ratings? A validation of multirater assessment methodology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 54,166-172.

Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473-487.

Friedman, B.A., Cox, P.L., & Maher, L.E. (2008). An expectancy theory motivation approach to peer assessment. Journal of Management Education, 32, 580-612.

Jassawalla, A., Shashittal, H., & Malshe, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 42-54.

Jefferson, A.L. (2010). Performance appraisal applied to leadership. Educational Studies, 36, 111-114.

Kwok, L. (2008). Students’ perception of peer evaluation and teachers’ role in seminar discussions. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5, 84-97.

Landy, F.J., Barnes, J., & Murphy, K. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 751-754.

Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C.V., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2020) Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193-211.

Magin, D. & Helmore, P. (2010). Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentation skills: How reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education, 26, 37-41.

Morales-Trujillo, M.E., Galster, M., Gilson, F., & Mathews, M. (2021). A three-year study of peer evaluation in a software engineering project course. IEEE Transactions on Education, early access.

Murphy, K. & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. Handbook of social and human conditions in assessment (pp. 247-266). New York: Routledge.

Petkova, A.P., Domingo, M.A., & Lamm, E. (2021). Let’s be frank: Individual and team-level predictors of improvement in student teamwork effectiveness following peer-evaluation feedback. The International Journal of Management Education, 19, 1-15.

Pierson, D.S. (2016). The influence of peer evaluation on individual contributions to group work in online graduate education (Publication No. 10140344) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. Proquest Dissertations Publishing.

Politz, J.G., Patterson, D., Krishnamurthi, S., & Fisler, K. (2014). CaptainTeach: Multi-stage, in-flow peer review for programming assignments. ITiCSE ’14: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, June 2014, 267-272.

Rubin, E.V. & Edwards, A. (2020). The performance of performance appraisal systems: Understanding the linkage between appraisal structure and appraisal discrimination complaints. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31, 1938-1957.

Sala, F. (2003). Executive blind spots: Discrepancies between self- and other-ratings. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 222-229.

Sherwood, A.L. & DePaolo, C.A. (2007). Student peer evaluations in business education: A web-based administration. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11, 109-120.

Sinha, N., Mesmer-Magnus, J. & Viswesvaran, C. (2012). Personality antecedents of self-other rating discrepancy. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28, 3-14.

Smircich, L. & Chesser, R. (1981). Superiors’ and subordinates’ perceptions of performance: Beyond disagreement. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 198-205.

Suñol, J.J., Arbat, G., Pujol, J., Feliu, L., Fraguell, R.M., & Planas-Lladó, A. (2016). Peer and self-assessment applied to oral presentations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Assessment and evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), 622-637.

Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K., Harrison, J.K., & Carroll, S.J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523.

Vroom, V.C. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Yammarino, F.J. & Atwater, L.E. (1997). Do managers see themselves as others see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 35-44.