Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /homepages/26/d238996107/htdocs/wp-content/plugins/popup-maker-wp/com/classes/SGPMOutput.php on line 46
Sélectionner une page

It is instructive to point out that on a five-point scale, σeu2 is 2 and σmv2 is 4. Thus, the use of the maximum dissensus essentially scales james et al. (1984) rwg so that all values of Sx2 give rwg* values between 0 and 1.0. This index avoids the problem of non-linearity and the corresponding inflation potential of rwg(j) and addresses the problem of inadmissible values. Brown, R. D., and Hauenstein, N.M. A. (2005). The interract agreement reconsidered: an alternative to rwg indices. Organ. Methoden 8, 165–184.

doi: 10.1177/1094428105275376 Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L.M., and Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average, deviation indices to estimate the conformity of the interraters. Organ. Methoden 2, 49–68. doi: 10.1177/109442819921004 Lindell, M. K. (2001). Evaluate and verify the consistency of evaluators on a single objective using multi-element rating scales. Appl.

Psychol. Soul. 25, 89–99. doi: 10.1177/1094428107300365 George, J.M., and James, L. R. (1993). The composition of the consensus presupposes that there is sufficient agreement within the group regarding the construction of leadership of interest; in the absence of an agreement, the construction of aggregate leadership is untenable. .