English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this paper, assessments of faculty performance for the determination of salary increases are analyzed to estimate interrater reliability. Using the independent ratings by six elected members of the faculty, correlations between the ratings are calculated and estimates of the reliability of the composite (group) ratings are generated. Average intercorrelations are found to range from 0.603 for teaching, to 0.850 for research. The average intercorrelation for the overall faculty ratings is 0.794. Using these correlations, the reliability of the six-person group (the composite reliability) is estimated to be over 0.900 for each of the three areas and 0.959 for the overall faculty rating. Furthermore, little correlation is found between the ratings of performance levels of individual faculty members in the three areas of research, teaching, and service. The high intercorrelations and, consequently, the high composite reliabilities suggest that a reduction in the number of raters would have relatively small effects on reliability. The findings are discussed in terms of their relationship to issues of validity as well as to other questions of faculty assessment

Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessments of research, teaching, and service