{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03754266211604096, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017064846416382253, 'mean_word_length': 5.780346820809249, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Justifying Aggregation With Consensus-Based Constructs

Management researchers often use consensus-based composition models to examine the antecedents and effects of higher-level constructs. Typically, researchers present three indices, rwg, ICC(1), and ICC(2), to demonstrate agreement and consistency among lower-level units when justifying aggregation. Nevertheless, researchers debate what values for these indices are sufficient. This study examines the distributional characteristics of ICCs and rwg values from three sources: the multilevel literature, a large multinational sample of student teams, and a large sample of randomly generated “pseudo teams.” Our results support existing cutoff criteria for ICCs but suggest that generally accepted values for rwg may, under certain circumstances, reflect pseudo-agreement (i.e., agreement observed among two raters not attributable to the same target). Thus, when there is minimal between-group variance (i.e., low ICCs), it is difficult to determine whether high rwg values reflect agreement or pseudo-agreement. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations to help researchers interpret aggregation indices.