Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 559

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Further Validation of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (Pops): A Multiple Sample Investigation

K. Michele Kacmar, Dawn S. Carlson·1997·Journal of Management

Abstract

Although political behavior in organizations is ubiquitous, measuring it is often difficult. In one attempt to create such a measure, Kacmar and Ferris (1991) developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS). Later, Nye and Witt (1993) examined the dimensionality of POPS and its construct validity by comparing it with the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986). The present research extends these previous studies by using structural equation modeling to evaluate the dimensional, reliability, and validity of POPS across three different studies utilizing nine different samples for a total of 2758 respondents. Results suggested that some of the original POPS items were ineffective and needed to be removed or replaced. Hence, some of the original items were deleted and additional items were generated and tested to produce a refined and revised version of POPS.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1016/s0149-2063(97)90019-2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 559

Metadata

Authors
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S.
Venue
Journal of Management
Publisher
SAGE Publishing
Published
1997-01-01
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
627-658
ISSN
0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1903147065
Cited by
559
References
3
FWCI
7.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.