The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Further evidence on the validity of the theoretical models underlying the Baldrige criteria
Open accessAbstract
The Baldrige framework has emerged as both a guide for quality management and the model upon which numerous state and international quality awards are based. It was introduced in 1988 as the foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The framework was significantly revised in 1992 and 1997. In order to test the validity of the theoretical model underlying the Baldrige framework as it has evolved over the years, we take the approach of analyzing the constructs upon which the Baldrige categories are based. Path analysis is used to test the fit of each of the three major frameworks, and the sums of direct effects are used to estimate the category weights implied by each of the path models. We found that all three frameworks were a good fit with the Baldrige frameworks for those years, and that both the 1992 and 1997 frameworks improved upon the foundation established by the 1988 framework. Thus, we conclude that appropriate adaptations to the Baldrige framework have been made over the years. We describe the implications for practitioners, in terms of critical success factors, and make recommendations for further minor modifications to the Baldrige framework.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Multiple Regression in Practice
Berry, W., & Feldman, S. (1985) · doi:10.4135/9781412985208 · Cited by 1,227
Cited by
Student-involved data use: Establishing the evidence base
Jimerson, J. B., & Reames, E. (2015) · Journal of Educational Change · doi:10.1007/s10833-015-9246-4 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Flynn, B. B., & Saladin, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Operations Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-09-17
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 617-652
- ISSN
- 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-1317
- OpenAlex
- W2115232279
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 29.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.