The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature.
Abstract
The authors investigate the construct validity of the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)-task performance distinction by providing a quantitative review of the OCB literature. The authors extend previous meta-analytic reviews of the OCB literature by (a) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the dimensionality of OCB, (b) using CFA to examine the distinction between OCB and task performance, and (c) examining the relationship between a latent OCB factor and task performance and attitudinal variables. Results support a single factor model of OCB that is distinct from, albeit strongly related to, task performance. In addition, results show that OCB consistently relates more strongly to attitudes than does task performance and shares a modest amount of variance with attitudinal correlates beyond task performance.
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
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 · Cited by 5,942
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630002600307 · Cited by 5,897
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Moorman, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.6.845 · Cited by 3,422
THEORY TESTING: COMBINING PSYCHOMETRIC META‐ANALYSIS AND STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS MODELING
VISWESVARAN, C., & ONES, D. S. (1995) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x · Cited by 926
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-t · Cited by 807
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Kraimer, M. L., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2003) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.208 · Cited by 284
Emotional Intelligence and Prosocial Behaviors in Adolescents
Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. A. M. (2002) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.90.2.361 · Cited by 118
Cited by
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013079 · Cited by 2,356
Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.756 · Cited by 1,126
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0018867 · Cited by 940
Chang, C.-H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43670894 · Cited by 616
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6 · Cited by 552
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 555-566
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2064180491
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 57.03
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.555
- The paper
- Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.555
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.
