The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: a review of the literature with reference to methodological issues
Abstract
Demonstrating causal relationships has been of particular importance in organizational stress research. Longitudinal studies are typically suggested to overcome problems of reversed causation and third variables (e.g., social desirability and negative affectivity). This article reviews the empirical longitudinal literature and discusses designs and statistical methods used in these studies. Forty-three longitudinal field reports on organizational stress were identified. Most of the investigations used a 2-wave panel design and a hierarchical multiple regression approach. Six studies with 3 and more waves were found. About 50% of the studies analyzed potential strain-stressor (reversed causation) relationships. In about 33% of the studies there was some evidence of reverse causation. The power of longitudinal studies to rule out third variable explanations was not realized in many studies. Procedures of how to analyze longitudinal data are suggested.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Longitudinal designs provide stronger evidence, but are prone to residual confounding [[36], [37], [38]] and other forms of bias that limit causal inference [[39], [40], [41], [42], [43]].”
From Improving sleep quality leads to better mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (2021) · cites this paper as [38]
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–914 of 914
Reducing Work and Home Cognitive Failures: the Roles of Workplace Flextime Use and Perceived ControlPreprint
Hsu, Y.-S., & Liang, J. (2020) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Schilbach, M., Baethge, A., Shoshan, H. N., & Rigotti, T. (2026) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-026-10099-y · Cited by 1
Forret, M. L., Sullivan, S. E., & Simmons, J. (2026) · Career Development International · doi:10.1108/cdi-06-2025-0308
Ruhle, S. A., Breitsohl, H., Dietz, C., Martinez, L. F., & Miraglia, M. (2026) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2026.2621587 · Cited by 1
“Contrary to a common misconception, using a lagged design, wherein each variable of interest is measured at different points in time, does not offer significant improvement over a cross-sectional design (Zapf et al., 1996).”
Huyghebaert‐Zouaghi, T. (2015) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/fb591962z1218z4a47z84eezb9ae9b752b7b
Gürbüz, S., & HEIJDEN, B. I. J. M. V. D. (2026) · Career Development International · doi:10.1108/cdi-01-2026-0010 · Cited by 3
Le leadership habilitant pour favoriser les comportements d’entraide au travail
Désilets, S., Boivin, M.-P., & Boudrias, J. (2026) · Revue québécoise de psychologie · doi:10.7202/1125443ar
Skill variety, agentic work behaviors and thriving at work: a longitudinal investigation
Fu, X., & Zeng, W. (2026) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/jmp-07-2025-0678
Gökaslan, M. O. (2026) · İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.15869/itobiad.1740601
What shapes mathematics anxiety in K-12 education? A scoping review of research from 2019 to 2025
Zhou, Y., Jing, B., Wang, Q., & Zhang, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1894090
Cherkaoui, C., & Jahmane, A. (2026) · Management & Sciences Sociales · doi:10.3917/mss.046.0130
Gürbüz, S., & HEIJDEN, B. I. J. M. V. D. (2026) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2026.2719546
“In particular, such a timeframe of two years was deemed appropriate for observing the enduring outcomes of inclusive work practices (Mayrhofer & Gunz, 2023; Zapf et al., 1996).”
Sohn, W., & Yoon, Y. J. (2026) · Employee Relations · doi:10.1108/er-01-2026-0093
Metadata
- Authors
- Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Konstanz (DE)
- Venue
- Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-169
- ISSN
- 1076-8998 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1307
- OpenAlex
- W2121908317
- Cited by
- 1,174
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 62
- FWCI
- 24.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Keywords
- organizational stress, longitudinal study, reverse causality, social desirability, negative affectivity, panel design, longitudinal analysis, causal inference
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Psychology, Industrial, Research Design, Stress, Psychological, Occupational Health, Workload
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
