Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach.

Klein, Howard J., Cooper, Joseph T., Molloy, Janice C., Swanson, Jacqueline A.·2014·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

This study presents a new approach to assessing commitment reflecting the Klein, Molloy, and Brinsfield (2012) reconceptualization. Klein et al. recast the construct to address issues hindering commitment scholarship, but their claims cannot be tested with existing measures. This paper presents a 4-item measure consistent with the Klein et al. conceptual definition, a measure intended to be unidimensional and applicable across all workplace targets. Our purpose is to present the development of and provide initial validity evidence for this new commitment measure and to compare it to existing alternative measures. Hypotheses around these objectives were tested with data gathered across 5 samples yielding 2,487 participants representing a wide range of jobs, organizations, and industries. Each sample examined a unique set of variables and targets that together provide a comprehensive test of this new measure relative to 8 different targets, several constructs within the nomological network, and 4 prior commitment measures. Results support our hypotheses regarding (a) the measure's properties and structure, (b) convergence and divergence with prior measures of commitment and other constructs in the nomological network, and (c) advantages over prior measures. These findings support the validity of this new approach to assessing commitment, laying the foundation for future research to address critiques of the commitment construct; better examine the multiple commitments individuals simultaneously hold; and bring consistency, synergy, and integration to commitment scholarship across workplace targets. The conceptual, methodological, and practical benefits of the measure are discussed, along with study limitations and future research opportunities.

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

Crossref · 10.1037/a0034751

Cites

18 of 18 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

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2014
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
222-238
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2006258325
Cited by
269
References
18
FWCI
21.47
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: The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0034751
The paper
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034751

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.