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.
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.
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
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990) · Journal of Occupational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x · Cited by 11,650
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700305 · Cited by 6,250
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.71.3.492 · Cited by 4,072
EDITOR'S COMMENTS: CONSTRUCT CLARITY IN THEORIES OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION.
Suddaby, R. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2010.51141319 · Cited by 984
Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment.
Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70 · Cited by 707
Identifying Organizational Identification
Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164492052004002 · Cited by 594
Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.84.6.885 · Cited by 573
Self-citationThe relationship between affective and normative commitment: review and research agenda
Bergman, M. E. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.372 · Cited by 328
Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005) · Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice · doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189 · Cited by 220
A Split Questionnaire Survey Design
Raghunathan, T. E., & Grizzle, J. E. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476488 · Cited by 194
Cited by
One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research.
Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000103 · Cited by 1,013
A person‐centered approach to commitment research: Theory, research, and methodology
Meyer, J. P., & Morin, A. J. S. (2016) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2085 · Cited by 487
Raineri, N., & Paillé, P. (2016) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2548-x · Cited by 432
Colquitt, J. A., Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Hill, E. T. (2019) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000406 · Cited by 328
Lambert, L. S., & Newman, D. A. (2023) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/10944281221115374 · Cited by 259
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.