The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Antecedents and Consequences of Employees’ Adjustment to Overseas Assignment: A Meta‐analytic Review
Abstract
La recherche sur les antécédents et les conséquences de l’ajustement des expatriés a été revue de façon qualitative et avec la méthode quantitative de méta‐analyse. Les prédicteurs individuels, environnementaux, reliés au travail et reliés à la famille, de l’ajustement général, interactionnel et au travail ont été analysés. L’efficacité personnelle, la fréquence des interactions dans le pays hôte, et le soutien familial ont prédit les trois types d’ajustement. De plus, des compétences élevées en relations interpersonnelles ont été associées à un meilleur ajustement à l’environnement en général. Les résultats ont également démontré que la variable “conflit de rôle”était corrélée négativement avec l’ajustement au travail alors que l’ambiguïté du rôle et la discrétion ont été associés avec l’ajustement au travail. Un modèle d’équations structurelles a été développé avec les corrélations agrégées pour illustrer les relations causales possibles impliquant un facteur général d’ajustement et les résultats des tensions au travail, la satisfaction au travail, l’engagement organisationnel, l’intention de quitter, ainsi que la performance au travail. L’hypothèse était que l’ajustement influencerait les tensions et la satisfaction au travail et que ces deux dernières variables auraient un effet sur l’engagement organisationnel, la performance et l’intention de quitter. Le modèle a bien correspondu aux données. Research on the antecedents and consequences of expatriate adjustment was reviewed using meta‐analytic methods. The antecedents and outcomes of three facets of adjustment were examined. Self‐efficacy, frequency of interaction with host nationals, and family support consistently predicted all three types of adjustment. In addition, better interpersonal skills were associated with greater adjustment to general environment. Greater cultural novelty was associated with less interactional adjustment. Role conflict, ambiguity, and discretion were also strong predictors of work adjustment. A structural equations model that illustrated causal relationships involving expatriate adjustment and outcomes of job strain, job satisfaction, organisational citizenship, intent to turnover, and job performance generated a good fit with the data.
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
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
COOPER, C. L., & MARSHALL, J. (1976) · Journal of Occupational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1976.tb00325.x · Cited by 1,201
Cited by
Lin, Y.-C., Chen, A. S.-Y., & Song, Y.-C. (2012) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.03.001 · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Authors
- Hechanova, R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D.
- Venue
- Applied Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-03-10
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 213-236
- ISSN
- 0269-994X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0597
- OpenAlex
- W1968435736
- Cited by
- 586
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 43.43
- 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
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.