The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE VALIDITY OF THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL: A REVIEW AND META‐ANALYSIS
Abstract
The validity of Hackman and Oldham's Job Characteristics Model was assessed by conducting a comprehensive review of nearly 200 relevant studies on the model as well as by applying meta‐analytic procedures to a large portion of the data. The evidence indicated that the available correlational results are reasonably valid in light of the issues examined. Results tended to support the multidimensionality of job characteristics, but there was less agreement on the exact number of dimensions. The corrected correlational results of the meta‐analysis indicated that job characteristics related both to psychological and behavioral outcomes. Concerning psychological states, the results tended to support their mediating (e.g., intervening) role between job characteristics and personal outcomes. The pattern of correlations between the job characteristics and psychological states was less supportive of the model. Meta‐analytic results demonstrated that most of the cross‐study variance was due to statistical artifacts. True variance across studies was found for the job characteristics‐performance relationship, however, and subsequent analyses suggested that growth‐need strength moderates this relationship. Implications for potential revisions of the model and for practice are discussed.
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
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
Employee reactions to job characteristics.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031152 · Cited by 2,442
Cited by
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
KRISTOF‐BROWN, A. L., ZIMMERMAN, R. D., & JOHNSON, E. C. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x · Cited by 4,082
EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: PERSONAL AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AT WORK.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256657 · Cited by 3,749
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 · Cited by 2,994
CHRISTIAN, M. S., GARZA, A. S., & SLAUGHTER, J. E. (2011) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x · Cited by 2,903
Metadata
- Authors
- FRIED, Y., & FERRIS, G. R.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-06
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 287-322
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2097150325
- Cited by
- 1,631
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.61
- 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 VALIDITY OF THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL: A REVIEW AND META‐ANALYSIS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x
- The paper
- FRIED, Y., & FERRIS, G. R. (1987). THE VALIDITY OF THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL: A REVIEW AND META‐ANALYSIS. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x
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.
