CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 304Business Strategies and Management ResearchBusiness and Management StudiesDiverse Academic Research Areas

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving Research Quality Before Data Collection

Open access
Aguinis, Herman, Vandenberg, Robert J.·2014·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091231
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We rely on classic as well as recently published sources to offer a review of theory, research design, and measurement issues that should be considered prior to conducting any empirical study. First, we examine theory-related issues that should be addressed before research design and measurement considerations. Specifically, we discuss how to make meaningful theoretical progress including the use of inductive and deductive approaches, address an important issue, and conduct research with a practical end in mind. Second, we offer recommendations regarding research design, including how to address the low statistical power challenge, design studies that strengthen inferences about causal relationships, and use control variables appropriately. Finally, we address measurement issues. Specifically, we discuss how to improve the link between underlying constructs and their observable indicators. Our review offers a checklist for use by researchers to improve research quality prior to data collection and by journal editors and reviewers to evaluate the quality of submitted manuscripts.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091231

Cites

120 of 120 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

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?

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 123 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Aguinis H, 2013, J. Manag., 39, 1799
  2. Aguinis H, 2013, J. Manag., 39, 1490
  3. Bosker RJ, 2003, PINT (Power IN Two-Level Designs): Estimating Standard Errors of Regression Coefficients in Hierarchical Linear Models for Power Calculations, Version 2.1
  4. 10.2307/3150876 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Eby LT, 2009, Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Received Doctrine, Verity, and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences, 219
  6. Edwards JR, 2003, Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, 327
  7. Fisher RA, 1938, Sankhyā: Indian J. Stat., 4, 14
  8. Glaser BG, 1992, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emerging Versus Forcing
  9. Locke EA, 2007, J. Manag., 33, 867
  10. Nunnally JC, 1994, Psychometric Theory
  11. Ployhart R, 2010, J. Manag., 36, 94
  12. Ryan AM, Schmitt N, Spector P, Zedeck S, Rogelberg S, eds. 2014. Inductive research in organizations. Special issue, J. Bus. Psychol . In press
  13. 10.2307/1556348 · DOI
  14. Schriesheim CA, 1993, J. Manag., 19, 385
  15. 10.5465/AMR.2011.59330952 · DOI
  16. Simon H, 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial
  17. Spybrook J, 2011, Optimal Design Plus Empirical Evidence: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” Software (Version 3.0)
  18. Tett RP, 2013, Ind.-Organ. Psychol., 50, 69
  19. 10.1080/19416520903065683 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 302

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2014-03-21
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
569-595
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
DOI
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091231
OpenAlex
W2110082579
Cited by
304
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 10
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Business and International Management › Business and Management Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Diverse Academic Research Areas
Keywords
research quality, research design, measurement, statistical power, causal inference, control variables, construct measurement, research checklist, manuscript review, theory development

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