Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance

Tubre, Travis C., Collins, Judith M.·2000·Journal of Management

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis of correlations between role ambiguity and job performance and role conflict and job performance. Previous meta-analyses of these role constructs and performance relationships (e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985) were limited by small sample sizes and sparse reporting of reliability estimates in primary studies. The present study used a comprehensive database with a larger sample size and a distribution of interrater reliabilities to extend the previous findings. We also tested moderator hypotheses proposed but not conducted by Jackson and Schuler. Results revealed a negative relationship (r52.21) between role ambiguity and job performance with moderating influences due to job type and rating source. A negligible relationship (r52.07) was observed for role conflict and job performance, a finding consistent across job types and rating sources. Conclusions were that role ambiguity ought not to be dismissed as an unimportant variable in the job performance domain.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/014920630002600104

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.2466/pr0.1994.75.3f.1411 · DOI
  2. Arvey, R. D., 1997, New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology, 524
  3. 10.2307/3150622 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/00224545.1981.9924377 · DOI
  5. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.191 · DOI
  6. 10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.320 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Gross, N., 1958, Explorations in role analysis
  8. 10.1037/h0037340 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x · DOI
  10. Hunter, J. E., 1990, Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings
  11. Hunter, J. E., 1982, Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies
  12. Ilgen, D. R., 1991, Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology:, 165
  13. 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kahn, R. L., 1964, Occupational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity
  15. Katz, D., 1978, The social psychology of organizations
  16. 10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.168 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.425 · DOI
  18. Law, K. S., 1994, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 78
  19. Merton, R., 1949, Social theory and social structure
  20. 10.2307/1251127 · DOI
  21. Naylor, J. C., 1980, A theory of behavior in organizations
  22. 10.2307/2392471 · DOI
  23. Parsons, T., 1951, The social system
  24. 10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.373 · DOI
  25. 10.2307/2391486 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.2307/2392578 · DOI
  27. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.3 · DOI
  28. Schuler, R. S., 1975, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 183
  29. 10.2307/2391790 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/0001-8791(81)90008-7 · DOI
  31. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1977.tb00430.x · DOI
  32. U.S. Department of Labor, 1991, Dictionary of occupational titles
  33. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.557 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 481

Metadata

Authors
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University
  • Michigan State University
Venue
Journal of Management
Published
2000-02
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
155-169
ISSN
  • 0149-2063
  • 1557-1211
Cited by
481
References
1
Language
en

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