The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conceptual Framework and Statistical Procedures for Delineating and Testing Multilevel Theories of Homology
Abstract
Scholars have been interested in the extent to which organizational phenomena generalize across levels of analysis for quite some time. However, theoretical frameworks for developing homologous multilevel theories (i.e., theories involving parallel relationships between parallel constructs at different levels of analysis) have yet to be developed, and current analytical tools for testing such theories and models are limited and inflexible. In this article, the authors first propose a typology of multilevel theories of homology that considers different stages of theory development and different levels of similarity in relationships across levels. Building on cross-validation principles, the authors then delineate and demonstrate a comprehensive and flexible statistical procedure for testing different multilevel theories of homology. Finally, the authors discuss implications for theory, research, and practice, as well as potential caveats of the new statistical tests.
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
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.124.2.262 · Cited by 4,180
Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258703 · Cited by 1,607
The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 · Cited by 1,428 · cited 1×
“For instance, using individual-level decision-making processes as an analogy for group decision making, Hinsz, Tindale, and Vollrath (1997) argued, “much like individuals, groups process relevant and available information to perform intellectual tasks” (p. 43).”
MethodMultiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence, and Radical Change
Huy, Q. N. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.1893939 · Cited by 926
Group Size, ICC Values, and Group-Level Correlations: A Simulation
Bliese, P. D. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814001 · Cited by 636 · cited 3×
“Given that larger groups provide more reliable estimates of aggregated summary variables such as group means than do smaller groups (Bliese, 1998; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992), arguably more weight should be afforded to them when calculating group-level parameter estimates.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
Cited by
Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12183 · Cited by 1,231
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0018938 · Cited by 1,160
At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple Organizational Levels
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312439327 · Cited by 886
Bankins, S., Ocampo, A. C., Marrone, M., Restubog, S. L. D., & Woo, S. E. (2024) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.2735 · Cited by 799
Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428118802626 · Cited by 755
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 375-409
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W1977509711
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 11.51
- 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: Conceptual Framework and Statistical Procedures for Delineating and Testing Multilevel Theories of Homology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428105280056
- The paper
- Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual Framework and Statistical Procedures for Delineating and Testing Multilevel Theories of Homology. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105280056
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.
