The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Evaluation of the Validity of Correlational Research Conducted in Organizations
Abstract
Much of the research conducted in organizational settings uses correlational techniques to infer associations among variables of interest. This paper reviews some of the problems with this type of research and develops a checklist for judging the validity of the research methods and designs employed. A sample of published correlational studies is evaluated, using the checklist. In many cases these studies were found to have serious design problems. Potential remedies and responses to these problems 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
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Development and test of a new model for validity generalization.
Callender, J. C., & Osburn, H. G. (1980) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.5.543 · Cited by 112
Cited by
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 · Cited by 8,490
Assessing construct validity in organizational research
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393203 · Cited by 6,621
Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726708094863 · Cited by 3,462
Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814002 · Cited by 1,380
Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.406 · Cited by 961
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-t · Cited by 807
The ‘‘what’’and ‘‘how’’of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work
Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109351319 · Cited by 506
Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity.
King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.48 · Cited by 302
The Effects of Method Variance Within Measures
Tepper, B. J., & Tepper, K. (1993) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.1993.9915563 · Cited by 30
The Control Group and Meta-Analysis
Hunter, J. E., Jensen, J. L., & Rodgers, R. (2014) · Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences · doi:10.2458/azu_jmmss.v5i1.18302 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Mitchell, T. R.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1985-04
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 192
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090614975
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.71
- 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.
