Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and Practical Usefulness of Organizational Behavior Theories: A Quantitative Review

Miner, John B.·2003·Academy of Management Learning & Education

Abstract

I analyze rated importance, extent of recognition, validity, and usefulness of 73 established organizational behavior theories, differentiating between the views of judges with expertise in organizational behavior and in strategic management. The results indicate an increasingly mature science with many more positive relationships among the variables considered than existed previously. The findings have major implications for learning and education activities, such as textbook writing and organizational behavior course design in that they indicate which theories should be stressed and which should be given minimal, if any, attention at different levels of the educational process.

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 · 10.5465/amle.2003.10932132

Cites

7 of 7 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

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

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Miner, J. B.
Venue
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Published
2003-09
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
250-268
ISSN
  • 1537-260X (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9585
OpenAlex
W1980435043
Cited by
263
References
7
FWCI
9.12
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.