Search results

Psychometric analyses of self-administered questionnaire data tend to focus on items and instruments as a whole. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the functioning of the response scale and its impact on measurement precision. In terms of the response scale direction, existing evidence is mixed and inconclusive.

Three experiments are conducted to examine the functioning of response scales of different direction, ranging from agree to disagree versus from disagree to agree. The response scale direction effect is exemplified by two different latent constructs by applying the Rasch model for measurement.

The agree-to-disagree format generally performs better than the disagree-to-agree variant with spatial proximity between the statement and the agree-pole of the scale appearing to drive the effect. The difference is essentially related to the unit of measurement.

A careful investigation of the functioning of the response scale should be part of every psychometric assessment. The framework of Rasch measurement theory offers unique opportunities in this regard.

Besides content, validity and reliability, academics and practitioners utilising published measurement instruments are advised to consider any evidence on the response scale functioning that is available.

The study exemplifies the application of the Rasch model to assess measurement precision as a function of the design of the response scale. The methodology raises the awareness for the unit of measurement, which typically remains hidden.

Purpose: Previous research identified a measurement gap in the individual assessment of social misconduct in the workplace related to gender. This gap implies that women respond to comparable self-reported acts of bullying or sexual discrimination slightly more often than men with the self-labeling as “bullied” or “sexually discriminated and/or harassed.” This study tests this hypothesis for women and men in the scientific workplace and explores patterns of gender-related differences in self-reporting behavior.

Basic design: The hypotheses on the connection between gender and the threshold for self-labeling as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against were tested based on a sample from a large German research organization. The sample includes 5,831 responses on bullying and 6,987 on sexual discrimination (coverage of 24.5 resp. 29.4 percentage of all employees). Due to a large number of cases and the associated high statistical power, this sample for the first time allows a detailed analysis of the “gender-related measurement gap.” The research questions formulated in this study were addressed using two hierarchical regression models to predict the mean values of persons who self-labeled as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against. The status of the respondents as scientific or non-scientific employees was included as a control variable.

Results: According to a self-labeling approach, women reported both bullying and sexual discrimination more frequently. This difference between women and men disappeared for sexual discrimination when, in addition to the gender of a person, self-reported behavioral items were considered in the prediction of self-labeling. For bullying, the difference between the two genders remained even in this extended prediction. No statistically significant relationship was found between the frequency of self-reported items and the effect size of their interaction with gender for either bullying or sexual discrimination. When comparing bullying and sexual discrimination, it should be emphasized that, on average, women report experiencing a larger number of different behavioral items than men.

Interpretation and relevance: The results of the study support the current state of research. However, they also show how volatile the measurement instruments for bullying and sexual discrimination are. For example, the gender-related measurement gap is considerably influenced by single items in the Negative Acts Questionnaire and Sexual Experience Questionnaire. The results suggest that women are generally more likely than men to report having experienced bullying and sexual discrimination. While an unexplained “gender gap” in the understanding of bullying was found for bullying, this was not the case for sexual discrimination.

Branched situational judgment tests (BSJTs) are an increasingly common employee selection method, yet there is no theory and very little empirical work explaining the designs and impacts of branching. To encourage additional research on BSJTs, and to provide practitioners with a common language to describe their current and future practices, we sought to develop a theory of BSTJs.

Given the absence of theory on branching, we utilized a ground theory qualitative research design, conducting interviews with 25 BSJT practitioner subject matter experts.

Our final theory consists of three components: (1) a taxonomy of BSJT branching features (contingency, parallelism, convergence, and looping) and options within those features (which vary), (2) a causal theoretical model describing impacts of branching in general on applicant reactions via proximal effects on face validity, and (3) a causal theoretical model describing impacts on applicant reactions among branching designs via proximal effects on consistency of administration and opportunity to perform.

Our work provides the first theoretical foundation on which future confirmatory research in the BSJT domain can be built. It also gives both researchers and practitioners a common language for describing branching features and their options. Finally, it reveals BSJTs as the results of a complex set of interrelated design features, discouraging the oversimplified contrasting of “branching” vs “not branching.”

This paper aims to present the fundamental aspects for the development and validation (D&V) of attitudes’ measurement scale, as well as its practical aspects that are not deeply explored in books and manuals. These aspects are the results of a long experience of the authors and arduous learning with errors and mistakes.

The nature of this paper is methodological and can be very useful for an initial reading on the theme that it rests. This paper presents four D&V stages: literature review or interviews with experts; theoretical or face validation; semantic validation or validation with possible respondents; and statistical validation.

This is a methodological paper, and its main finding is the usefulness for researchers.

The main implication of this paper is to support researchers on the process of D&V of measurement scales.

Became a step-by-step guide to researchers on the D&V of measurement scales.

Support researchers on their data collection and analysis.

This is a practical guide, with tips from seasoned scholars to help researchers on the D&V of measurement scales.

The paper aims to compare two general team identification processes of consumers’ in-group-favor and out-group-animosity responses to sports sponsorship.

The paper draws on two studies and four samples of professional baseball fans in Taiwan (N = 1,294). In Study 1, data from the fans of three teams were analyzed by using multi-group structural equation modeling to account for team effects and to consider parallel in-group-favor and out-group-animosity processes. In Study 2, the fans of one team were sampled and randomly assigned to assess the sponsors of one of three specific competitor teams to account for differences in team competition and rivalry. In both studies, these two processes were compared using patterns of significant relationships and differences in the indirect identification-attitude-outcome relationships.

Positive outcomes of in-group-favor processes were broader in scope and were more pronounced in absolute magnitude than the negative outcomes of out-group-animosity processes across all outcomes and studies.

The research was conducted in one country and considered the sponsorship of one sport. It is possible that the results could differ for leagues within different countries, more global leagues and different fan bases.

The results suggest that managers should carefully consider whether the negative out-group-animosity outcomes are actually present, broad enough or strong enough to warrant costly or compromising intervention, because they might not always be present or meaningful.

The paper demonstrates the comparatively greater breadth and strength of in-group-favor processes when compared directly to out-group-animosity processes.

Despite agreement on the importance of adopting governance structures for developing competitive advantage, we still know little about why or how governance mechanisms are adopted in the first place. We also acknowledge that family businesses with formal governance mechanisms in place still resort to informal means to make decisions, and we lack knowledge about why certain governance mechanisms are sometimes, but not always, effective and functional. Given these research gaps, and drawing on institutional theory, we aim to explore: How are governance structures adopted and developed in family firms? Once adopted, how do family businesses perceive these governance structures?

Using Mokken Scale Analysis, a method suitable to uncover patterns/sequences of adoption/acquisition over time, we analyze a dataset of 1,488 Spanish family firms to explore if there is a specific pattern in the implementation of governance structures. We complement the analysis with descriptive data about perceived usefulness of such structures.

Our findings highlight two important issues. Family businesses follow a specific process implementing first business governance (board of directors, then executive committee), followed by family governance (family council then family constitution). We suggest they do so in response to institutional pressures, given the exposure they have to business practices, and their need to appear legitimate. Despite formal adoption of governance structures, family businesses do not necessarily consider them useful. We suggest that their perception about the usefulness of the implemented governance structures may lead to their ceremonial adoption, resulting in a gap between the implementation and functionality of such structures.

Our article contributes to the family business literature by bringing novel insights about implementation of governance structures. We take a step back to explain why these governance mechanisms were adopted in the first place. Using institutional theory we enrich governance and family business literatures, by offering a lens that explains why family businesses follow a specific process in adopting governance structures. We also offer a plausible explanation as to why governance structures are ineffective in achieving their theorized role in the context of family businesses, based on the family's perception of the unusefulness of such structures, and the concept of ceremonial adoption.

There is no single recipe that can serve the multiple needs of different family businesses. This indicates that family businesses may need diverse levels of development and order when setting up their governance structures. Accordingly, this study constitutes an important point of demarcation for practitioners interested in examining the effectiveness of governance structures in family firms. We show that an important pre-requisite for examining the effectiveness of governance structures is to start by investigating whether these structures are actually being used or are only adopted ceremonially.

Our paper expands current knowledge on governance in family firms by taking a step back hinting at why are governance structures adopted in the first place. Focusing on how governance is implemented in terms of sequence is novel and relevant for researcher and practitioners to understand how this process unfolds. Our study uses institutional theory, which is a strong theory to support the results. Our paper also uses a novel method to study governance structures in family firms.

Leader self-efficacy (LSE) is a construct studied in adults and college students which is associated with leader emergence, individual performance, and group performance.However, to date, it has not been heavily examined in youth.Therefore, a five-item youth LSE scale was created which can aid in further research of this construct.This holds significant implications for future educational initiatives, research, and the development of the next generation of leaders.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate psychometric properties of the Self-Efficacy for Therapeutic Use of Self (SETUS) scales, a questionnaire based on the Intentional Relationship model, and to investigate the factor structure and internal consistency of the English version of three-part SETUS questionnaire in occupational therapy students.

The sample of this cross-sectional study included 155 students with age range 18–30 years, of which 95% were women. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was performed on the questionnaire scales, including the Self-Efficacy for Therapeutic Mode Use (SETMU), Self-Efficacy for Recognizing Interpersonal Characteristics (SERIC) and Self-Efficacy for Managing Interpersonal Events (SEMIE). The internal consistencies were calculated. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the strength of correlation among the scales.

The PCA confirmed that the items of each of the three proposed scales loaded strongly on one factor (self-efficacy for three factors of therapeutic mode use, recognizing interpersonal characteristics and managing interpersonal events). The Cronbach’s alpha for the SETMU, SERIC and SEMIE was 0.85, 0.95 and 0.96, respectively. The three scales significantly inter-correlated strongly (r ranging 0.74–0.83, all p < 0.001).

The SETUS questionnaire comprises three valid and reliable scales. It can be used by occupational therapy supervisors as a means to reflect on students’ self-efficacy in components of therapeutic use of self.