The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation
By Huy Le, Frank L. Schmidt, James K. Harter, Kristy J. Lauver. 2010
260 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/105be1c516946c8c87d6e1d1aae9fec4b55c2664
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
- Nathan P. Podsakoff
- Michael S. Cole
- Philip M. Podsakoff
- Scott B. MacKenzie
- Alfred Shiu-ho Wong
- N. Chen
- Eunseong Cho
- Frank Walter
Citations in the corpus
- Job Burnout and Employee Engagement (2012, methodology): “Going beyond the basic requirements for determining empirical redundancy (Le et al., 2010), we note that incremental validity may be a further indication of a measure’s usefulness (Hunsley & Meyer, 2003).”
- Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning (2014, background): “A research literature lacking parsimony is marked by construct proliferation when that literature refers to multiple constructs than cannot be distinguished theoretically and empirically (Le, Schmidt, Harter, & Lauver, 2010; Singh, 1991).”
- Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences (2016, background): “This is important because several scholars (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Blalock, 1968; Le et al., 2010; Morrow, 1983; Popper, 2002; Singh, 1991; Tepper & Henle, 2011) have noted that one of the main factors that undermines discriminant validity and inhibits conceptual progress in science is the proliferati”
- A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support Autonomy (2011, unknown): “…is important because estimates of reliability feature at least three types of measurement error that cause undercorrections and a downward bias in the meta-analysis (Hunter and Schmidt 2004)— namely, random response error, specific factor error, and transient error (Le et al. 2009, 2010).”
- Generational Differences in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta-analysis (2012, unknown): “…affective commitment) are conceptually related and therefore should be treated as a single marker of job attitudes (e.g., Harrison et al. 2006; Le et al. 2010), and that such a combination has been used in previous meta-analyses (Riketta 2008), we ran a meta-analysis combining job…”
- Micro-Foundations of Firm-Specific Human Capital: When Do Employees Perceive Their Skills to be Firm-Specific? (2016, unknown): “While evidence suggests job satisfaction may be empirically indistinguishable from organizational commitment (Le et al., 2010), theoretically they are distinct (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988), and so this proxy should be interpreted with some caution.9 Notably, in the KLIPS, organizational…”
- The dualistic model of passion for work: Discriminate and predictive validity with work engagement and workaholism (2015, background): “In this study, we acknowledge the fact that the correlation between engagement, workaholism, and harmonious and obsessive passion as well as their correlation with other variables are so alike that some of them may be redundant (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2012; Le et al., 2010).”
- Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice (2018, background): “Alternatively, it might be advantageous to omit one factor from the model if the interfactor correlations are too high (Le et al., 2010).”
- Tackling the Problem of Construct Proliferation (2016, methodology): “Scholars have also argued that construct proliferation impedes the creation of cumulative knowledge (Le et al., 2010), prevents collaboration between researchers and practitioners (Rousseau, 2007), and diminishes the influence that a scientific discipline has on other disciplines (Pfeffer, 1993).”
- Burnout: Moving beyond the status quo. (2017, background): “This phenomenon, widespread in psychology, is likely to occur when a “new” construct is introduced in the literature without a careful examination of, and contextualization within, the related preexisting literature (see Fogarty & Perera, 2016; see also Le et al., 2010).”