Multidimensional Constructs in Organizational Behavior Research: An Integrative Analytical Framework

By J. Edwards. 2001

1,200 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f95894c5607b2657678c4ac591b9dff2d3651a6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Family Orientation: Individual-Level Influences on Family Firm Outcomes (2008, background): “We view FO as an aggregate construct, such that the five FO dimensions are themselves subconstructs conceived as specific components of family orientation (Edwards, 2000; Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998).”
Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate framework representing the employee-organization relationship. (2003, background): “For example, if the dimensions serve as manifest indicators of the underlying construct, such that the overall construct is made up only of the commonality between the dimensions, the form can be identified as a latent, or superordinate, model (Edwards, 2001; Law et al., 1998).”
Construct Validity: Advances in Theory and Methodology (2009, background): “N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript N IH -PA Author M anuscript unidimensional symptoms as the preferred objects of theoretical study and measure validation (Edwards 2001; McGrath 2005; Smith et al. 2003; Smith & Combs, 2008).”
Empowerment—Fad or Fab? A Multilevel Review of the Past Two Decades of Research (2012, background): “, Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Zhao, Seibert, & Lumpkin, 2010), there is still much to be learned regarding their impact on psychological empowerment. For example, there is a growing literature considering the impact of individual core self-evaluation (e.g., Judge & Hurst, 2008; Piccolo, Judge, Tak”
On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems. (2010, background): “…have discussed this issue and shown the need to routinely consider formative measurement options in model specification (Bagozzi and Edwards 1998, Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001, Edwards 2001, Jarvis et al. 2003, MacKenzie et al. 2005, Bagozzi 2007, Bollen 2007, Diamantopoulos et al. 2008).”
Representing general theoretical concepts in structural equation models: the role of composite variables (2008, background): “It should be pointed out that some have argued that because composites have dataspecific properties defined by the relationships between predictors and responses, their meaning is vague, their effects less general, and they should be avoided (see discussion in Edwards 2001).”
Partial least squares path modeling: Time for some serious second thoughts (2016, methodology): “Therefore, aggregation only serves to obscure the nature of a given concept’s associations with its antecedents and outcomes in the model, thus preventing researchers from achieving clear understanding of causal effects (Cadogan and Lee, 2013; Edwards, 2001).”
12 Structural Equation Modeling in Management Research: A Guide for Improved Analysis (2009, methodology): “The choice between superordinate and aggregate construct models has fundamental implications for the meaning of the multidimensional construct and can dramatically impact parameter estimates linking the multidimensional construct to its dimensions (Edwards, 2001).”
In Search of Balance: A Conceptual and Empirical Integration of Multiple Meanings of Work–Family Balance (2017, methodology): “We followed recommendations (i.e., Edwards, 2001; Mallard & Lance, 1998) to use structural equation modeling (SEM) to test three nested confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models: two correlated factors, two orthogonal factors, and one general factor (N = 212).”
Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance (2007, background): “…on shared leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 1996; Barry, 1991; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Seers, 1996; Yukl, 1989), represent distinct concepts that are also highly interrelated and mutually reinforcing, thereby representing a higherorder construct (cf. Edwards, 2001; Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998).”
Institutional Pressures, Green Supply Chain Management Practices on Environmental and Economic Performance: A Two Theory View (2018, background): “Generally, higher order constructs are recommended to reduce model complexity and enhance theoretical utility, which is achieved by using focused dimensions for the creation of general constructs [21,22].”