A multi‐rater assessment of organizational commitment: are self‐report measures biased?

By R. Goffin, Ian R. Gellatly. 2001

129 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management Information Systems, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8c4311a2229077be5d575449aa1d8b03e9e6400a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

1. David A. Cole
2. L. Yiing
3. K. Ahmad
4. Satoris S. Culbertson
5. B. Lagrange
6. Clive J. Fullagar
7. M. Mills

In Management Information Systems

1. David A. Cole
2. K. Ahmad
3. Satoris S. Culbertson
4. B. Lagrange
5. Clive J. Fullagar
6. M. Mills

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. David A. Cole
2. L. Yiing
3. J. Rodwell
4. K. Ahmad
5. Satoris S. Culbertson
6. B. Lagrange
7. Clive J. Fullagar
8. M. Mills

Citations in the corpus

• Conceptualizing and Measuring Engagement: An Analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (2012, methodology): “Spector (2006) has questioned the problem of common method variance, while Goffin and Gellatly (2001) found that self- and peer-report measures may be largely redundant, and that self-reported responses are primarily driven by experiences as opposed to systematic bias resulting from defensive resp”
• Organizational change in the public sector: Augmenting the demand control model to predict employee outcomes under New Public Management (2006, background): “However, some reassurance is gained from research that has shown a high correlation between expert ratings of job conditions and subjective assessments (Karasek et al, 1981 ; Spector, 1992 ), and the support that has been shown for the use of self-report measures of the outcome variables, especial”
• An Expansion of the Trait-State-Occasion Model: Accounting for Shared Method Variance (2008, methodology): “The DPM approach was used to investigate bias in self-report measures (Goffin & Gellatly, 2001) and Vautier, Steyer, Jmel, and Raufaste (2005) used the CM–1 approach to study affective judgments.”
• The moderating effects of organizational culture on the relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance (2009, background): “Goffin and Gellatly (2001) assessed affective commitment among public-sector administrative staff, by using different sources of raters to test the explanations of the factors influencing self-report measures.”
• Teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to individual students with a variety of social–emotional behaviors: A multilevel investigation (2016, unknown): “Generally, social desirability has been presumed to generate more flattering reports about the self and a limited range of answers (Goffin & Gellatly, 2001).”