Recommendations for improving the construct clarity of higher-order multidimensional constructs

By Russell E. Johnson, Christopher C. Rosen, Chu-Hsiang (Daisy) Chang, Emilija Djurdjevic, Meng U. Taing. 2012

178 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract In recent decades, there has been a proliferation of higher-order multidimensional constructs in the management and psychology literatures. Unfortunately, few guidelines have been presented for assessing the appropriateness of these constructs. In the current paper, the authors present seven recommendations for evaluating the construct clarity of multidimensional constructs. As an example, these guidelines are applied to existing multidimensional constructs, such as core self-evaluation and work engagement. The guidelines presented in this paper provide a roadmap for researchers interested in developing multidimensional constructs and identifying aspects of existing multidimensional constructs that are in need of improvement.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Mechanical Engineering, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fce066f49f43ee79106eb9a559bb9175d14f61c6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Social Psychology

1. Assâad El akremi
2. K. De Roeck
3. Jean‐Pascal Gond
4. V. Swaen

Citations in the corpus

• How Do Employees Perceive Corporate Responsibility? Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Corporate Stakeholder Responsibility Scale (2018, methodology): “Results of our EFAs (Table 2) and CFAs (Tables 4 and 6) showed the absence of a common general factor and gave evidence of discriminant validity among the six dimensions of the CStR construct.”
• What Shall We Do About Grit? A Critical Review of What We Know and What We Don’t Know (2018, unknown): “Third, the aggregation of facet-level scores into an overall score is only supported if such an aggregation does not result in a loss in criterion validity (see Johnson et al., 2012, for a discussion).”