MEASUREMENT ERROR IN RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: ADDITIONAL DATA AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Gerhart and colleagues (2000) and Huselid and Becker (2000) recently debated the presence and implications of measurement error in measures of human resource practices. This paper presents data from 3 more studies, 1 of large organizations from different industries at the corporate level, 1 from commercial banks, and the other of autonomous business units at the level of the job. Results of all 3 studies provide additional evidence that single respondent measures of HR practices contain large amounts of measurement error. Implications for future research into the HR firm performance relationship are discussed.     

MEASUREMENT ERROR IN RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESOURCES and FIRM PERFORMANCE: HOW MUCH ERROR IS THERE AND HOW DOES IT INFLUENCE EFFECT SIZE ESTIMATES?

Studies of the relationship between human resource (HR) practices and firm performance typically use a single respondent to assess firm level HR practices or HR effectiveness. However, previous research in other substantive areas suggests that rater differences are a potentially important source of measurement error. We demonstrate analytically the potential consequences of both random and systematic measurement error in research on HR and firm performance. However, our main focus is on random error and we show how generalizability theory can be applied to obtain better estimates of reliability by simultaneously recognizing multiple sources (e.g., items, raters) of random measurement error. These more inclusive reliability estimates, in turn, offer the possibility of more precisely quantifying substantive relationships in the HR and firm performance literature. In our sample, reliabilities (as estimated by generalizability coefficients) for single-rater assessments of HR variables were generally below .50. This degree of measurement error, if present in substantive studies on HR and firm performance, could lead to considerable bias, given that an unstandardized regression coefficient is corrected for measurement error in the independent variable by dividing by its reliability coefficient (not its square root). We also found only limited convergent validity between HR and line managers ratings of a second type of HR measure, HR effectiveness. In general, our findings suggest that future researchers need to devote greater attention to measurement error and construct validity issues. Our study provides an example of how generalizability theory can be useful in this pursuit.     

DIFFERENT WRONGS,DIFFERENT REMEDIES? REACTIONS TO ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES AFTER PROCEDURAL AND INTERACTIONAL INJUSTICE

To alleviate the negative effects of workplace unfairness and resulting conflict, organizations can take remedial action to atone for a perceived injustice. We argue that the effectiveness of organizational remedies may depend on the match between type of injustice perceived and type of remedy offered. Specifically, based on the multiple needs model of justice ( Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001 ), we expect procedural injustice to be particularly associated with preference for instrumental remedies that address the need for control. On the other hand, interactional injustice should be particularly associated with preference for punitive remedies that address the need for meaning. Confirming this hypothesis, a field study involving recently terminated employees found that procedural injustice was positively associated with preference for an instrumental remedy (monetary compensation) and interactional injustice was positively associated with preference for a punitive remedy (disciplinary action against those involved in the termination). Further supporting the hypothesis, a laboratory experiment manipulating the unfairness of performance feedback found greater preference for an instrumental remedy relative to a punitive remedy following a procedural injustice than following an interactional injustice. In discussing these results, we present a taxonomy of organizational remedies as they relate to the multiple needs model of justice. Practical implications are discussed.     

The Cybernetics of Physical Illness

This is a speculative essay on the application of cybernetic concepts to the diagnosis and treatment of physical illness. The essay assumes that there is a unified biopsychosocial field in which the designation of illness as "physical" violates the ecological wholeness of the field. Although the field is complex, clinical intervention requires a degree of simplicity. This simplicity is sought by describing biopsychosocial experience in terms of recursive cycles. Clinical intervention is discussed as a disruption of recursive cycles.     

THE AVAILABILITY AND HELPFULNESS OF SOCIALIZATION PRACTICES

This study reports on the socialization practices most available to new employees and the extent to which these practices are seen by newcomers as being helpful in becoming effective organizational members. The results showed that socialization practices are differentially available to newcomers, and perceptions of their helpfulness vary. The helpfulness of various socialization practices as reported by newcomers appears to affect their feelings of subsequent job satisfaction and commitment.     

A COMPARISON OF VALIDATION CRITERIA: OBJECTIVE VERSUS SUBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SELF- VERSUS SUPERVISOR RATINGS

This study compared four criteria–two objective (production quantity and production quality) and two subjective (supervisor and self-ratings)–for their predictability in a criterion-related validity study. Results from this sample of 212 maintenance, mechanic, and field service workers replicated previous meta-analytic results with clerical workers (Nathan & Alexander, 1988); supervisor ratings and objective productivity indices provided similar and significant validity coefficients with a unit-weighted composite of five cognitive ability tests. The objective quality index and employee self-ratings resulted in near zero correlations with the same predictor battery. Additional productivity and quality objective criterion data were available for 2 years since the original validation study; no change in validity was found.     

Conceptualization and assessment of disengagement in romantic relationships

Research examining relationship distress and dissolution highlights the importance of romantic disengagement. Nevertheless, prior conceptualizations and measures of romantic disengagement have tended to combine disengagement with related but distinct constructs hindering the study of romantic disengagement. The present research used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to clarify the conceptualization of romantic disengagement and to develop a novel measure—the Romantic Disengagement Scale (RDS). The RDS demonstrated adequate fit across samples of dating individuals (n = 203), married couples (n = 77), and women in physically aggressive relationships (n = 42) from the Midwestern United States. The RDS also demonstrated strong divergent and incremental validity. The discussion focuses on implications for enhancing conceptual models, research methodology, and clinical interventions.