Frequency versus time lost measures of absenteeism: Is the voluntariness distinction an urban legend?

Abstract

Summary We investigate a long‐standing methodological rule of thumb, the idea that the frequency of absenteeism from work approximates an expression of voluntary behavior while total time lost better reflects involuntary behavior and ill health. Conducting original meta‐analyses and using results from existing meta‐analyses, we determine that time lost and frequency are equally reliable, that the relationship between them approximates unity when corrections for measurement artifacts are applied, and that there is very little evidence for differential criterion‐related validity predicated on the voluntariness distinction. We supply new meta‐analytic estimates of the reliability of absenteeism adjusted for aggregation period and determine that most extant meta‐analyses of the correlates of absenteeism have markedly under‐corrected for unreliability. Our results question the basic construct validity of the time lost–frequency distinction, and they contradict the practice of using “trigger points” that factor absence frequency into attendance monitoring and associated discipline systems so as to discourage short‐term absenteeism, assumed to be volitional. We conclude that the idea that time lost and frequency reflect different degrees of voluntariness is an unsupported urban research legend. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Shift work and sickness absence—the mediating roles of work–home conflict and perceived health

“…A recent meta‐study indicates that number of days away from work (“time lost”) measures approximately the same type of absence as number of times away from work (“frequency”). The same study argues that “time lost” (days) should be used as “default measure” when studying sickness absence (Johns & Hajj, , p. 471). In addition, these data are objective, originating from the hospital's own register, thus avoiding the possible validity problem of self‐reported sickness absence (Johns & Miraglia, ).…”

The contextual role of subjective age in the chronological age/absenteeism relationship in blue and white collar teams

“…While the latter is referring to absenteeism for longer time periods (i.e., more than 3 days), which is often caused by serious health-issued for which a medical certificate is needed, the former is measuring short absenteeism periods (i.e., less than 3 days). This means that short-term absenteeism behaviours are more under the motivational control of the employees (Hackett, 1990;Johns & Al Hajj, 2016). In consequence, as we are interested in how motivational team processes are affected by team age structures, we focus on average team short-term absenteeism behaviours as outcome variables in this study.…”

“…Particularly, absenteeism researchers found mixed and even contradictory results for the relationship between chronological age and absenteeism (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998;Martocchio, 1989). While some researchers (Badura et al, 2014;Bierla, Huver, & Richard, 2013) find a positive relationship between chronological age and absenteeism, several researchers show negative relationships (Johns & Al Hajj, 2016;Kristensen et al, 2006;Nielsen, 2008) or even no relationship (Hackett, 1990). Meta-analyses on this issue did not clarify this question, suggesting that the type of absenteeism (e.g., in terms of frequency versus duration; short-term versus longterm absenteeism; absenteeism versus presenteeism) might affect the chronological age/absenteeism relationship (Johns & Al Hajj, 2016;Martocchio, 1989).…”

“…Nevertheless, no effort has been made to explicitly investigate the age/absenteeism relationship between white and blue collar employees, considering their different work and career motives. This seems to be particularly relevant for voluntary short-term absenteeism behaviour, which is assumed to be driven by motivational rather than health impairments (Johns & Al Hajj, 2016).…”

Workplace bullying and absenteeism: The mediating roles of poor health and work engagement

“…An important limitation of our absenteeism measure is that we were unable to distinguish between the frequency and duration of absenteeism spells. Although there is some conjecture (e.g., Johns & Al Hajj, ), research indicates that the frequency of absenteeism spells reflects voluntary absenteeism, whereas the duration of spells reflects involuntary absenteeism (Brooke, ). Being able to capture more detailed information on the nature of absenteeism could have allowed for a more thorough investigation of the health impairment and motivational pathways linking workplace bullying with absenteeism.…”