Improving the quality of quantitative research reports: A call for action

Abstract

Given my role as Quantitative Methods Editor forTo help organize key factors that contribute to quality reports of quantitative methods, I propose a three-legged metaphorical stool akin to Swanson' s (1995) three-legged stool that identified key theoretical foundations of HRD. The three legs are: (1) statistical assumptions, (2) data analysis, and (3) statistically and practically significant results. In Figure 1, I list the three proposed frameworks of quantitative research, from left to right, in a logical order to facilitate discussion: statistical assumptions (left), data analysis (middle), and statistically and practically significant results (right). In reality, I think many researchers (myself included) sometimes sidestep the process of testing for statistical assumptions in their eagerness to see if they will get a p-value less than 0.05. One wonders how often reviewers think to question the validity of findings that are presented without evidence that data were tested against associated statistical assumptions. One also wonders how much time readers spend consuming the data analysis or finding sections of articles based on quantitative methodologies before moving on to the discussion

The Effects of Scenario Planning on Participant Perceptions of Learning Organization Characteristics

“…Scenario planning aims to allow a space for stakeholders to reflect on the most critical uncertainties within their organization. The process is meant to encourage them to shift their thinking as a means to consider the major implications of critical uncertainties in realistic and plausible ways (Schwartz, 1996;van der Heijden, 1997;2005).…”

“…Assumptions. Nimon (2011) wrote a call to action for increasing the quality of quantitative research studies. In it, she discusses the primary importance HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq of addressing the assumptions dictated by the particular statistical test used.…”

The applications of neuro‐linguistic programming in organizational settings: A systematic review of psychological outcomes

“…Onwuegbuzie and Corrigan () highlight the following five factors that contribute to methodologically robust research: (a) comprehensive, (b) systematic, (c) evaluative, (d) defensible, and (e) transparent. By satisfying these five factors, NLP research will more closely adhere to research protocols and reporting guidelines that have been advocated within the wider HRD field (Nimon, ).…”

“…Although NLP elicited benefits across a broad range of outcomes, the diverse NLP skills used in the included studies indicate a need for future research to examine each skill individually, as well as a need for NLP researchers to be clear about the specific NLP skills employed in their interventions. Indeed, although some studies provided a good level of detail in this respect, greater clarity is required in terms of the specific NLP skills that induce positive outcomes (Bandler & Grinder, 1979 research will more closely adhere to research protocols and reporting guidelines that have been advocated within the wider HRD field (Nimon, 2011).…”

The Generous Spirit of the Peer Review Process: Perspectives and Insights From the HRDQ Editorial Team on Providing High‐Quality Reviews

“…6. Complies with standards (e.g., American Educational Research Association [AERA], 2006;Nimon, 2011) for reporting the results of quantitative studies including reporting of sample demographics, response rate, how missing data were handled, statistical assumptions (see Nimon, 2012), descriptive statistics including correlation or covariance matrices (see Zientek & Thompson, 2009), and effect sizes and exact p-values for inferential tests (see Olejnick & Algina, 2000), as well as supplementary analyses to fully interpret results (see Nathans, Oswald, & Nimon, 2012, for multiple regression). 7.…”