Measurement Equivalence of the Job Descriptive Index Across Chinese and American Workers: Results from Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory

Wang, Mo; Russell, Steven S.

doi:10.1177/0013164404272494

Cited by 77 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Again, the individual items produced a model with acceptable model fit; v 2 (344) = 640.4 v 2 /df = 1.86, NFI = .857, CFI = .927, RMSEA = .042 (CI = .037-.047). Although the test of the chi-square difference between the configural and measurement invariance models was statistically significant, Dv 2 (16) = 28, P \ .03, Wang and Russell (2005) recommend examining whether the 90% RMSEA confidence intervals for the models overlap (see Raykov & Penev, 1998). That was the case with our comparison of the configural (.037-.048) and measurement invariance models (.037-.047).…”

Section: Comparison Of the Self-reported Medical And Non-medical Samplesmentioning

confidence: 81%

Core cognitions related to health anxiety in self-reported medical and non-medical samples

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive-behavioural model of health anxiety hypothesizes that the degree of health threat experienced by an individual is a function of the perceived: (1) likelihood of illness; (2) awfulness of illness; (3) difficulty coping with illness; and (4) inadequacy of medical services. While research has examined cognitions in health anxiety, it is not known whether these cognitions predict health anxiety in individuals who do or do not report medical conditions and whether these cognitions are uniquely related to health anxiety. After developing the Health Cognitions Questionnaire to assess these specific cognitions, we examined the extent to which the cognitions predicted health anxiety and poor response to reassurance in a healthy community sample (n = 273) and a sample who self-reported various medical conditions (n = 208). Supporting the cognitive-behavioural model, these cognitions predicted health anxiety and poor response to reassurance in both samples, with some differences observed between those who did or did not report medical conditions. The cognitions were uniquely related to health anxiety even after controlling for depression and general anxiety. Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed. Overall, the Health Cognitions Questionnaire has potential to facilitate further research on the development, maintenance, and treatment of health anxiety.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of the Self-reported Medical And Non-medical Samplesmentioning

confidence: 81%

Core cognitions related to health anxiety in self-reported medical and non-medical samples

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, we also visually inspected plots of expected versus observed item responses to determine model fit (cf. Wang & Russell, 2005).…”

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Gender-Related Differential Item Functioning and Predictive Validity With the Institutional Integration Scale

Baker

Caison

Meade

2007

Educational and Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the gender-related differential predictive validity of five subscales of the Institutional Integration Scale (IIS) with regard to college student withdrawal. Differential functioning of the IIS across genders was assessed using an item response theory (IRT)-based framework of differential item and test functioning. The results confirmed the absence of differential functioning and supported the predictive validity of two of the five subscales for student withdrawal. IRT analyses revealed that a number of the items did not adequately reflect the construct and should be revised or removed from the measure. A discussion of these results and the implications for higher education institutions focused on preventing student withdrawal are presented.

show abstract

“…One such exception is Wang and colleagues' work (e.g.,Wang & Hanges, 2011;Wang & Russell, 2005;Wang, Zhan, Liu, & Shultz, 2008). In these studies, the researchers used stratified random samples drawn from U.S. census data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Inconvenient Truth: Arbitrary Distinctions Between Organizational, Mechanical Turk, and Other Convenience Samples

Landers

Behrend

2015

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

585

445

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sampling strategy has critical implications for the validity of a researcher's conclusions. Despite this, sampling is frequently neglected in research methods textbooks, during the research design process, and in the reporting of our journals. The lack of guidance on this issue often leads reviewers and journal editors to rely on simple rules of thumb, myth, and tradition for judgments about sampling, which promotes the unnecessary and counterproductive characterization of sampling strategies as universally "good" or "bad." Such oversimplification, especially by journal editors and reviewers, slows the progress of the social sciences by considering legitimate data sources to be categorically unacceptable. Instead, we argue that sampling is better understood in methodological terms of range restriction and omitted variables bias. This considered approach has far-reaching implications because in industrialorganizational (I-O) psychology, as in most social sciences, virtually all of the samples are convenience samples. Organizational samples are not gold standard research sources; instead, they are merely a specific type of convenience sample with their own positive and negative implications for validity. This fact does not condemn the science of I-O psychology but does highlight the need for more careful consideration of how and when a finding may generalize based on the particular mix of validityrelated affordances provided by each sample source that might be used to investigate a particular research question. We call for researchers to explore such considerations cautiously and explicitly both in the publication and in the review of research.Despite its importance, external validity receives only cursory treatment in most research methods textbooks. Even handbooks are light on coverage; in their lengthy, classic reference work on research methods, Pedhazur 142 a r b i t r a ry di st i nc t ion s be t w e e n c on v e n i e nc e s a m pl e s 143 and Schmelkin (1991) devoted a scant four of their 819 pages to external validity, whereas Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002) provided a comparatively rigorous treatment with approximately 10 pages. In part because internal validity is a prerequisite for external validity, much greater focus in these volumes is placed on internal validity and the various techniques to maximize it. This bias is reflected more broadly in the writing and review process as well; although authors will devote pages of text to measure identification, experimental design, and analytic strategy, considerations related to external validity are often limited to a token paragraph in a limitations section. Given this focus in both seminal texts and current research literature, we suspect the balance of coverage in graduate education is similarly skewed.With such a lack of guidance, many journal reviewers are left to rely on their own idiosyncratic reasoning as to whether external validity is threatened in a particular study. The use of obvious convenience sampling, in particular, is a lightning rod for...

show abstract

Measurement Equivalence of the Job Descriptive Index Across Chinese and American Workers: Results from Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item Response Theory

Cited by 77 publications

References 47 publications

Core cognitions related to health anxiety in self-reported medical and non-medical samples

Core cognitions related to health anxiety in self-reported medical and non-medical samples

Assessing Gender-Related Differential Item Functioning and Predictive Validity With the Institutional Integration Scale

An Inconvenient Truth: Arbitrary Distinctions Between Organizational, Mechanical Turk, and Other Convenience Samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About