Using and misusing factor analysis to explore group cohesion

Cota, Albert A.; Longman, R. Stewart; Evans, Charles R.; Dion, Kenneth L.; Kilik, Lindy A.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199503)51:2<308::aid-jclp2270510223>3.0.co;2-h

Cited by 23 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is distinguished from social or interpersonal cohesion, which reflects the origins of the construct of group cohesion -the attraction or liking that members have for their work group (Cota, Longman, Evans, Dion, & Kilik, 1995). The focus of task cohesiveness is on shared work-related goals and aspirations, and the commitment of individuals to them.…”

Section: Perceived Expatriate Task Cohesiveness As a Basis Of Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of task cohesiveness and organizational support increase trust and information sharing between host country nationals and expatriate coworkers in Oman

Toh

Srinivas

2012

Journal of World Business

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Perceived Expatriate Task Cohesiveness As a Basis Of Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of task cohesiveness and organizational support increase trust and information sharing between host country nationals and expatriate coworkers in Oman

Toh

Srinivas

2012

Journal of World Business

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Multidimensional definitions of group cohesion typically distinguish between task and social aspects of cohesion (Cota et al, 1995;Kidwell, Mossholder & Bennett, 1997;Rosen, Bliese, Wright & Gifford, 1999). Social cohesion refers to an individual's desire and opportunity to develop and maintain friendships within his/her workgroup, and is consistent with the previously described interpersonal attraction.…”

Section: Reported Factors Of Cohesionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Factor-Analytic Study Exploring the Factors of Co-Worker Cohesion

Treuer

Fuller‐Tyszkiewicz

Atkinson

2010

The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the applied importance of cohesion within organisational settings, researchers have yet to reach consensus about the dimensionality of group cohesion, and therefore appropriate tools for its measurement. The way that cohesion has generally been conceptualised has changed over time, but the measures appear not to reflect the underlying theory. This deficiency has impeded attempts to explore the relationship between co-worker cohesion and group performance (Beal et al., 2003; Mullen & Copper, 1994). Given inconsistent findings from previous factor analyses of cohesion, the present study employed exploratory means to help clarify the factor structure of cohesion within the workplace. Potential participants were recruited via the researchers' social networks. This snowballing technique led to 236 participants completing the online questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four first-order factors of team commitment, friendliness, interpersonal conflict and communication that collectively accounted for 55.17% of the variance shared among the 75 cohesion items. Subsequently, a single higher-order factor was extracted which accounted for over half of the co-variation among the first order factors. This higher-order factor seems to reflect a general cohesion factor, as it was loaded by a diffuse collection of items, including those from the four lower-order factors as well as items that failed to load onto these lower-order factors. While there were similarities between these results and those of previous studies, the present factor structure did not map perfectly onto any of the existing conceptual models of cohesion. This finding highlights the need to incorporate some alternate factors that have previously been given little consideration.

show abstract

“…Factor loadings give a good indication of the contribution of each item to the overall reliability. Replication of factor solutions across multiple and varied samples of groups are essential for generalizability (Cota et al, 1995;Schwab, 1980). The lack of construct validity of the GEQ found by Carless and De Paola (2000) and others (Dyce & Cornell, 1996;Schutz et al, 1994) raises concerns about the studies that have used the GEQ.…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Carron and Brawley

Carless

2000

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carron and Brawley have raised questions about the research methodology used by Carless and DePaola. In addressing their comments, the author begins by raising the issues of level of theory, level of data collection, and level of analysis. The author argues that there is increasing evidence that the most appropriate level of conceptualization of cohesion is the group level rather than the individual level. Following is a discussion of methodological issues raised by Carron and Brawley: (a) temporal issues associated with groups, (b) the nature of the group, and (c) statistical analyses. The author concludes the article with a call for the development of a nomological network of relationships with cohesion.

show abstract

Using and misusing factor analysis to explore group cohesion

Cited by 23 publications

References 64 publications

Perceptions of task cohesiveness and organizational support increase trust and information sharing between host country nationals and expatriate coworkers in Oman

Perceptions of task cohesiveness and organizational support increase trust and information sharing between host country nationals and expatriate coworkers in Oman

A Factor-Analytic Study Exploring the Factors of Co-Worker Cohesion

Reply to Carron and Brawley

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About