Condition 9 and 10 Tests of Model Confirmation: A Review of James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982) and Contemporary Alternatives

Williams, Larry J.; O’Boyle, Ernest H.; Yu, Jia

doi:10.1177/1094428117736137

Cited by 35 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on all study variables. The model adequately fit the data ( χ 2 (194) = 978, CFI = .89, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06), although the CFI is slightly below recommendations (Williams, O'Boyle, & Yu, ). However, Williams et al.…”

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance

Koopman

Rosen

Gabriel

et al. 2019

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars are paying increasing attention to the "dark side" of citizenship behavior. One aspect of this dark side that has received relatively scant attention is "helping pressure"-an employee's perception that s/he is being encouraged to, or otherwise feels that s/he should, enact helping behavior at work. Drawing from theory associated with work stress, we examine affective and cognitive mechanisms that potentially explain why helping pressure, counterintuitively, may lead employees to engage in deviant behavior instead. Beyond examining these possible mechanisms, we also answer calls to identify a potential buffer to these effects. Drawing from self-determination theory, we examine how an employee's intrinsic motivation for citizenship may lessen the deleterious consequences of helping pressure at work. In two studies (a withinindividual experience-sampling study and a two-wave betweenindividual study), we find consistent evidence that helping pressure has a positive indirect relationship with deviant behavior through increased negative affect. Further, we find evidence that intrinsic motivation for citizenship weakens the positive relationship of helping pressure with negative affect, buffering the indirect effect on subsequent deviant behavior. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for the study of helping pressure at work are discussed. K E Y W O R D Saffect, citizenship behavior, intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, work stressors Personnel Psychology. 2020;73:333-362.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/peps

show abstract

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…However, Williams et al. (, p. 16) note that these recommendations “were only intended as guidelines,” and that fit decisions should be made by evaluating several fit statistics in a holistic manner. On this point, Hu and Bentler () advocated for a two‐index approach (e.g., SRMR and RMSEA) to assess fit.…”

Section: Study 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance

Koopman

Rosen

Gabriel

et al. 2019

Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the relationship was not in the expected direction as it was positive instead of negative. This effect did not hold for the isolated condition 9 effect (see also Williams et al., ) in which there was no evidence for a temporal relationship between challenge job demands and restoration. Regarding hindrance demands, high job insecurity was not related to lower restoration 1 year later.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…To test robustness of our results, we tested the proposed model without control variables and found the results to be identical (see also Table ). In addition, we followed Williams, O'Boyle, and Yu () recommendations and performed condition nine tests. This procedure involves isolating effects for the hypothesized paths.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenge and hindrance demands in relation to self‐reported job performance and the role of restoration, sleep quality, and affective rumination

Laethem

Beckers

Bloom

et al. 2018

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Longitudinal research on the relationship between job demands and job performance and its underlying mechanisms is scarce. The aims of this longitudinal three‐wave study among 920 Finnish employees were to ascertain whether (1) challenge job demands (i.e., workload, cognitive demands) and self‐reported job performance are positively related over time, (2) job insecurity (i.e., a hindrance demand) and job performance are negatively related over time, (3) restorative experiences during off‐job time and sleep quality are underlying mechanisms in these relations, and (4) affective rumination mediates the proposed relations of job demands and job insecurity with restoration and sleep quality. Self‐report data were analysed with structural equation modelling. The results revealed a positive, temporal relationship between challenge job demands and job performance (task and contextual performance) across 1 year, but no temporal relationship between job insecurity and self‐reported job performance. Moreover, high challenge job demands were positively related to the restorative value of off‐job activities, and favourable restoration was positively related to subsequent task performance. Finally, affective rumination mediated the relationship of challenge job demands with both restoration and sleep quality. Job insecurity was not longitudinally related to restoration, sleep quality, or affective rumination. The implications of our findings for occupational health psychology are discussed. Practitioner points Provide employees with sufficient job resources (e.g., high autonomy and social support) to adequately deal with high job demands. Allow employees sufficient time to recover from high job demands during off‐job time and provide training sessions in recovery, relaxation, meditation, and goal setting. Employees may attempt to counteract perseverative thoughts by actively pursuing distracting restoration activities (e.g., exercise, meditation).

show abstract

“…Similarly, methods sections tend to report certain statistics, such as fit indices for measurement models and coefficient alphas, to indicate the degree of measurement error. Authors may present, and reviewers may demand statistics that surpass arbitrary thresholds (Greco, O'Boyle, Cockburn, & Yuan, 2018;Williams, O'Boyle, & Yu, 2017). These hurdles in the review process put much weight on specific theoretical and methodological issues and may result in reviewers losing sight of other important features of a manuscript.…”

Section: Competency Framework For Peer Review 12mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review

Köhler

González-Morales

Banks

et al. 2020

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

show abstract

Condition 9 and 10 Tests of Model Confirmation: A Review of James, Mulaik, and Brett (1982) and Contemporary Alternatives

Cited by 35 publications

References 45 publications

Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance

Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance

Challenge and hindrance demands in relation to self‐reported job performance and the role of restoration, sleep quality, and affective rumination

Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About