Methodological and Substantive Issues in Conducting Multinational and Cross-Cultural Research

Spector, Paul E.; Liu, Cong; Sánchez, Juan I.

doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111310

Cited by 61 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 132 publications

(154 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One limitation of our study has to do with sampling. In their review of methodological issues in cross‐national and multinational research, Spector, Liu, and Sanchez () argued that there are three key considerations when it comes to sampling: sample representativeness, sample comparability across countries, and sampling of countries. Like most prior cross‐national research, the samples from each nation in our study may not be representative of the nation as a whole, as they reflect nonprobability and convenience samples (i.e., those with internet access).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Societal individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as cultural moderators of relationships between job resources and strain

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe job demands–resources model is a dominant theoretical framework that describes the influence of job demands and job resources on employee strain. Recent research has highlighted that the effects of job demands on strain vary across cultures, but similar work has not explored whether this is true for job resources. Given that societal characteristics can influence individuals' cognitive structures and, to a lesser extent, values in a culture, we address this gap in the literature and argue that individuals' strain in reaction to job resources may differ across cultures. Specifically, we theorize that the societal cultural dimensions of individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance shape individual‐level job resource–strain relationships, as they dictate which types of resources (i.e., individual vs. group preference‐oriented and uncertainty‐reducing vs. not) are more likely to be valued, used, or effective in combating strain within a culture. Results revealed that societal individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance independently moderated the relationships between certain job resources (i.e., job control, participation in decision making, and clear goals and performance feedback) and strain (i.e., job satisfaction and turnover intentions). This study expands our understanding of the cross‐cultural specificity versus generalizability of the job demands–resources model.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Societal individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as cultural moderators of relationships between job resources and strain

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We recommend the use of archival data to enhance the construct validity of the training measure. Using archival data to measure the training construct may prove valuable because it consists of data gathered in the ordinary course of business without any involvement of a researcher (Spector, Liu, & Sanchez, ). Organizations are likely to retain training data for compliance, regulatory, and grant funding purposes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the organizational impact of training: The need for greater methodological rigor

Garavan

McCarthy

Sheehan

et al. 2019

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the methodological rigor of empirical quantitative studies that have investigated the training and organizational performance relationship. Through a content analysis of 217 studies published in quality journals, we demonstrate significant validity threats (internal, external construct, and statistical conclusion validity) that raise questions about the methodological rigor of the field. Our findings suggest that the time is appropriate for a renewed methodological endeavor to understanding the relationship between training and organizational performance. We make specific recommendations to enhance methodological rigor and generate research findings that will enhance operationalization of theory, help researchers to make inferences about causality, and inform the decision‐making of Human Resource Development (HRD) practitioners.

show abstract

“…Spector et al provide a framework of methods-induced differences that bias results in cross-national research using collection and analysis of primary data [17]. They identify three domains of comparability that researchers need to pay attention to: samples, data collection and the measurement instrument.…”

Section: Comparability In Cross-national Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparability in Cross-National Health Research Using Insurance Claims Data: The Cases of Germany and The Netherlands

Hrzic

Clemens²,

Westra

et al. 2019

Gesundheitswesen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Comparison is a key method in learning about what works in health and healthcare. We discuss the importance of comparability in cross-national health research using health insurance claims data, develop a framework to systematically asses these threats and apply it to the German (DaTraV) and Dutch (Vektis) national-level insurance claims datasets. Methods We propose a framework of threats to the comparability of health insurance claims databases, which includes three domains: (1) representation of populations compared, (2) data sources and data processing and (3) database contents and availability for research purposes. We apply the framework to analyze the comparability of DaTraV and Vektis databases using publicly available information (organization’s websites, scientific publications) and our experiences from an interregional project on rare diseases (EMRaDi). Results Both databases were created for the same purpose (morbidity-based risk adjustment) and use the same underlying sources of data. Differences in population representation and uncertainty about data processing procedures represent potential sources of incomparability. Access for research purposes is feasible in both databases but may be subject to long processing time. Conclusions We find important threats to the comparability of the Dutch and German national insurance claims databases and by extension to validity of any comparative health studies that rely on them. Standard adjustment techniques, making more information available about data collection and processing procedures and adding more diagnosis-related descriptors offer ways to overcome the identified threats to comparability.

show abstract

Methodological and Substantive Issues in Conducting Multinational and Cross-Cultural Research

Cited by 61 publications

References 132 publications

Societal individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as cultural moderators of relationships between job resources and strain

Societal individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as cultural moderators of relationships between job resources and strain

Measuring the organizational impact of training: The need for greater methodological rigor

Comparability in Cross-National Health Research Using Insurance Claims Data: The Cases of Germany and The Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About