scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Mary M. Hausfeld

Bio: Mary M. Hausfeld is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dispute resolution & Best practice. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 3 publications receiving 79 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Discussion of several forms of adaptations regarding potential threats to validity and recommendations for the kinds of evidence that might best support the validity of the adapted scale (including a reviewer checklist) are presented.

139 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorhip policies, and any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity.
Abstract: Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.

16 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the conceptual foundations of sample and measurement issues in Experience Sampling (ESM) studies are reviewed and recommendations for reporting sample-and measurement-related aspects of ESM studies are presented.
Abstract: Over the last couple of decades, studies using the experience sampling methodology (ESM) have been used with increasing frequency within the management-related sciences as the method allows researchers the opportunity to investigate questions involving ongoing, dynamic, intra-individual processes. Given the longitudinal nature of the methodology and the resulting multi-level data structure, there are sample- and measurement-related issues that make ESM studies different from other methods commonly used in management research. Consequently, ESM studies have demands for reporting sample- and measurement-related information that differ from more commonly used methods. In the current paper, we review the conceptual foundations of sample and measurement issues in ESM studies and report the findings of a survey of the ESM studies to identify current reporting practices. We then offer clear, easy to implement recommendations for reporting sample- and measurement-related aspects of ESM studies. We hope that these recommendations will improve reporting of ESM studies and allow readers the opportunity to more fully and comprehensively evaluate the research presented.

3 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Workplace deviance research has expanded rapidly over the past decade as discussed by the authors, and despite the expansive body of research available, we have an incomplete understanding of the measurement, magnitude, and direc...

72 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article conducted a systematic literature review of destructive leadership research and drew from 418 empirical samples of data to conduct random-effects meta-analyses that estimate the magnitude and direction of relationships within destructive leadership's nomological network.

63 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A user-friendly R Shiny app is offered that identifies the subset of items that maximize a variety of psychometric criteria rather than merely maximizing alpha, given that model complexity appears to have increased the need for short scales.
Abstract: The psychometric soundness of measures has been a central concern of articles published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) since the inception of the journal. At the same time, it isn't clear that investigators and reviewers prioritize psychometric soundness to a degree that would allow one to have sufficient confidence in conclusions regarding constructs. The purposes of the present article are to (a) examine current scale development and evaluation practices in JAP; (b) compare these practices to recommended practices, previous practices, and practices in other journals; and (c) use these comparisons to make recommendations for reviewers, editors, and investigators regarding the creation and evaluation of measures including Excel-based calculators for various indices. Finally, given that model complexity appears to have increased the need for short scales, we offer a user-friendly R Shiny app (https://orgscience.uncc.edu/about-us/resources) that identifies the subset of items that maximize a variety of psychometric criteria rather than merely maximizing alpha. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

54 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors empirically examined the degree to which various constructs in the organizational sciences can be reliably and validly assessed with a single item and found that 75 of the 91 focal measures demonstrated very good or extensive validity, evidencing moderate-to high content validity, no usability concerns, moderate to high test-retest reliability and extensive criterion validity.
Abstract: The application of single-item measures has the potential to help applied researchers address conceptual, methodological, and empirical challenges. Based on a large-scale evidence-based approach, we empirically examined the degree to which various constructs in the organizational sciences can be reliably and validly assessed with a single item. In study 1, across 91 selected constructs, 71.4% of the single-item measures demonstrated strong if not very strong definitional correspondence (as a measure of content validity). In study 2, based on a heterogeneous sample of working adults, we demonstrate that the majority of single-item measures examined demonstrated little to no comprehension or usability concerns. Study 3 provides evidence for the reliability of the proposed single-item measures based on test–retest reliabilities across the three temporal conditions (1 day, 2 weeks, 1 month). In study 4, we examined issues of construct and criterion validity using a multi-trait, multi-method approach. Collectively, 75 of the 91 focal measures demonstrated very good or extensive validity, evidencing moderate to high content validity, no usability concerns, moderate to high test–retest reliability, and extensive criterion validity. Finally, in study 5, we empirically examined the argument that only conceptually narrow constructs can be reliably and validly assessed with single-item measures. Results suggest that there is no relationship between subject matter expert evaluations of construct breadth and reliability and validity evidence collected across the first four studies. Beyond providing an off-the-shelf compendium of validated single-item measures, we abstract our validation steps providing a roadmap to replicate and build upon. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

49 citations