scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Erasmus University Rotterdam

EducationRotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
About: Erasmus University Rotterdam is a education organization based out in Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 35466 authors who have published 91288 publications receiving 4510972 citations. The organization is also known as: EUR.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a comprehensive simulation study is conducted aimed at identifying the influence of different factors on the predictive validity of single versus multi-item measures, such as the average inter-item correlations in the predictor and criterion constructs, the number of items measuring these constructs, as well as the correlation patterns of multiple and single items between the predictor between the criterion constructs.
Abstract: Establishing predictive validity of measures is a major concern in marketing research. This paper investigates the conditions favoring the use of single items versus multi-item scales in terms of predictive validity. A series of complementary studies reveals that the predictive validity of single items varies considerably across different (concrete) constructs and stimuli objects. In an attempt to explain the observed instability, a comprehensive simulation study is conducted aimed at identifying the influence of different factors on the predictive validity of single versus multi-item measures. These include the average inter-item correlations in the predictor and criterion constructs, the number of items measuring these constructs, as well as the correlation patterns of multiple and single items between the predictor and criterion constructs. The simulation results show that, under most conditions typically encountered in practical applications, multi-item scales clearly outperform single items in terms of predictive validity. Only under very specific conditions do single items perform equally well as multi-item scales. Therefore, the use of single-item measures in empirical research should be approached with caution, and the use of such measures should be limited to special circumstances.

924 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A critical assessment of the state-of-the-art in this area of research can be found in this paper, where the authors identify four problems with theory and research in charismatic-transformational leadership.
Abstract: There is a widely shared consensus that charismatic–transformational leadership is a particularly effective form of leadership. In a critical assessment of the state-of-the-science in this area of research, we question the validity of that conclusion. We identify four problems with theory and research in charismatic–transformational leadership. First, a clear conceptual definition of charismatic–transformational leadership is lacking. Current theories advance multi-dimensional conceptualizations of charismatic–transformational leadership without specifying how these different dimensions combine to form charismatic–transformational leadership, or how dimensions are selected for inclusion or exclusion. Second, theories fail to sufficiently specify the causal model capturing how each dimension has a distinct influence on mediating processes and outcomes and how this is contingent on moderating influences. Third, conceptualization and operationalization confounds charismatic–transformational leadership with i...

916 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the state of the art of job demands and resources (JD-R) model, which incorporates many possible working conditions and focuses on both negative and positive indicators of employee well-being.
Abstract: Motivation: The motivation of this overview is to present the state of the art of Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model whilst integrating the various contributions to the special issue. Research purpose: To provide an overview of the JD–R model, which incorporates many possible working conditions and focuses on both negative and positive indicators of employee well-being. Moreover, the studies of the special issue were introduced. Research design: Qualitative and quantitative studies on the JD–R model were reviewed to enlighten the health and motivational processes suggested by the model. Main findings: Next to the confirmation of the two suggested processes of the JD–R model, the studies of the special issue showed that the model can be used to predict work-place bullying, incidences of upper respiratory track infection, work-based identity, and early retirement intentions. Moreover, whilst psychological safety climate could be considered as a hypothetical precursor of job demands and resources, compassion satisfaction moderated the health process of the model. Contribution/value-add: The findings of previous studies and the studies of the special issue were integrated in the JD–R model that can be used to predict well-being and performance at work. New avenues for future research were suggested. Practical/managerial implications: The JD–R model is a framework that can be used for organisations to improve employee health and motivation, whilst simultaneously improving various organisational outcomes.

915 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
15 Jun 2006-BMJ
TL;DR: The outlook for evidence based management of low back pain has greatly improved and the current state of science regarding the diagnosis and treatment ofLow back pain is presented.
Abstract: Low back pain is a considerable health problem in all developed countries and is most commonly treated in primary healthcare settings. It is usually defined as pain, muscle tension, or stiffness localised below the costal margin and above the inferior gluteal folds, with or without leg pain (sciatica). The most important symptoms of non-specific low back pain are pain and disability. The diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with low back pain has long been characterised by considerable variation within and between countries among general practitioners, medical specialists, and other healthcare professionals.1 2 w1 Recently, a large number of randomised clinical trials have been done, systematic reviews have been written, and clinical guidelines have become available. The outlook for evidence based management of low back pain has greatly improved. This review presents the current state of science regarding the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. We used the Cochrane Library to identify relevant systematic reviews that evaluate the effectiveness of conservative, complementary, and surgical interventions. Medline searches were used to find other relevant systematic reviews on diagnosis and treatment of low back pain, with the keywords “low back pain”, “systematic review”, “meta-analysis”, “diagnosis”, and “treatment”. Our personal files were used for additional references. We also checked available clinical guidelines and used Clinical Evidence as source for clinically relevant information on benefits and harms of treatments.3 4 Most of us will experience at least one episode of low back pain during our life. Reported lifetime prevalence varies from 49% to 70% and point prevalences from 12% to 30% are reported in Western countries.w2 w3 The diagnostic process is mainly focused on the triage of patients with specific or non-specific low back pain. Specific low back pain is defined as symptoms caused by a specific pathophysiological mechanism, such …

914 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Monitoring patients with childhood ALL at consecutive time points gives clinically relevant insight into the effectiveness of treatment, and combined information on MRD from the first 3 months of treatment distinguishes patients with good prognoses from those with poor prognose, and this helps in decisions whether and how to modify treatment.

907 citations


Authors

Showing all 35695 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Walter C. Willett3342399413322
Meir J. Stampfer2771414283776
Albert Hofman2672530321405
Graham A. Colditz2611542256034
Paul M. Ridker2331242245097
Ralph B. D'Agostino2261287229636
John Q. Trojanowski2261467213948
David J. Hunter2131836207050
André G. Uitterlinden1991229156747
Robert M. Califf1961561167961
Eric J. Topol1931373151025
Frank E. Speizer193636135891
Bernard Rosner1901162147661
William B. Kannel188533175659
Patrick W. Serruys1862427173210
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Emory University
122.4K papers, 6M citations

94% related

University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

94% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

93% related

Duke University
200.3K papers, 10.7M citations

93% related

Utrecht University
139.3K papers, 6.2M citations

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202397
2022317
20216,115
20205,342
20194,754
20184,357