Composing Group-Level Constructs From Individual-Level Survey Data

被引:195
作者
van Mierlo, Heleen [1 ,2 ]
Vermunt, Jeroen K. [3 ]
Rutte, Christel G. [4 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus Univ, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Tilburg Univ, Dept Methodol & Stat, Tilburg, Netherlands
[4] Eindhoven Univ Technol, Fac Social & Behav Sci, Dept Psychol & Soc, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven, Netherlands
关键词
aggregation; composition models; measuring group constructs; EXPLORATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS; WORK-DESIGN; BEHAVIOR; ISSUES; AGGREGATION; REPLICATION; AGREEMENT;
D O I
10.1177/1094428107309322
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Group-level constructs are often derived from individual-level data. This procedure requires a composition model, specifying how the lower level data can be combined to compose the higher level construct. Two common composition methods are direct consensus composition, where items refer to the individual, and referent-shift consensus composition, where items refer to the group. The use and selection of composition methods is subject to a number of problems, calling for more systematic work on the empirical properties of and distinction between constructs composed by different methods. To facilitate and encourage such work, the authors present a methodological framework for addressing the distinction between and the baseline psychometric quality of composed group constructs, illustrated by an empirical example in the group job-design domain. The framework primarily represents a developmental tool with applications in multilevel theory building and scale construction, but also in meta-analysis or secondary analysis, and more general, the validation of group constructs.
引用
收藏
页码:368 / 392
页数:25
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
Bliese P., 2000, Multilevel, theory, research and methods in organizations, P349, DOI DOI 10.12691/EDUCATION-3-1-14
[2]  
Bryk A., 1982, Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioral research: Applications and data analysis methods
[3]   Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension [J].
Campion, MA ;
Papper, EM ;
Medsker, GJ .
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 49 (02) :429-452
[4]   Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models [J].
Chan, D .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 83 (02) :234-246
[5]   Statistical properties of the rWG(J) index of agreement [J].
Cohen, A ;
Doveh, E ;
Eick, U .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2001, 6 (03) :297-310
[6]  
Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, V2nd
[7]  
CORDERY JL, 1996, HDB WORK GROUP PSYCH, P225
[8]   Predicting group-level outcome variables from variables measured at the individual level: A latent variable multilevel model [J].
Croon, Marcel A. ;
van Veldhoven, Marc J. P. M. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2007, 12 (01) :45-57
[9]  
Dansereau F., 1984, THEORY TESTING ORG B
[10]   Is more discussion about levels of analysis really necessary? When is such discussion sufficient? [J].
Dansereau, Fred ;
Yammarino, Francis J. .
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY, 2006, 17 (05) :537-552