Journal Article

Failing to Align Conceptual Definitions with Operational Definitions in Organizational Commitment Research: Truth and Consequences

Scott, Dow, Barney, Chet E, Maynard-Patrick, Stephanie, Seok, Ji-Yeon, Bishop, James W

2023

Overview

Confidence in academic research can only be had when researchers strictly adhere to the tenets of the scientific method. One important tenant is to clearly articulate the conceptual definitions of the constructs of interest and correctly pair them with the operational definitions developed to measure them (Jaccard and Jacoby, 2020). In the case of organizational commitment (OC) this tenet is violated when (1) OC is defined using the conceptual definition from Mowday et al. (1982) and is subsequently measured with the operational definition developed by Meyer and Allen (1984), or (2) when OC is defined using the Meyer and Allen (1984) conceptual definition and then measured by the operational definition developed by Mowday et al. (1982). A content analysis of both conceptual definitions confirms that they differ in substantial ways. A factor analysis of the items that made up the operational definitions (scales) demonstrated strong discriminant validity. Analysis of a nomological network yielded different results from the two scales. Further, one scale fully mediated the perceived organizational support, intent to quit relationship, while the other partially mediated the same relationship, thus leading researchers to different substantive conclusions depending upon which scale is used. These analyses provide strong evidence that the operational definitions do not measure the same construct and should not be used interchangeably.

• Publisher: Pittsburg State University - Department of Economics,Pittsburg State University, Department of Economics
• Subject: Forecasts and trends / Industrial psychology / Law enforcement / Organizational behavior / Organizational research / Questionnaires / Research methodology / Researchers / Scientific method / Validity