IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v8y2015i02p202-208_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Difference in Response Effort Across Sample Types: Perception or Reality?

Author

Listed:
  • Ran, Shan
  • Liu, Mengqiao
  • Marchiondo, Lisa A.
  • Huang, Jason L.

Abstract

Landers and Behrend (2015) question organizational researchers’ stubborn reliance on sample source to infer the validity of research findings, and they challenge the arbitrary distinctions researchers often make between sample sources. Unconditional favoritism toward particular sampling strategies (e.g., organizational samples) can restrict choices in methodology, which in turn may limit opportunities to answer certain research questions. Landers and Behrend (2015) contend that no sampling strategy is inherently superior (or inferior), and therefore, all types of samples warrant careful consideration before any validity-related conclusions can be made. Despite sound arguments, the focal article focuses its consideration on external validity and deemphasizes the potential influence of sample source on internal validity. Agreeing with the position that no samples are the “gold standard†in organizational research and practice, we focus on insufficient effort responding (IER; Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012) as a threat to internal validity across sample sources.

Suggested Citation

  • Ran, Shan & Liu, Mengqiao & Marchiondo, Lisa A. & Huang, Jason L., 2015. "Difference in Response Effort Across Sample Types: Perception or Reality?," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 202-208, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:202-208_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615000267/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:202-208_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.