Blog
About

7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues.

      , ,

      Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

      American Psychological Association (APA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Demonstrating causal relationships has been of particular importance in organizational stress research. Longitudinal studies are typically suggested to overcome problems of reversed causation and third variables (e.g., social desirability and negative affectivity). This article reviews the empirical longitudinal literature and discusses designs and statistical methods used in these studies. Forty-three longitudinal field reports on organizational stress were identified. Most of the investigations used a 2-wave panel design and a hierarchical multiple regression approach. Six studies with 3 and more waves were found. About 50% of the studies analyzed potential strain-stressor (reversed causation) relationships. In about 33% of the studies there was some evidence of reverse causation. The power of longitudinal studies to rule out third variable explanations was not realized in many studies. Procedures of how to analyze longitudinal data are suggested.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
          Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
          American Psychological Association (APA)
          1939-1307
          1076-8998
          1996
          1996
          : 1
          : 2
          : 145-169
          Article
          9547043
          © 1996

          Comments

          Comment on this article