7 {# u6 @: f+ O1 [; @7 }% v8 a1 x Major Textbooks:" y" i, c4 z. |, `% {( F4 V
Kerlinger, F.N. & Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of BehavioralResearch. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. % g4 w8 c$ A$ k! r$ e+ V" t6 ASchwab, D.P. (2005). Research Methods for Organizational Studies. (2ndEd.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. [Amazon] [Google Book]" L7 o! i* @. i8 I' l6 B; M Klein, K.J.& Kozlowski, S.W. (eds.). (2000). Multilevel Theory,Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and NewDirections. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Amazon]; Y5 I! n, j( ~' |; A* ~ Supplementary Books:2 m9 Z9 d0 h9 W- F4 e4 { Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1998). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Science. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceEarlbaum.[Amazon]4 |/ o1 m1 O$ c$ C Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design andAnalysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. [Amazon]/ \ \1 t! ?# W0 C- r# l' n( T3 o
Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 1998. MultivariateData Analysis. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJrentice-Hall. [Amazon]( r0 s0 B- }7 Z9 a
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. 1991. Measurement, Design, andAnalysis: An Integrated Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. 6 o3 {# k2 s) f5 c. V+ hRogelberg, S.G. (ed.) 2002. Handbook of Research Methodsin Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.# w5 ~' j8 U& n4 n- O3 z, H, { Journal of Management. 1997. Special Issue on Hierarchical LinearModels. 23(6). ( x+ q4 m0 Z" BAcademy of Management Review. 1999. Special topic forum on multileveltheory building. 24(2). ; F8 f# e8 u1 j9 U6 RMultivariate Behavioral Research. 2001. Special issue on multilevelmodels. 36(2).2 x8 J* W, }/ s7 C& Y3 r1 r& t Leadership Quarterly. 2002. Special issue: Bench marking multilevelmethods in leadership. 13(1).$ D1 L9 s: y) e' E, W' s$ V: J Academy of Management Journal. 2007. Special forum on multilevelresearch. 50,6.* y9 t- ^) z9 H
Kreft, I. & de Leeuw, J. 1998. Introducing Multilevel Modeling.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage./ `* m* A+ Z, }4 }% k% X Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical LinearModels in Social and Behavioral Research: Application and Data AnalysisMethods. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 5 u2 {! j0 J0 k5 D0 W6 R( uRoberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1978.Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. ( X+ Q/ B: ^+ J+ u; H/ CRoberts, K. H., & Burstein, K. (eds.) 1980. Issuesin aggregation: New directions for methodology of social and behavior science (vol.6). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4 g, w* ]8 F) E陳曉萍、徐淑英、樊景立、鄭伯壎（2008），組織與管理研究的實證方法，台北：華泰文化。 ( O3 x1 S1 F5 G, o+ Z! l + I7 X8 E4 H0 u. b( n$ WIssue 1: Introduction: Science, Knowledge, and Theory 7 _3 M$ x( \: F: N8 m* s; kK & L: Chapter 1 ! F2 Q4 K% Q8 ^' ?+ e" @3 M( X01-01. Burrell, G.& Morgan, G. 1979. Assumptions about the nature of Science. SociologicalParadigms and Organizational Analysis. 1-9. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann EducationalBooks.4 K; `8 g, C. G1 l* }1 a1 C5 }1 P
01-02. Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroyinggood management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education,4(1): 75-91. 7 D l" q) @- d# [3 o01-03. Gioia, D.A. & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theorybuilding. Academy of Management Review,15(4): 584-602.( ?* h% q" e; M0 \3 l# T% g
01-04. Orlitzky, M. 2002. Book review: Research Methods forOrganizational Studies by D. P. Schwab. Organizational Research Methods,5(1): 126-128.- C( t" o z$ h+ r$ _' D& M" }7 l( P4 d
01-05. Wright, T. A., & Wright, V. P. 1999. Ethicalresponsibility and the organizational researcher: A committed-to-participantresearch perspective. JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,20(7): 1107-1112. 3 }9 U5 O. A/ b% I9 J01-06. Porter, L. 1996. Forty years of organization studies:Reflections from a micro perspective. AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,41: 262-269.$ s( S1 s+ ^7 v
01-07. 陳曉萍等（2008）：Ch1: 科學過程與研究設計。 3 I+ L3 {4 `# Y5 y% d6 j1 S" q01-08. 陳曉萍等（2008）：Ch2: 研究的起點：提問。 h8 a% e* V. i& m% n1 s1 e5 E$ w
4 G. Y& x( v) e% [2 D1 ] Issue 2: Theory and Hypothesis Development F* B6 u! c$ r" g& J/ I02-01. Schwab: Chapters 1 and 2 ! Z! L! a8 ~( J. v# E02-02. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Somecriteria for evaluation. AcademyofManagementReview,14: 496-515. $ [% c. ~, D4 f" Z0 G1 j3 F$ Z02-03. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. What makes a management researchinteresting and why does it matter? AcademyofManagementJournal,49(1): 9-15. 0 h3 t# H0 j0 ^7 X# a! h02-04. Bergeron D. M. 2007. The potential paradox of organizationcitizenship behavior: good citizens at what cost? AcademyofManagementReview, 32 (4):1078–1095. 4 E$ j+ i: N& G1 I6 t2 D, ?02-05. Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenologyof sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Science,1(2): 309-344. S& ^+ C5 T( m* Z. x* R02-06. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. 1998. Trust and distrust: new relationships andrealities. Academy of Management Review, 23: 438-458.( V+ \$ Z0 k. {- Z* B
02-07. Morris, J. A. & Feldman, D. C. 1996. The dimensions, antecedents, andconsequences of emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21(4):986-1010.3 ?- ^4 \% _2 p% V
02-08. Podsakoff, P. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1987). Research methodology inorganizational studies. Journal of Management, 13, 419-441.; V0 u) L) f7 G& o8 u( {; G
02-09. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. A. (1993). The motivational effects ofcharismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4,577–594.: o3 c |+ H8 R! [
02-10. Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 40: 371-384.: `# [% L- G' ~5 D k: q: A$ v: n
02-11. Weick, K.E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 40: 385-390. 6 t- c$ s$ @& z. h% e3 Y02-12. Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoreticalcontribution. Academy of Management Review, 14: 490-495.. l k' ~- |9 L8 D
02-13. 陳曉萍等（2008）：Ch3: 管理研究中的理論建構。 ! a% L. f* b& l) ~# `4 x02-14. Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. (2009). The practice of theory borrowing inorganizational studies: Current issues and future directs. Journal ofManagement, 35(3), 537-563. ! E5 g: J$ q7 v0 d% S& v9 k - @7 S* a3 c" w5 G: D% t3 a! ?5 [: iIssue 3: Construct and Dimensionality: Multidimensional construct [Discussion]' X U" x& t9 n: n' v3 V! \% g, R5 i/ k
03-01. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs inorganizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework.Organizational Research Methods, 4(2): 144-192.; f& D- O" ]8 U9 {. x
03-02. Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. (1999). Multidimensional constructs instructural equation analysis: An illustration using the job perception and jobsatisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25(2): 143-160. : W: G3 _( k, [6 d) K4 n03-03. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensionalconstructs. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 741-755. 7 K7 T( u6 l3 R; [, } }03-04. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality oforganizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 52-65.+ E7 d& C0 T8 S9 n" Z' G( E# o
03-05. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K.E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptiveperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4): 612-624.6 T$ r' Y2 L1 o! Y5 \
03-06. Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., & Huang, G. H. (2008). On the importance of conductingconstruct-level analysis for multidimensional constructs in theory developmentand testing. Journal of Management, 34 (5): 744-764. 6 y3 F0 w* Q1 L; i5 ?03-07. 陳曉萍等（2008）：ch12 1 x: Y0 q3 D6 C* v7 Z2 W; z) ` }- X2 x2 j Issue 4: Measurement: Reliability and Validity [Discussion]6 [! o( d, y9 q `, t
**Schwab: Chapters 3, 4, 8 1 D6 j4 w& `) f+ o z JK & L: Chapters 26, 27, 28./ M+ [; ]7 J; V" o. @$ k
04-01. Negy, S. M. 2002. Using a single-item approach to measure facetjob satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75:77-86.) B" ~1 y) s: d* r3 X
04-02. **Schmitt, N. W., & Klimoski, R. J. 1991. Determining the quality of ourmeasures. In Research Methods in Human Resources Management, (pp.88-114). Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co.) |/ g m- v8 x; Q1 U
04-03. Austin, J. T., Boyle, K. A., & Lualhati, J. C. 1998.Statistical conclusion validity for organizational science researchers: Areview. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 164-208., A/ J( i; K. B. m0 l
04-04. Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., Scandura, T. A., Lankau,M. J., & Powers, K. J. 1999. An empirical comparison of approaches forquantitatively assessing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil instruments. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 2: 140-156. V! Y* G; I# g3 L6 W! g! w04-05. Wanous, J. P., & Huddy M. J. 2001. Single-item reliability:A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4(4):361-375.. B" } w( d: M4 X% V+ C* V
04-06. Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. 2006. Assessing theconvergent and discriminant validity of Goldberg's international personalityitem pool: A multitrait-multimethod examination. Organizational ResearchMethods, 9(1): 29-54. + r- W5 n J1 E s$ Y. Y04-07. Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., & Feild, H. S. 2006. The measurementequivalence of web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transformationalleadership: A multinational test. Organizational Research Methods, 9(3):339-368." `9 a+ i& o* |2 K) Q
04-08. Meade, A.W., & Eby, L. T. 2007. Using indices of groupagreement in multilevel construct validation. Organizational ResearchMethods, 10: 75-96.. `( x0 i W, H6 r& N
0 V( G) |+ K0 {( |/ [' h5 x6 s Issue 5: Measurement: Scale Development 7 W: z- K8 d2 S9 E* ?+ B; T**Schwab: Chapter 4 ; q* w4 u* y1 P05-01. **Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development ofmeasures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods,1: 104-121. 0 D5 I; s" R! A. F3 x8 m05-02. DeVellis, R. F. 1991. Scale Development: Theory andApplication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.: [2 ^ k# u# ~$ Y. f
05-03. Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. 2000. A Review andSynthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, andRecommendations for Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods,3: 4-70. 9 b- P5 d# U$ ?- _7 g05-04. **Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B. & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior inthe People’s Republic of China, Organization Science, 15: 241-253." I; b) _) X. @8 a5 S; t
05-05. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 1999. Measuring impression management inorganizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxnonomy, OrganizationalResearch Methods, 2: 141-160. / H; N- ?- [, c) _/ @( X6 U* ^' e05-06. **陳曉萍等（2008）：ch11 : q. ~, T: @- N( n% H. x$ t& t- U3 B X& |% X. Y3 Z( j( A6 a [9 P' K Issue 6: Scale Development for Chinese Management Research+ U% m% w* l( _( j9 C
MOR, special issue: 2006, 2(3). 2 r2 a L. W) h6 n! Q% X: G3 X. Q. r& { Issue 7: Constructs and Hypothesis Testing j/ @/ s9 u9 w5 A/ Z4 c
K & L: Chapters 2, 3, and 5 4 c& m& O8 H1 v8 y**Schwab: Chapter 13- m! e5 |8 N4 }+ \8 w/ N
07-01. **Higgins, M. C. & Kram, K. E. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: Adevelopmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 6(2):264-288. ! u' a8 @) G! ^* j) e3 N8 z07-02. Law, K. S. & Wong, C. 1999. Multidimensional constructs in structuralequation analysis: An illustration using the job perception and jobsatisfaction constructs. Journal of Management. 25(2):143-160.3 G! V+ F( A$ f: U" {4 G
07-03. **Cortina, J. M., & Folger, R. G. 1998. When is it acceptable to accept a nullhypothesis: No way, Jose? Organizational Research Methods, 1: 334-350. 7 G3 H- h" u% I% p0 m0 |07-04. **陳曉萍等（2008）：ch54 n- A! J# t, [6 C6 C, j' m7 }7 I
07-05. Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2001. Recent advances in causal modelingmethods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management,29(6): 903-936. 5 K! w9 ]1 F7 g/ k 7 o5 i# h+ S* l, DIssue 8: Sampling, Field studies and Surveys, ]: _! n9 z3 ?, a5 B* ~" p( k
**Schwab: Chapters 5 and 7 & M" F& m) X+ @* T+ j' _5 dK & L: Chapters 8, 18, 19, 20, 25 and 29 & u9 ~( ]/ T' d) h- z2 r08-01. Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. 1986. The “science of the sophomore” revisited:From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11(1):191-207.6 x/ a* r1 L; y- K0 r! Q
08-02. Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. 1987. Student guinea pigs: Porcine predictorsand particularistic phenomena. Academy of Management Review, 12(1):160-163.+ W( K$ r: Z" ^0 Z3 E( c
08-03. Greenberg, J. 1987. The college sophomore as guinea pig:Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12(1):157-159. & }" A1 u$ T* c; Z- Y- p# ~08-04. Mollica, K. A. & Dewitt, R. L. 2000. When others retireearly: What about me? Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1068-1075.! I. _1 A8 K' r4 h" Y) W
08-05. **Tsai, W. C. & Huang, I. M. 2002. Mechanisms linkingemployee affective delivery and customer behavioral intentions, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 1001-1008., x" H! s; h- a0 V0 \/ c( B
08-06. Saks, A. M. 1995. Longitudinal field investigation of themoderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship betweentraining and new comer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80:211-225. ) x3 V7 o* [+ z/ M" |/ x08-07. Werner, S., Praxedes, M., & Kim, H.G. 2007. The reportingof nonresponse analysis in survey research. Organizational Research Methods,10: 287-295.. ^) |* G2 d4 o1 c
08-08. **陳曉萍等（2008）：ch8+ P/ _1 S3 g/ H$ r- D0 ?6 o
08-09. Austin, J. T., Scherbaum, C. A., & Mahlman, R. A.(2002). History of research methods in industrial and organizationalpsychology: Measurement, design, analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg(Ed.), Handbook of research methods inindustrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1-33). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.6 W. V4 C' c `% M& B' r
08-10. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodologicalfit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1155-1179. , a4 E: A- g* J" W! Z08-11. Stone-Romero, E. F., Weaver, A. E., & Glenar, J. L. (1995).Trends in research design and data analytic strategies in organizationalresearch. Journal of Management, 21, 141-157. * X# x2 \" a* U08-12. Werner, S., Praxedes, M., & Kim, H. (2007). The reportingof nonresponse analyses in survey research. Organizational Research Methods,10: 287-295.5 s6 p; M& g/ T, |7 [6 K3 c
0 U8 w5 ]: `! pIssue 9: Experiments and Quasi-Experiments& D1 c; w' a) S
**Schwab: Chapter 6 X0 z2 f. p4 T: m6 T. L0 nK & L: Chapters 24 and 22 2 t- ~. T$ @2 `$ f0 V; \9 o" ?09-01. Cook, T. D. & Shadish, W. R. 1994. Social experiments:Some developments over the past fifteen years. Annual Review of Psychology,45: 545-580.# ?+ m2 ^+ N) H# V
09-02. **Dvir, T., Eden, D., & Banjo, M.L. 1995. Self-fulfillingprophecy and gender: Can women be Pygmalion and Galatea? Journal of AppliedPsychology, 80(2): 153-170. 9 | N/ [3 w( }: \$ d! u09-03. Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. 2000. Theparadox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistencefollowing radical environment change. Academy of Management Journal,43(5): 837-853. 6 ?3 l" G. C% t ~& n' v8 {09-04. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership onfollower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45(4): 735-744. . r2 d% }9 i# b* [09-05. Greenberg, J. & Tomlinson, E. C. 2004. Situated experimentsin organizations: Transplanting the lab to the field. Journal of Management,30(5): 703-724.2 Y4 h: ^6 j8 A" l' |) z1 j
09-06. **陳曉萍等（2008）：ch6, ch7.7 {+ d# g3 n {1 Q p
$ l( L5 S$ e4 L5 ? Issue 10: Case Studies and Qualitative Research/ \- x0 x* c( F; ?# s
10-01. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case studyresearch. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550. . L5 D+ o; a+ L$ U10-02. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions inhigh-velocity environment. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3):543-576.# n$ m$ o% }6 o) U: E' Z$ n
10-03. Morgan, G. & Smircich, L. 1980. The case forQualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5(4): 491-500. . ]$ N2 J; ?# d6 g5 B! B10-04. Barley, S. R. 1996. Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographicevidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative ScienceQuarterley, 41(3): 404-441.; }" L# X7 i3 x# X
10-05. Elsbach, K. D. & Kramer, R.M. 2003. Assessing creativity inHollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativityjudgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3): 283-301. 8 X9 a' l5 r# M2 N' w10-06. King, N. 2004. Using interviews in organizational research. InC. Cassell and G. Symon (eds.) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods inOrganizational Research. 11-22. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.7 E! g6 c4 [# T: a% ?
10-07. Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. 1991. The dynamics ofintense work groups: A study of British String Quartets, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 36: 165-186.* s% ^, b3 h+ n
10-08. Silvester, J. 2004. Attributional coding. In C. Cassell and G.Symon (eds.) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in OrganizationalResearch. 228-241. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.- q; U0 s4 @7 l+ |& i- c% x! B5 o+ B4 `
10-09. 陳曉萍等（2008）：ch10 " ~3 m, S0 F9 j$ W" j, p9 o3 z10-10. Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. (2008). Grounded theory method inmanagement research: Users' perspectives. Organizational Research Methods, 11,430-455. / t/ q+ M( M+ ]2 w- k3 Q' O3 B ) r; y/ `1 r* V; H, R7 w2 GIssue 11: Statistical Analysis and Inference [Discussion]& i2 Z+ Y4 M b" b# A
**Schwab: Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13/ H3 r: o$ l f- }& g7 V8 e0 p- a
K & L: Chapters 95 p! T! _( C( i# R! _ O5 _! P
11-01. Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whosetime has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5),746-759.. N3 ?; h2 j0 [3 J0 M3 x* t. p
11-02. Kirk, R. E. (2001). Promoting good statistical practices: Somesuggestions. Educational and Psychological measurement, 61(2),213-218. ! [/ U, `4 @4 \8 v/ r4 Q. l' L11-03. McFarland, L.A., Ryan, A. M., & Kriska, S. D. (2003).Impression management use and effectiveness across assessment methods. Journalof Management, 29(5), 641-661.. Y5 F2 {4 s& c. z' y6 D
11-04. Rauniar, R. & Shah, S. (2002). Statistical significance vs.practical (meaningful or clinical or biological) significance for academic andnon-academic research. Decision Sciences Institute 2002 Annual MeetingProceedings, 2469-2472.7 T% Q7 O8 n+ I6 H. p" F6 A# q% Y3 V
11-05. LaHuis, D.M., & Avis, J. M. (2007). Using multilevel randomcoefficient modeling to investigate rater effects in performance ratings. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 10, 97-107." J* \2 I- u- Y- j9 p
11-06. Cashen, L., & Geiger, S. W. (2004). Statistical power andthe testing of null hypotheses: A review of contemporary management researchand recommendations for future studies. Organizational Research Methods, 7,151-167. e5 L g+ V9 Z6 ?# m+ V7 k
Y# G& m4 ^# i$ h7 w) MIssue 12: Basic concept of mediation and moderation + d, r; R/ X' ~* O3 ]( ]1 y4 ~; ^**Schwab: Chapters 11 and 19 : I- T# B5 x' j* BK & L: Chapters 33 and 34, y! R- Y" p' T+ |/ |
12-01. **Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51(6): 1173-1182. # }6 ^0 M) Q: J3 a0 b12-02. James, L. R. & Brett, J. M. 1984. Meidators,moderators, and test for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology,69(2): 307-321. n- g+ F' w6 y+ M3 j8 {
12-03. Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. 2006. Clarifying conditionsand decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1031-1056. 6 x. L" j/ x1 i12-04. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. 2007.Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 593-614.: j$ O- c4 H# T; B7 F9 ^
12-05. **陳曉萍等（2008）：ch14 0 J' i \* @8 v# W ( [; L# ~* Q% E: a0 J% ^: R( r3 Q/ fIssue 13: Testing mediating effects: U' v$ L4 C/ J6 u9 j ?
13-01. Mathieu, J. E., DeShon, R. P., & Bergh, D. D. 2008.Mediational inferences in organizational research: Then, now, and beyond. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 11(2): 203-223.6 Z* v$ F, Y, [3 a
13-02. Kenny, D. A. 2008. Reflections on mediation. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 11(2): 353-358.+ q( }% _8 K' }/ Q: P& z
13-03. James, L. 2008. On the path to mediation. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 11(2): 359-363.1 {/ j5 v( }4 J' q5 k( I% M5 i
13-04. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G.,& Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and otherintervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1): 83-104.8 o) @9 _! Z3 e+ X* J
13-05. Pituch, K. A., Whittaker, T. A., & Stapleton, L. M. 2005. Acomparison of methods to test for mediation in multisite experiments. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 40: 1-24. 6 g/ g8 g: }6 p: ~; d) b4 E% M& X! y13-06. Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. 1975. The decomposition ofeffects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40(1): 37-47.7 q" V. t# A! V4 }6 n# t c- Y) P
13-07. Bobko, P., & Rieck, A. 1980. Large sample estimators forstandard errors of functions of correlation coefficients. AppliedPsychological Measurement, 4: 385-398./ E" r7 G# F, a, g
13-08. Bollen, K. A. 1987. Total direct and indirect effects instructural equation models. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.), Sociological methodology(pp. 37-69). Washington DC: American Sociological Association. ' }+ [; _( T* o1 @! P2 r0 W1 {13-09. Freedman, L. S., & Schatzkin, A. 1992. Sample size forstudying intermediate endpoints within intervention trials of observationalstudies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 136: 1148-1159. S$ e/ h/ N9 @# v$ `13-10. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1981. Process Analysis: Estimating mediationin treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5: 602-619. % x$ @6 D7 B2 d13-11. MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. 1993. Estimating mediatedeffects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17: 144-158. 8 m" n7 w& g( x# K. p0 F$ C13-12. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. 2000.Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. PreventionScience, 1: 173-181.! R% {; q$ x4 ~/ m6 M& N
13-13. MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. 1995. Asimulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 30: 41-62.! [5 h4 m1 G7 K3 w
13-14. Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals forindirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.) SociologicalMethodology 1982, (pp. 290-312). Washington, DC: American SociologicalAssociation. / b/ `$ T& S" D9 @6 i- _0 b9 D X1 o13-15. Sobel, M. E. 1990. Effect analysis and causation in linearstructural equation models. Psychometrika, 55: 495-515.. Z9 n1 ]: E$ H2 n' A% r
13-16. Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. 1999. Statistical power andtests of mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies forsmall sample research. Newbury Park: Sage.* K' q) K4 `5 E6 T+ g1 O0 p
13-17. MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. 1948. On a distinctionbetween hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. PsychologicalReview, 55: 95-107.0 T z4 K. ?2 Y# q
13-18. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. 2007.Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 593-614. ( _" i3 X& O2 h" w5 H3 C; C# ]13-19. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G.,& Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test the significance ofthe mediated effect. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104. 9 F+ P% C! f p1 y8 \7 C13-20. MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J.H. 1995. A simulation study of mediated effect measures. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 30: 41-62.8 w) E2 Q& h3 W: D+ D
13-21. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation inexperimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. PsychologicalMethods, 7: 422-445. ' G4 ^9 ^0 J Q1 p% h. \+ A4 C13-22. Smith, E. 1982. Beliefs, attributions, and evaluations:Nonhierarchical models of mediation in social cognition. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 43: 248-259. % q, x9 L; |) C2 i1 n8 C$ F13-23. Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervalsfor indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.),Sociological Methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). Washington DC: AmericanSociological Association.+ U7 Y( @/ x# n& |) m) Z0 n
/ {* @- P' ^1 R- gIssue 14: Testing moderating effects 7 C7 Y: y! P, J7 c: n14-01. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A.T. 2002. Time, teams, task performance: Changing effects of surface-anddeep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of management Journal,45(2): 1029-1045.- }8 F! g7 M+ T9 }# W
14-02. Cronbach, L. J. 1987. Statistical tests for moderatorvariables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin,102(3): 414-417.0 \, |& P+ I( R+ Q: E& y9 @7 ?
14-03. Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R. 2002. Neutralizing substitutes for leadershiptheory: Leadership effects and common methods bias. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87(3): 454-464.2 T" k6 E: `1 `. C6 e. _
14-04. Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. 2006. Clarifying conditionsand decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1031-1056.% a9 o E# Q. z% b8 S
14-05. Stone E. F. & Hollenbeck, J. R. 1989. Clarifyingcontroversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderatorvariables: Empirical evidence and related matters. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74(1): 3-10. ) Z4 o4 L5 ]. `* W14-06. Villa, J. R., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., Daniel, D. L.2003. Problems with detecting moderators in leadership research using moderatedmultiple regression. Leadership Quarterly, 14(1): 3-23. ( F# C q$ L( T0 d, a8 o8 Y. ?; [" V1 V3 J, L, j$ Y Issue 15: Testing mediated moderation and moderated mediation ! x% ^1 ]; s* B7 e& T _ b; LSchwab: Chapters 11 and 19 # `8 t1 U6 r# [% h: N% e: YK & L: Chapters 33 and 34 ) x" g+ U0 A7 ]15-01. Edwards, J. R. & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods forintegrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework usingmoderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1): 1-22. 7 B' t( j# S2 q15-02. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. 2006.Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation inmultilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,11: 142-163. + l5 p8 [1 {# s" _9 V15-03. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert L. S. 2007. Methods forintegrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework usingmoderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 1-22.( `" i9 F8 g$ Q: n' ?4 d9 p
15-04. Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D., & Bolger,N. 2003. Lower level mediation in multilevel models. PsychologicalMethods, 8: 115-128.! F' x# ~4 y6 H' H7 k' m; Y( ~( C
15-05. Kraemer H. C., Wilson G. T., Fairburn C. G., & Agras W.S. 2002. Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomizedclinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59: 877-883. 3 x5 c% D4 X0 o0 Z15-06. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). Whenmoderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 89: 852-863. ( y1 F+ ] E, g' ]$ d* g! x) S4 N15-07. Krull, J. L. & MacKinnon, D. P. 1999. Multilevelmediation modeling in group-based intervention studies. EvaluationReview, 23: 418-444. 4 B; a& I- U( d; w5 x0 w% b , j6 C! f- H y8 I9 tIssue 16: Reliability and Construct Validation* J* h$ s# \$ F4 [8 G
Schwab: Chapters 14 and 17 0 c$ Z# H: Y/ F7 \2 ^- G6 W5 CK & L: Chapter 286 \7 T+ G# K/ Y8 y `9 m
16-01. Bagozzi, R. P., Edwards, J. R. 1998. A General Approach for RepresentingConstructs in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods,1: 45-87. * n5 x: e5 ?$ p0 w% |+ P3 o. ]16-02. Austin, J. T., Boyle, K. A., & Lualhati, J. C. 1998.Statistical Conclusion Validity for Organizational Science Research: A Review. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 1: 164-208./ Z; v- A, K7 Z0 A# _: d
16-03. Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. 1959. Convergent anddivergent validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. PsychologicalBulletin, 56:81-105. g/ e# v- F+ M* N
16-04. Colquitt, J. A. 2001. On the dimensionality oforganizational justice: a construct validation of a measure, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86:386-400. " _/ E( t% E( y% \16-05. Cronbach, L.J. & Meehl, P. E. 1955. Construct validityin psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 32(4): 281-302. 6 ~9 ]5 Y# n- X" T8 y" i& c16-06. Schriesheim, C. A., & Powers, K. J. 1993. Improvingconstruct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitativeapproach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencilsurvey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2): 385-417. . K5 {: \: h7 g/ z3 N; F L9 |0 D, d16-07. Schwab, D. P. 1980. Construct validity in organizationalbehavior. In Staw B. M. & Cummings L. L. (Eds.) Research inOrganizational Behavior, 2, Greenwich, Con: JAI Press Inc. 3-43. 3 d. C2 C! c8 m! m. J) t % C1 M% d5 W- }0 W* M/ ^" f9 IIssue 17: Common Method Variance 7 D$ N# X. o9 x8 i$ W. z9 |' d2 l**Schwab: Chapters 16, 17, 18 and 20 7 Y& o. S) V8 _17-01. **彭台光, 高月慈, 林鉦棽 2006. 管理研究中的共同方法變異：問題本質、影響、測試和補救。管理學報，23(1): 77-98. 8 E7 \+ X/ D) P% K" O+ c) s: {0 a' F17-02. Doty, D. H. &Glick, W. H. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance reallybias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4): 374-406." ?1 P+ m+ G% f/ Z# c/ r, A. z4 \
17-03. Goffin, R. D. & Gellatly, I. R. 2001. A multi-raterassessment of organizational commitment: Are self-report measures biased? Journalof Organizational Behavior, 22: 437-451. & V4 t. }3 ]6 I; L( @! q9 q' J/ U, g17-04. Kemery, E. R. & Dunlap, W. P. 1986. Partialling factorscores does not control method variance: A reply to Podsakoff and Todor.Journal of Management, 12(4): 525-530. w2 A U; s8 n8 w! v+ T5 |5 @
17-05. Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff,N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review ofthe literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology,88: 879-903.0 w3 c3 N4 `& t' ?0 ~! a
17-06. Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational researchroblems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531-544. ; a3 Y- @& B/ z: {$ r+ \2 \4 |17-07. Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. 1996. Measurement error in psychologicalresearch: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1:199-223.5 w" x C% m; |
17-08. Spector, P. E. & Brannick, M. T. 1995). The nature andeffects of method variance in organizational research. International Reviewof international and organizational Psychology, 10: 249-274. ' e0 e" ]7 s$ s I9 |17-09. Spector, P. E. 2006. Method variance in organizationalresearch: Truth or urban legend. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2):221-232. 8 U1 w5 V6 t1 p6 k4 p4 C3 P" F' Q Issue 18: Data Non-independence 8 ^: v( S5 n X- x- }4 z18-01. Glick, W. H., & Roberts, K. H. 1984. Hypothesized interdependence, assumedindependence. Academy of Management Review, 9: 722–735.) ^3 L! _* r6 W" `/ `4 I' D: g/ ]" q
18-02. Kenny, D. A. 1995. The effect of nonindependence onsignificance testing in dyadic research. Personal Relationships, 2:67-75.; J; U# `3 a9 @
18-03. Kenny, D.A. & Judd, C. M. 1986. Consequences ofviolating the interdependence assumption in analysis of variance. PsychologicalBulletin, 99: 422-431. v0 s2 K8 D8 k/ Z: [, b: c9 X18-04. Bliese, P. & Hanges, P. J. 2004. Being too liberal and tooconservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they wereindependent. Organizational Research Methods, 7: 400-417.3 v# W7 h5 Z+ \- M3 `
18-05. 彭台光 & 林鉦棽 2008. 組織現象和層次議題: 非獨立性資料的概念和實徵. 組織與管理, 1(1): 95-121.& \/ Y- ]0 H% D( b. A+ ^
18-06. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. 1995. On thelevel: Homogeneity, independence, heterogeneity, and interactions inorganizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 20: 7-9. 8 ?0 l$ M8 u; y' p18-07. Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., &Kashy, D. A. 2002. The statistical analysis of data from small groups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 126-137. 7 w. U: r" F! ?" P7 P3 y1 A : }7 U, u4 o" N! v* L! i& n6 ` cIssue 19: The Culture Factor (Cross-cultural and IndigenousResearch)0 [+ U+ l( p+ t# ^8 P# S$ U" c
19-01. Adler, N. A., Campbell, N. & Laurent, A. 1989. In search ofappropriate methodology: From outside the People’s Republic of China lookingin. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1): 61-74." Y8 n+ m7 H6 R6 w3 M- p/ ?8 k
19-02. Boisot, M. & Child. J. 1996. From fiefs to clans andnetwork capitalism: Explaining China’s emerging economic order. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 41(4): 600-628.2 Z! a/ _& [$ [
19-03. Chen, C. C., Chen, Y. R., & Xin, K. 2004. Guanxi practicesand trust in management: A procedural justice perspective. OrganizationScience, 15: 200-209. . r: `" |1 E" n19-04. Farh, J. L., Tsui, A. S., Xin, K., & Cheng, B. S. 1998. Theinfluence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. OrganizationScience, 9: 471-488. + H: ~/ g, P0 u* b& [2 ?% O4 q19-05. Farh, J. L. & Cheng, B. S. 2000. A cultural analysis ofpaternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui,& E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context.London: MacMillan, 2000: 84-127. 2 r8 e8 U2 Z! F! t+ D$ B" \7 t19-06. Hwang, K. K. 1987. Face and favor: The Chinese power game. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 92(4): 944-974.1 g# i S# ?6 v4 q& ]8 d& y
19-07. Leung, K. & Bond, M. 1989. On the empirical identificationof dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 20, 2, 133-151. 4 A+ q6 I$ ^1 R( ^; P* i4 X" s5 {& S19-08. Schaffer, B.S. 2003. A review of cross-cultural methodologiesfor organizational research: A best-practices approach. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 6(2): 169-215. ( D9 B: W8 T& H! A2 V' z+ [9 l- G19-09. 楊國樞(主編) 1993。「本土心理學的開展」 (本土心理學研究第一期)，台北：台灣大學心理系本土心理學研究室。8 K; L# k& j, x+ X3 s5 F9 ~
; q; J5 t; P6 @0 d$ E2 S19-10. 楊國樞(主編) 1996。「本土心理學方法論」(本土心理學研究第八期)，台北：台灣大學心理系本土心理學研究室。 3 g9 ^: m, S+ d4 H; u: j* W6 b" k( j# V- v4 n
19-11. 陳曉萍等（2008）：Ch4: 建構華人管理學理論的機會與挑戰! H" z R5 C8 [7 u
- K {, x& X+ O3 G) s/ d
19-12. 陳曉萍等（2008）：ch17 8 d1 U& t% z% D2 q# M1 j5 c7 y19-13. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oraland written materials. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbookof cross-culturalpsychology. Vol. 2: Methodology (pp. 389^I44).Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon. P: n! {) y, W5 M8 z4 R
19-14. Tsui, A. (2004). Contributing to global managementknowledge: A case for high quality indigenous research. AsiaPacificJournalofManagement, 21, 491-513.8 p R) ^, D6 \2 g7 Q7 r. G
4 `: E2 d+ ]( Q4 f Issue 20: Structural Equation Modeling # h: V% R9 A v. ^& @" cK & L: Chapter 35. 2 w/ n l1 E; l9 r: Y20-01. 林清山 1984。「線性結構關係」(LISREL)電腦程式。中國測驗年會測驗學刊，31:149-164。 + z: [6 J# o: ~4 `4 K- W8 a20-02. Feldt, T., Kivimaki, M., Rantala, A., & Tolvanen, A. 2004.Sense of coherence and work characteristics: A cross-lagged structural equationmodeling with managers. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 77: 323-342.& j q. m3 `& z( x# x
20-03. Jonge, J. de, Dormann, C., Janssen, P. P. M., Dollard, M. F.,Landeweerd, J. A., & Nijhuis, F. J. N. 2001. Testing reciprocalrelationships between job characteristics and psychological well-being: Across-lagged structural equation model. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 74: 29-46. ; B3 c: b7 a$ A% B& R1 C20-04. Kenny, D. A., & Kashy, D. A. 1992. Analysis ofmultitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 112: 165-172. & K3 Q8 A8 K+ B2 \& ^% m20-05. Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., Tinsley, C.H.,& Janssens, M. 1995. A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research inorganizational behavior. Research in Organization Behavior, 17: 167-214. # v/ C7 u2 B, E* a20-06. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1994. An alternativeapproach to method effects using latent-variable models: Applications inorganizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3):323-331., l; X+ U" X/ p# h+ _
20-07. Williams, L. J. & Brown, B. K. 1994. Method Variance inorganizational behavior and human resources research: Effects on correlations,path coefficients, and hypothesis testing. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Process. 57: 185-209.7 |# c# T4 {: a; O$ x. D
20-08. Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. 2006. Problems with itemparceling for comfirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 9: 369-403.5 v# W9 j5 h* @ |& h/ _
20-09. 陳曉萍等（2008）：ch13% Y4 C. L1 J5 a0 C3 f) ~
6 m2 t1 t3 X& Q3 m% R+ \) [$ ~2 z" i Issue 21: Level as Knowing: Holism ( e& G0 l% O/ }% @$ M& ^21-01. Courgeau, D. 2003. General introduction. In D. Courgeau (Ed.), Methodologyand Epistemology of multilevel analysis: Approaches from different socialsciences (pp.1-23). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. * |# h5 e1 h( K6 i9 I8 t21-02. Butz, M. R. 1997. Chaos and complexity: Implications forpsychological theory and practice (Chapter 1, pp. 3-24). London: Taylor& Francis. ' Z% Y9 ~) j$ J" l9 J4 h4 z) A21-03. Barton, S. 1994. Chaos, self-organization, and psychology. AmericanPsychologist, 49: 5-14. % v% C9 t' q; k: O$ ?21-04. Pinder, C.C., & Bourgeois, V.W. 1982. Controlling tropes inadministrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 641-652. 1 _, l- o# T1 c" q% }21-05. Morgan, G. (1983). More on metaphor: Why we cannot controltropes in administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:601-607.% D* z, x; {1 E/ Z8 m0 d
21-06. Bourgeois, V.W., & Pinder, C.C. 1983. Contrastingphilosophical perspectives in administrative science: A reply to Morgan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:608-613. ) k' N3 K T& b5 ]21-07. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology oforganizations. NY: Wiley (Chapters 1-3, pp. 1-68).) k$ O9 e9 D) O R+ }7 h) b+ W% c
21-08. von Bertalanffy, L. 1972. The history and status of generalsystems theory. In G.J. Klir (Ed.), Trends in general systems theory(pp. 21-41). NY: Wiley. 6 m7 i3 D2 ]% q! I21-09. von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General system theory. NY:Braziller (Chapters 1 & 2, pp. 3-53).; D) G8 l- l7 f2 P% g1 d# E
21-10. Miller, J. G. 1978. Living systems. NY: McGraw-Hill(Preface, Chapter 2, pp. 9-50). % F( [+ p6 ~! W/ l* w. ]' K* T _5 \; S. v Issue 22: Level Fallacies " a- C" S, C" J! s6 C. r22-01. Allport, F. H. (1924). The group fallacy in relation tosocial science. JournalofAbnormal and SocialPsychology, 19(1), 60-73. : w$ s( r; L1 j# {7 |5 p5 e22-02. Allport, F. H. (1924). Dicsussion: The group fallacy inrelation to social science. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19(2),185-191.5 y( a B# k+ Y( x! e4 S0 e# P4 `
22-03. **Thorndike, E. L. (1939). On the fallacy of imputing thecorrelations found for groups to the individuals or smaller groups composingthem. American Journal of Psychology, 52, 122-124. + @" l V6 c' \" U# r- @$ L22-04. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and thebehavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15,351-357. 0 Y: A" r9 c3 F" c# W22-05. **Schwartz, S. (1994). The fallacy of the ecological fallacy:The potential misuse of a concept and the consequences. American Journal ofPublic Health, 84, 819-824.7 j# F2 f" q% _" }
22-06. Hammond, J. L. (1973). Two sources of error in ecologicalcorrelations. American Sociological Review, 38(6), 764-777. 2 K' U1 W- L; Y" ]6 F$ J" s1 Y ( s( v0 a/ B4 ~8 b3 A7 ^Issue 23: Multilevel Nature of Organizational Phenomena - O5 E' [9 I" J% ?7 r1 L) G, E23-01. James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. 1974. Organizationalclimate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81:1096-1112.) S3 D; W4 V: b: T7 I i
23-02. Simon, H.A. 1973. The organization of complex systems. In H.H.Pattee (Ed.), Hierarchy theory (pp. 1-27). NY: Braziller.) g6 q' K1 G: [4 E1 a* J$ \
23-03. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. 1989. Integrationof leadership and climate: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 74(4): 546-553.; ~. B. N- ^( `2 Q3 a9 b" [6 g
23-04. Rousseau, D. M. l978. Characteristics of departmentspositions, and individuals: Contexts for attitudes and behavior. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 23: 52l-540.* `0 O" b8 z# y* R; _
23-05. **Feldman, D. C. 1984. The development and enforcement ofgroup norms. Academy of Management Review, 9: 47-53. ) r2 y8 Y" ?# D6 t23-06. Johns, G. 1999. A multi-level theory of self-serving behaviorin and by organizations. In Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior,21: 1-38.: R" o, c, C K" W! S! K
23-07. Weingart, L. 1997. How did they do that? The ways and means ofstudying group process. In Staw B. M., & Cummings L. L. (Eds.), Research inOrganizational Behavior, 19: 189-239.: P, e H9 C; p6 a* r7 q' x
23-08. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects ofteam diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic analysis of team demography.Journal of Management, 33, 6, 987-1005.- h1 J7 M u5 ^* ?: W: G) O* J
23-09. Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 22: 31-42. ) Z8 ~/ f: T# d& K' ]23-10. Brass, D. J. l98l. Structural relationships, jobcharacteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 26, 33l-348.! h6 e) T1 v$ Y
23-11. Rousseau, D. M. 1978. Measures of technology as predictorsof employee attitude. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 213-218. ( R# o8 i( a7 S* `: \0 k" y23-12. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Farr, J. L. 1988. An integrativemodel of updating and performance. Human Performance, 1: 5-29. 4 p1 w6 d0 y6 B' c$ L% V( a23-13. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981.Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 26, 501-524. / X* |* B1 H3 W2 B23-14. **Ostroff, C. 1992. The relationship between satisfaction,attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77(6): 963-974.5 Q0 c* I# a, H3 Y# ?
7 {- O0 A' k9 ^8 k6 z/ Q/ m1 OIssue 24: Levels in Theory Building9 f2 c3 J9 V$ T4 K
24-01. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J.E. 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevelresearch in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1385-1399." e4 w5 M1 y. }1 [, W
24-02. Klein, K. J., Cannella, A., & Tosi, H. 1999. Multileveltheory: Challenges and contributions. Academy of Management Review, 24,243-248. % p7 p- g( D7 q: ^# p7 Y1 k24-03. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. C. 1999. Multiple levelsof analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theorybuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 346-357. 3 K* \, t) y2 ]& y24-04. Klein, K., Dansereau, F. & Hall, R. 1994. Level issuesin theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of ManagementReview, 19, 195-229. ' H6 N. h9 Y4 T9 U24-05. George, J. M., & James, L. R. 1994. Levels issues in theory development. Academyof Management Review, 19: 639-640. (Critique of Klein et al., 1994)2 t7 j0 G6 i% M! o y1 b
24-06. Klein, K., Dansereau, F. & Hall, R. 1994. On the level:Homogeneity, independence, heterogeneity, and interactions in organizationtheory. Academy of Management Review, 20: 7-17. (Response to George & James, 1994)8 g7 |* v \' ?1 J. m$ ~
24-07. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizationalresearch: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 7: 1-37.* b5 J1 A( [( z% S( X/ A8 B
24-08. Mossholder, K. W. & Bedeian, A. G.. 1983. Cross-level inference andorganizational research: Perspectives on interpretation and application.Academy of Management Review, 8(4): 547-558. ' \! {! I, y2 y6 @' a; f24-09. Glick, W. H. (1980). Problems in cross-level inference. In K.H.Roberts & L. Burstein (eds.) Issues in Aggregation. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. 17-30.$ [, ? [' e0 Z
24-10. Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. 1978. Developing an interdisciplinaryscience of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (Chapters 1-3, pp.1-80).5 S* Z& i4 m" o" J" P
24-11. Behling, O. 1978. Some problems in the philosophy of science oforganizations. Academy of Management Review, 3: 193-201. * X) o4 t. h' V: g! x/ r: c) o v3 b$ }; i5 I4 ^6 F% V2 W Issue 25: Meso Paradigm: An Integral Perspective0 U6 ]% `' b9 f" y: F
25-01. **Hackman, J. R. 2003. Learning more by cross level: Evidencefrom airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 24: 905-922. 6 g6 O( S* [4 Q9 C25-02. **House, R. J., Rousseau, D.M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. 1995. The mesoparadigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizationalbehavior. In Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research inOrganizational Behavior, 17: 71-114.4 W6 o) f0 ^; ~, N# Q+ A
25-03. Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. 1982. Toward a macro-orientedmodel of leadership: An odyssey, In J.G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schrieshiem(Eds.), Leadership: Beyond Establishment Views, Carbondale, IL: SouthernIllinois University Press. 6 {3 R R9 m* E' E. x25-04. Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. 1996. A cross-levelinvestigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. PersonnelPsychology, 49: 307-338.+ O0 ^+ T Z( i. x% ~8 k5 g# n
25-05. Glick, W.H. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizationaland psychological climate: Pitfalls of multilevel research. Academy ofManagement Review, 10: 601-610.. @: h: g" F' _" J
25-06. Tosi, H. 1992. The organization and the environment: The E/Olink in the model. The Environment/Organization/Person Contingency Model: AMeso Approach to the Study of Organizations. 29-66. Greenwich, Conn: JAI.. p* [. M6 O; K5 m0 Y8 U3 o
25-07. Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. 1991. The missing role ofcontext in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. In Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research inOrganizational Behavior, 13: 55-110. 5 c( u) ]' W" u6 j 6 W9 @4 G7 b) R( CIssue 26: Extending Multilevel Organizational Theory " t J8 T$ C3 E. j3 C26-01. **Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Kline, K. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory andresearch in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.and K, 3-90.- }1 a. J( {) k' `* N6 W; v
26-02. Klein, K., Palmer, S. L., Conn, A. B. 2000. InterorganizationalRelationships: A multilevel perspective. In K. and K. 267-307., ^* d0 ?' O5 e i
26-03. Chao, G. T. 2000. Multilevel issues and culture: An integrativeview. In K. & K. 308-346.0 y) k% ~! T$ Q8 f) {7 O
* Z; ?, a K: `4 Q; ]% I+ w Issue 27: Research Design in Multilevel Research$ ?! p0 G3 M' T" O
27-01. **林鉦棽 & 彭台光 2006。多層次管理研究：分析層次的概念、理論和方法。管理學報，23(6): 649-675. 7 U3 u; F5 _2 X! S$ c4 e0 ?$ A/ A* s27-02. **Hofmann, D.A. 2002. Issues in multilevel research: Theorydevelopment, measurement, and analysis. In S.G. Rogelberg’s(ed.) Handbook of Research Methods inIndustrial and Organizational Psychology. 247-274. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 2 Y3 f& Y/ O4 i6 Z3 {3 p$ A1 U0 M b! _27-03. Kline, K. J. &Kozlowski, S. J. 2000. From micro to meso: Critical stepsin conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. OrganizationalResearch methods, 3(3): 211-236. 2 ^( K) E6 |& p) z: i6 v y7 _: o0 P4 B1 l3 T9 {9 A Issue 28: Phenomena from Micro to Macro: An Emerging Process ( A2 T8 [# f* K' @
28-01. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and function ofcollective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theorydevelopment. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249-265.1 b9 y( l5 ]% q( w
28-02. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approachto job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-253. # B- C7 B U' H3 }" d28-03. Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. PersonnelPsychology, 40, 437-453.- C# `- w8 V: H
28-04. Schneider, B. 1995. The ASA framework: An update. PersonnelPsychology, 48, 747-773.# ^; _, y% u* ^$ I
28-05. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. 2008. The positive group affectspiral: A dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity inwork groups. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 29, 239-261., i1 [# V# g# W; Y0 s& _
* A" @3 x. }2 b. H: vIssue 29: Measurement and Aggregation7 v; n2 ]/ S9 D# J
29-01. Bartko, J. J. 1976. On various intraclass correlationreliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5): 762-765. 2 u& q$ P; |8 n29-02. Burke, M. J. & Dunlap, W. P. 2002. Estimating interrateragreement with the average deviation index: A user’s guide. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 5(2): 159-172. " R$ G: {6 d+ {7 ~3 b% ?9 U8 I, X) s29-03. James, L. R. l982. Aggregation bias in estimates ofperceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 2l9-229. + m: a+ X, l2 L29-04. **James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimatingwith-group reliability with and without response bias. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69(1): 85-98. 0 w6 S" M. ^ _; F29-05. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. 1993. Rwg: Anassessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78(2): 306-309. ; j$ r1 T% ~7 n. R. T' ~+ i29-06. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hattrup, K. 1992. A disagreementabout within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versusconsensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2): 161-167. ( g [. O6 N% B! o5 ]- ^* p8 }29-07. Ostroff, C, 1993. Comparing correlations based onindividual-level and aggregated data. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(2): 569-582.# d' _0 T3 e# }$ w9 _% e" V1 ?3 g3 J
29-08. Freeman, J. 1980. The unit problem in organizational research.In W.M. Evan (Ed.), Frontiers in organization and management (pp.59-68). NY: Praeger. 4 A# U% p* O: e- B4 U+ f29-09. Campbell, D. T. 1958. Common fate, similarity, and otherindices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities.Behavioral Science, 3: 14-25. g" P# O/ @( B* y2 e, t1 v29-10. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. l987. Anexploration of climates for technical updating and performance. PersonnelPsychology, 40: 539-563.6 _/ l6 c- ]6 v5 F4 ~
29-11. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. 1989. Interrater reliability coefficientscannot be computed when only one stimulus is rated. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74: 368-370. . \; S0 g F2 m5 k( w7 K29-12. Bliese, P. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, andreliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods inorganizations (349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.2 l8 s- i/ z0 {8 n9 ?
29-13. Bliese, P. D. 1998. Group size, ICC values, and group-levelcorrelations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 355-373. ( I8 |3 [6 h* T. [' h7 a) }2 O3 ]29-14. Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. 1998. Group size andmeasures of group-level properties: An examination of eta-squared and ICCvalues. Journal of Management, 24: 157-172. * u2 s1 I4 f% d) v9 a8 h, L9 n29-15. Bliese, P. D. & Hanges, P. J. 2004. Being too liberal andtoo conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they wereindependent. Organizational Research Methods, 7: 400-417. 8 n- W8 H& ^4 ]' r1 M$ p29-16. **Castro, S. L. 2002. Data analytic methods for the analysis ofmultilevel questions: A comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients,rwg(j), hierarchical linear modeling, within- and between-analysis, and randomgroup resampling.Leadership Quarterly, 13: 69-93. & B7 Z- E" W0 F2 c9 z& ~29-17. Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. 2000. Climate quality andclimate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizationalantecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 331–348.; Q+ M+ ?0 d% K* Y
29-18. Lindell, M. K., Brand, C. J., & Whitney, D. J. 1999. Arevised index of interrater agreement for multitem rating of a single target.Applied Psychological Measurement, 23: 127-135.3 O6 _3 A8 a0 u# n& F4 ~
29-19. McGraw, K. O. & Wong, S. P. 1996. Forming inferences aboutsome intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1:30–46." _0 x m4 n3 |- h, w1 w0 Y' p
29-20. Bliese P. D., Halverson, R. R., & Rothberg, J. M. 1994.Within-group agreement scores: Using resampling procedures to estimate expectedvariance. Academy Management Best Paper Proceeding, 306-307. : q3 j3 ^$ ~5 f }4 N29-21. Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. 1999. Onaverage deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement.Organizational Research Methods, 2(1): 49-68.0 c0 K J1 n4 _0 {
9 @8 N6 c0 K! g. I8 g2 LIssue 30: Approaches to Multilevel Data Analysis / ^9 F+ r' w7 M$ w30-01. Firebaugh, G. 1979. Assessing group effects: A comparison oftwo methods. Sociological Methods and Research, 7: 384-395.6 ^& M) L! G5 _1 N) n4 Z
30-02. James, L. R., & Williams, L. 2000. The cross-level operator in regression,ANCOVA, and contextual analysis. In K. & K. 382-424. % |' ?7 L+ T; k( |# N1 C30-03. George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior ingroups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 107-116. ' N1 r; ^9 [4 y) f0 Z30-04. Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. 1992. On theapplication of within and between analysis: Are absence and affect reallygroup-based phenomenon? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 168-176. " o! p8 Z1 [! H% d. v0 O2 M30-05. George, J. M., & James, L. R. 1993. Personality, affect, and behavior ingroups revisited: Comment on aggregation, level of analysis, and recentapplication of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78:798-804. # Y# } K' M% G, F1 C0 S' h30-06. **Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in thesame content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of compositionmodels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246. m1 \1 v# R8 q/ o0 |* {, C30-07. Leung, K. & Bond, M. H. 1989. On the empiricalidentifications of dimensions of cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 20(2): 133-151.+ }) r8 g$ }2 ]* P/ G
30-08. Peterson, M. F. & Castro, S. 2006. Measurement metrics ataggregate levels of analysis: Implications for organization culture researchand the GLOBE project. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 506-521. 9 R# x5 K8 n8 M6 C- i% I4 }1 M3 \1 W6 |30-09. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. 1999. Multiple levels ofanalysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theorybuilding. Academy of Management Review, 24: 346-357.& B* O4 s$ w; ]
30-10. **Klein, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Griffin,M. A., Hofmann, D. A., James, L. R., Yammarino, F. J., & Bligh, M. C. 2000 Multilevelanalytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions.In K. & K. 512-553.+ H( y( a9 D( p( ]5 }1 N' G* z
7 c$ j( K, R- }- uIssue 31: Introduction to HLM 3 e9 s/ F7 a& e5 w
31-01. **Hofmann, D. A. 1997. An overview of the logic and rationaleof HLM. Journal of Management. 23(6): 723-744.5 {# P% g; Z- B
31-02. Hofmann, D. A. & Griffin, M. A., Gavin, M. B. 2000. Theapplication of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K.& K. 467-511. # R I% t( y5 I6 J; J9 k31-03. **Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centeringdecisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research inorganizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623-641. ( o9 t U4 `% j( M31-04. Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyonein agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptionsof the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 3-16., a3 n5 f; Q' N8 @. k) f: H0 f
2 q# M) b( V( o9 \& M Issue 32: Empirical Examples of HLM , X; z( ~+ w( I; W) Y6 L5 l32-01. Bloom, M., & Milkovich, G. 1998. Relationships among risk,incentive pay, and organizational performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 41: 283-297. i& L) F/ ~2 t- B& A# O
32-02. **Cole, M. S. & Bedeian, A. G. 2007. Leadership consensus as a cross-levelcontextual moderator of the emotion exhaustion-work commitment relationship. LeadershipQuarterly, 18: 447-462. 6 Y6 B; b# Y8 w8 O32-03. Eyring, J. D., Johnson, D. S., & Francis, D. J. 1993. Across-level units-of-analysis approach to individual differences in skillacquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 805-815. 8 R) P g8 v7 w4 `% {% v32-04. Gavin, M. B., & Hofmann, D. A. 2002. Using hierarchical linear modeling toinvestigate the moderating influence of leadership climate. LeadershipQuarterly, 13: 15-33.% _2 Q5 b8 c" {; r/ [. e/ @8 c& n
32-05. **Erhart, M. G. 2004. Leadership and procedural justice climateas antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. PersonnelPsychology, 57: 61-94. 5 x: u( R1 S" M32-06. Glission, C., & James, L. R. 2002. The cross-level effects of culture andclimate in human service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23:767-794. 9 n* S# ?7 t6 s8 O; B32-07. Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. 2005. Leadership,collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,90: 509-522.1 H7 V2 o* F, y8 K; j
32-08. Kark, R., Shamir, B., Chen, G. 2003. The two faces oftransformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency.Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88(2): 246-255. # l0 j) {& t: G4 X) h32-09. Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K.W., & Bennett, N. 1997.Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysisusing work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23: 775-793.4 R( x. J& D( J) d$ a
32-10. Paris, L. 2004. The effects of gender and culture on implicitleadership theories: A cross-cultural study. William H. Newman Award, Academyof Management meeting. (Award given to a single-authored paper based ondissertation) - k: a8 ?7 w/ i32-11. Sacco, J. M., & Schmitt, N. 2005. A dynamic multilevel model of demographicdiversity and misfit effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2):203-231.- x/ M. L) c) s5 B# b. ?3 ?" f
32-12. Steensma, H. K., Marino, L., & Dickson, P. H. 2000. Theinfluence of national cultural on the formation of technology alliances byentrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 951-973. 1 B t* N2 @2 E! }32-13. Steward, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. 2005. Anexploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individualtraits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58: 343-365. I- e/ a- w0 d% t7 T3 A# q
32-14. Vancouver, J. B. 1997. The application of HLM to the analysisof the dynamic interaction of environment, person and behavior. Journal ofManagement, 23: 795-818. 5 A' a w G& Z, A5 n9 u8 h32-15. Whitener, E. M. 2001. Do “high commitment” human resource practicesaffect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linearmodeling. Journal of Management, 27: 515-535.: Y0 H) e" {8 U; z
! Z8 c0 I$ w. j; JIssue 33: Extended Issues in Multilevel Research" V4 h+ c: Z. N* r/ t: l
33-01. Brass, D. J. 2000. Networks and Frog Ponds: Trends inmultilevel research. In K.& K. 557-571. 2 A( M# U2 W# [" R33-02. Rousseau, D. M. 2000. Multilevel competencies and missinglinkages. In K. & K. 572-582. $ P2 S3 t5 T3 q33-03. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. C. 1999. Multiple levelsof analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theorybuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 346-357.5 t4 t' t2 }* _7 Y8 y) [- `
33-04. Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. 2004. Aframework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino& F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research inmultilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Vol.3): 273-303. Elsevier: Oxford, U.K.; x* w I2 {; G; ~' g
33-05. Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. E. 2007. A framework fortesting meso-mediational relationships in Organizational Behavior. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 28: 141-172." y i" [+ P% @' N7 u1 u( K
33-06. Krull, J. L. & Mackinnon, D. P. 2001. Multilevel modelingof individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 36(2): 249-277." ~3 ]& I5 M# w* H3 q; n; A6 ]
7 o, D& C" J" n/ r Issue 34: Report Writing and Paper Review # |; j1 c, _. N# e# c% \Schwab: Chapters 15 and 21( y& F" U) ]1 S/ N6 ?/ L( R
34-01. 應用心理學刊給審稿者的一封信' x; {/ {! p" m9 f7 X4 b/ S
34-02. Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A.E., & Rynes, S.L. 2007. What cause a management article to becited—Article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3):491-506. # h& H+ W5 f5 c: J4 j0 c2 T34-03. Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. What makes a management researchinteresting and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal,49(1): 9-15. 0 p4 g4 i. v+ z! Z" u+ { H7 q34-04. **Tsui, A. 2005. Guidelines on writing a research manuscript.(one page handout). 6 R2 y/ e# }1 w- f6 l" L34-05. Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Somecriteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 496-515.: B: i A/ K% f# n
34-06. **Daft, R. L. 1995. Why I recommended that your manuscript berejected and what you can do about it. In L.L. Cummings & P.J. Frost(eds.), Publishing in the Organizational Science, 2nd ed.,164-182. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.$ b o$ M9 s# |
34-07. **Feldman, D. C. 2004a. The devil in the details: Convertinggood research into publishable articles. Journal of Management, 30(1):1-6.: D/ L+ X' X3 y& }$ K# {
34-08. Feldman, D. C. 2004b. Being a developmental reviewer:Easier said than done. Journal of Management, 30(2): 161-164. 5 t: m; x6 s1 H! L4 C& k34-09. Feldman, D. C. 2004c. Negotiating the revision process. Journalof Management, 30(3): 305-307.& q- k* ^" B1 W! i- {
34-10. Lee, A.S. 1995. Reviewing a manuscript for publication. Journalof Operations Management, 13(1): 87-92. , n9 g f- Q% p% i+ G" L7 j- _2 ~% l" l% j; T9 M1 o Issue 35: Wrap-up: Alternatives to Positivism/ b7 E1 T$ X3 y* z0 E0 ^; P* a
35-01. **童元方2003. 追蹤天才之源。& q( }8 X {& @" z) O 水流花靜---科學與詩的對話。. h4 }# K3 E2 p
P.121~139.台北:天下文化。5 k9 h, g& j R
35-02. Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. 2005. Learning how to developtheories from the masters. In K.G. Smith & M.A. Hitt (Eds.) Great mindsin management: The process of theory development, pp. 573-588. New York:Oxford University Press.! U( l! w8 L, d s) p8 c5 b
35-03. Bartunek, J. M., & Seo, M. G. 2002. Qualitativeresearch can add new meanings to quantitative research. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 23: 237-242.) }, U2 ?& Y5 @+ [2 i
35-04. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. 1979. Assumptions about the nature of Science. SociologicalParadigms and Organizational Analysis. 1-9. Portsmouth, NH: HeinemannEducational Books. ) ]$ P# @' [. m' A& _& N35-05. Canella, A. A. Jr., & Paetzold, R. L. 1994. Pfeffer’sbarriers to the advance of organizational science: A rejoinder. Academy ofManagement Review. 19(2): 331-341. " Z& X) M! \* v' S$ H% s3 u35-06. Cohen, J. 1990. Things I have learned (so far). AmericanPsychologist, 45(12): 1304-1312. 9 r! {9 l% w. n$ i7 u35-07. Journal of Management. 1985. Special issue onorganizational symbolism. 11(2).5 p! L' ~8 N- V! m! Z
35-08. Pfeffer, J. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizationalscience: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of ManagementReview. 18: 599-620.' ~/ d& [ r: f+ j0 U
35-09. **Prasad, A. & Prasad, P. 2002. The coming of age ofinterpretive organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1):4-11. (A special issue on interpretive genres of organizational researchmethods) * B# O) b% B( z$ L/ @4 e+ r35-10. Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. 2000. A Review andSynthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, andRecommendations for Organizational Research. Organizational ResearchMethods, 3: 4-70./ N# C1 E* d7 h0 y: a
35-11. Vandenberg, R. J. 2002. Toward a Further Understanding ofand Improvement in Measurement Invariance Methods and Procedures. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 5: 139-158.3 m1 Z J( C# ~" G! N9 L
35-12. Hitt, M. A., Gimono, J., & Hoskinsson, R. E. 1998. Currentand Future Research in Strategic Management. Organizational ResearchMethods, 1: 6-44.. w4 V0 x( m# B3 A7 E
35-13. Chan, D. 1998. The conceptualization and analysis of changeover time. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4): 418-489. 3 O9 Y5 i& |: Z( i35-14. **Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. 2006. Thesources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? OrganizationalResearch Methods, 9: 202-220.5 j3 A/ d1 V7 R P
/ q5 [. m/ ^2 f9 x2 A5 O$ j- h0 Z
rentice-Hall. [Amazon]( r0 s0 B- }7 Z9 a