Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information Leadership, Fifth Edition

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organizational Research Methods
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1094428106298969v1
12/1/113    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Newman, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sin, H.-P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

How Do Missing Data Bias Estimates of Within-Group Agreement? Sensitivity of SD WG, CVWG, rWG(J), rWG(J) * , and ICC to Systematic Nonresponse

Daniel A. Newman

Texas A&M University, College Station, d5n{at}tamu.edu

Hock-Peng Sin

Michigan State University, East Lansing

In multilevel theory testing, estimation of group-level properties (i.e., consensus and diversity) is often complicated by missing data. Researchers are left to draw inferences about group constructs (e.g., organizational climate and climate strength) from the responses of only a subset of group members. This study analyzes the biasing impact of random and non-random missingness patterns on within-group agreement and reliability (standard deviation, coefficient of variation, rWG(J), r*WG(J), ADM, aWG , and intraclass correlation) across a range of response rates, numbers of items, and systematic missing data mechanisms. Results demonstrate biases up to 20% over- or underestimation for common response rates found in organizational research. Correction formulae are presented, which enable assessment of the sensitivity of multilevel results to survey nonresponse.

Key Words: multilevel analysis • group agreement • aggregation • missing data

This version was published on January 1, 2009

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12, No. 1, 113-147 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428106298969


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?