Organizational Research Methods

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (16)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lance, C. E.
Right arrow Articles by Michels, L. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9, No. 2, 202-220 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428105284919
© 2006 SAGE Publications

The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria

What Did They Really Say?

Charles E. Lance

Marcus M. Butts

Lawrence C. Michels

University of Georgia

Everyone can recite methodological "urban legends" that were taught in graduate school, learned over the years through experience publishing, or perhaps just heard through the grapevine. In this article, the authors trace four widely cited and reported cutoff criteria to their (alleged) original sources to determine whether they really said what they are cited as having said about the cutoff criteria, and if not, what the original sources really said. The authors uncover partial truths in tracing the history of each cutoff criterion and in the end endorse a set of 12 specific guidelines for effective academic referencing provided by Harzing that, if adopted, should help prevent the further perpetuation of methodological urban legends.

Key Words: cutoff criteria • citation analysis • goodness of fit • reliability • factor analysis


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
C. F. Seifert
Book Review: Harlow, L. L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 2008; 11(3): 631 - 634.
[PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentHome page
A. Gregoriadis and N. Tsigilis
Applicability of the Student--Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) in the Greek Educational Setting
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, June 1, 2008; 26(2): 108 - 120.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
R. R. Hirschfeld, C. H. Thomas, and D. B. McNatt
Implications of Self-Deception for Self-Reported Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Dispositions and Actual Learning Performance: A Higher Order Structural Model
Educational and Psychological Measurement, February 1, 2008; 68(1): 154 - 173.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
L. E. Baranik, K. E. Barron, and S. J. Finney
Measuring Goal Orientation in a Work Domain: Construct Validity Evidence for the 2 x 2 Framework
Educational and Psychological Measurement, August 1, 2007; 67(4): 697 - 718.
[Abstract] [PDF]