Validity assessment of mibos by a.w. harrison et. al

Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 1

Research Methods

Theme: Class Room PresentationDate: 20th June 2013.Topic: The Ingratiation Construct: An Assessment of the Validity of the

Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviour in Organisational Settings (MIBOS)

Research Scholars: Allison W. Harrison, Wayne A. Hochwarter, Pamela L. Perrewe, David A. Ralston.

Source: Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, Vol.83, No.6, 932-943.

Presented by : Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013.

20th June 2013


Prelude

Fundamental postulates of this paper:

- “Substantive Research without proper construct validation can lead to dysfunctional consequences” [Schwab, 1980].

- “Excessive measurement error has led researchers to inaccurately reject or accept hypothesis instead of having these outcomes based on theoretical arguments”. [Bagozzi, Yi & Phillips, 1991].

20th June 2013


What is Ingratiatory Behaviour

“ A class of strategic behaviours illicitly designed to influence a particular other concerning the attractiveness of one’s personal qualities” (Jones, 1964, P.11)

20th June 2013


What is MIBOS- Tool / Instrument for measuring Ingratiatory Behaviour in Organisational

settings.- Developed by Kamalesh Kumar and Michael Bayerlein, 1991.- Salient Features of MIBOS:

MIBOS

OPINION CONFIRMITY

(7 ITEMS)

FAVOUR RENDERING (6

ITEMS)

SELF PRESENTATION

(4 ITEMS)

OTHER ENHANCEMENT

(7 ITEMS)

20th June 2013


Checklist of MIBOS developed by KK & MB (1991)

Description Y/N Remarks

Conceptualisation Stage:

a) Whether extensive lit. analysis done Y Initial studies refers 1964

b) Whether Construct clarity was established Y MIBOS to measure subordinate’s behaviour towards superior.

c) Whether expert panels / other valid measures used during item construction

Y

d) Whether pretesting of items done Y Pretesting was done with learned population to validate 67 items.

e) Whether screening of unrelated items deleted while pretesting

Y 67 items reduced to 55 items.

f) Whether individual to total correlation tested Y 55 items reduced to 27items

20th June 2013


Checklist of MIBOS developed by KK & MB (1991) .. contd

Description Y/N Remarks

g) Whether Social Desirability Test done Y 27 items reduced to 24 items

h) Whether Factor Analysis done Y Upto second factor analysis done.

i) Whether Reliability Test done for MIBOS Y Internal Consistency and Test – Retest Consistency established

j) Whether Acquiescence Response Test (ART) done to measure the general tendency factor

Y (less than 0.11)

k) Whether content validity test done Y Done with different set of employees

l) Whether convergent validity test done Y Correlation of 4 factors taken: a) Self monitoring Skillb) Need for powerc) Locus of Controld) Machiavellianism

m) Whether discriminatory validity done to check whether any other factor has significance influence on construct

Y Factors correlated were Assertiveness, rationality, exchange of benefits, upward appeal and coalition. (less sf)

20th June 2013


ASSESSMENT OF THE VALIDITY OF MIBOS

Exhaustive work done by A.W Harrison & others, 1998.

Approaches used:

1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).2. Convergent Validity3. Discriminant Validity.

20th June 2013


Areas of Improvement / shortcomings targeted to address by this research work

- To address the psychometric properties of the MIBOS scale (Shrienshein & Hinkin, 1990)

- Though MIBOS is a valid measure there are few alternative full scale measure of ingratiation is available ( as per Watt, 1993).

- In the area of Construct Validity, “Kacman & Valle (1997) reported that 15 of the 24 items double loaded and hence stability of the factor structure was not fully established.”- GFI (0.792) and AGFI(0.785) used to check double loading – not acceptable results. - Double loading items were checked which resulted GFI and AGFI as 0.836 and 0.785 respectively and concluded as lack of fit.

20th June 2013


Alternate conceptualisation work done by A.W. H & others

1. Examined 4 factor model of Kumar & Beyerlein (1991).

2. Examined K & B conceptualisation as a second order structure in model taking into consideration the foll. Study:

“Kacman and Valle (1997) found that the 4 factors of the MIBOS were highly correlated and therefore may possibly

be indicating only one construct”.

3. MIBOS as unidimensional.

20th June 2013


Convergent Validity of A.W.H & others

“ Campbell and Firske (1959) suggested that Convergent Validity of a measure is demonstrated when independent methods of measurement lead to comparable results”.

Hence A.W.H & others decided to include more factors and assessed the relationship between MIBOS and the foll: 1. Locus of Control 7. Self monitoring

2. Machiavellianism 8. Self liking

3. Resource Scarcity 9. Fear of negative evaluation

4. Role clarity and role ambiguity 10. More comparable measures.

5. Management Style (autocratic) With the above factors, H1 – H11 was formed.

6. Need for Power

20th June 2013


Alternate Sampling work done by A.W. H & others

Extended the sample group to 4 different set.

Sample set 1 288 Managers from manufacturing organisation

Sample set 2 144 members of professional organisation.

Sample set 3 452 clerical personnel of University

Sample set 4 279 employed undergraduates.

20th June 2013


Reliability Assessment of MIBOS done by A.W. H & others

Synopsis of Reliability assessment:

1. Reliability estimates are satisfactory

2. Hinkin (1995) recommended the use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as a rigorous method of examining factor structure. Hence three alternate conceptualisation of ingratiation were analysed with CFA using LISREL 8.

3. Harris & Schaubroeck, 1998, James & James 1989 recommends for study of absolute fit. Hence GFI, AGFI and NFI were used to measure the absolute fit.

4. Sweeney & Mc Farlin (1993) recommended the use of “Squared Multiple correlation” for construct validity and since it is the “best practice” the same has been followed.

20th June 2013


Analysis of Results of work done by A.W. H & others

Criteria Description

Construct Validity GFI – Poor for all the three construct models.Sq. Multiple Correlation – Consistently low for all the three models.

Convergent Validity Hypo: (H1 to H10) not favorable correlation with MIBOS.H11: Somewhat favorable correlation with MIBOS

(H11: MIBOS scores should be positively correlated with comparable measures of ingratiatory tactics)

Social Desirability No Correlation existed except few in students set of sample which has been ignored.

Discrimant Analysis In addition to 5 discriminant factors used by KK & B, three more are used viz. job focused, supervisor focused and self focused impression tactics.

Final correlation is as large as 0.61 and hence DV to be questioned.

20th June 2013


Inferences and identified future area of research of work done by A.W. H & others

Inferences FRA

1. None of the structural models were adequate

1. Critically assess and perhaps modify item working for the existing scale.

2. Internal consistency though exists, but not sufficient for construct validity

2. Perhaps there are more than four possible sets of ingratiation tactics.

3. Kacmar & Valley (1997) concluded that MIBOS might suffer due to item wording.

3. Attempts to be made to compare results of MIBOS with constructs measured with alternate methods.

4. All assessments of validity produced weak results.

4. May chose to compare MIBOS to a small number of carefully worded constructs that have undergone rigorous construct validation.

20th June 2013


Thanks

20th June 2013

Validity assessment of mibos by a.w. harrison et. al

Technology

Transcript of Validity assessment of mibos by a.w. harrison et. al