Chou-Yu Tsai , Jayoung Kim , Fuhe Jin , Minjong Jun , Minyoung Cheong , Francis J. Yammarino
{"title":"领导力研究中的多项式回归分析与响应面方法","authors":"Chou-Yu Tsai , Jayoung Kim , Fuhe Jin , Minjong Jun , Minyoung Cheong , Francis J. Yammarino","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Congruence has served as an important research framework for many leadership research topics. Perhaps the most frequently used methodological/statistical approach for testing the congruence framework is polynomial regression<span> analysis (PRA) with response surface methodology (RSM). As this approach was introduced to organizational sciences<span> more than two decades ago, we can now identify the main issues with the use of this approach in leadership research. To systematically investigate these issues, we first review how PRA and RSM have been used in various leadership studies. We then review the levels-of-analysis and rater model assumptions prevalent in PRA in terms of multilevel techniques, choice of centering options, and issues of endogeneity. Finally, to better understand the inconsistencies and variabilities that exist in leadership research, we review the use of two main RSM features and summarize additional statistical techniques for assessment in this realm. Overall, we aim to promote the rigorousness of this methodology within the study of congruence in leadership research by enhancing its capability in theory testing and building.</span></span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"33 1","pages":"Article 101592"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology in leadership research\",\"authors\":\"Chou-Yu Tsai , Jayoung Kim , Fuhe Jin , Minjong Jun , Minyoung Cheong , Francis J. Yammarino\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101592\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Congruence has served as an important research framework for many leadership research topics. Perhaps the most frequently used methodological/statistical approach for testing the congruence framework is polynomial regression<span> analysis (PRA) with response surface methodology (RSM). As this approach was introduced to organizational sciences<span> more than two decades ago, we can now identify the main issues with the use of this approach in leadership research. To systematically investigate these issues, we first review how PRA and RSM have been used in various leadership studies. We then review the levels-of-analysis and rater model assumptions prevalent in PRA in terms of multilevel techniques, choice of centering options, and issues of endogeneity. Finally, to better understand the inconsistencies and variabilities that exist in leadership research, we review the use of two main RSM features and summarize additional statistical techniques for assessment in this realm. Overall, we aim to promote the rigorousness of this methodology within the study of congruence in leadership research by enhancing its capability in theory testing and building.</span></span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leadership Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 101592\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leadership Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984321000977\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984321000977","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology in leadership research
Congruence has served as an important research framework for many leadership research topics. Perhaps the most frequently used methodological/statistical approach for testing the congruence framework is polynomial regression analysis (PRA) with response surface methodology (RSM). As this approach was introduced to organizational sciences more than two decades ago, we can now identify the main issues with the use of this approach in leadership research. To systematically investigate these issues, we first review how PRA and RSM have been used in various leadership studies. We then review the levels-of-analysis and rater model assumptions prevalent in PRA in terms of multilevel techniques, choice of centering options, and issues of endogeneity. Finally, to better understand the inconsistencies and variabilities that exist in leadership research, we review the use of two main RSM features and summarize additional statistical techniques for assessment in this realm. Overall, we aim to promote the rigorousness of this methodology within the study of congruence in leadership research by enhancing its capability in theory testing and building.
期刊介绍:
The Leadership Quarterly is a social-science journal dedicated to advancing our understanding of leadership as a phenomenon, how to study it, as well as its practical implications.
Leadership Quarterly seeks contributions from various disciplinary perspectives, including psychology broadly defined (i.e., industrial-organizational, social, evolutionary, biological, differential), management (i.e., organizational behavior, strategy, organizational theory), political science, sociology, economics (i.e., personnel, behavioral, labor), anthropology, history, and methodology.Equally desirable are contributions from multidisciplinary perspectives.