Araştırmanın sınırlılıkları (Örnekler)
Limitations of the Study
Although the findings of this study are useful, it is limited by several factors.
One limitation of this study is that it uses the self-report measures of in-role performance and
OCB. If the data on in-role performance and OCB were collected from supervisors or
peers of the respondents, the findings may well have turned out to be different than the
ones reported in this research. Thus it is recommended that future research in this area
should be conducted by using performance and OCB data, which is based on
supervisory ratings of employees.
Secondly the data for this study was collected from faculty members teaching in
universities across five major cities of Pakistan. The generalizability of the findings of
this study to other contexts may thus be limited. In other words it could be that the
findings obtained from the present sample are specific only to the context under study
here. In this regard, it would be useful to replicate this study under different settings to
establish the validity and generalizability of the present findings across different
contexts.
Finally the data in this study was collected through self-reports, which creates the
potential for common-method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). One important concern
in such cases is that common method variance may artificially inflate observed
relationships between variables. This however might not be a problem because
research has shown that the concern about common method bias has no empirical
basis (Spector, 1987). Still I performed the Harman's single factor test (Podsakoff et al.,
2003) to see if common method variance was a problem in the present study. If
common method variance existed, a single factor would emerge from a factor analysis
of all the measurement items, or one general factor that accounted for most of the
variance would result. The factor analysis revealed 13 factors with eigen values greater
than 1.0 that accounted for 64.2% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for
only 20.3% of the variance. These results suggested that common method variance
was not a serious problem in the present study.
Although the findings of this study are useful, it is limited by several factors.
One limitation of this study is that it uses the self-report measures of in-role performance and
OCB. If the data on in-role performance and OCB were collected from supervisors or
peers of the respondents, the findings may well have turned out to be different than the
ones reported in this research. Thus it is recommended that future research in this area
should be conducted by using performance and OCB data, which is based on
supervisory ratings of employees.
Secondly the data for this study was collected from faculty members teaching in
universities across five major cities of Pakistan. The generalizability of the findings of
this study to other contexts may thus be limited. In other words it could be that the
findings obtained from the present sample are specific only to the context under study
here. In this regard, it would be useful to replicate this study under different settings to
establish the validity and generalizability of the present findings across different
contexts.
Finally the data in this study was collected through self-reports, which creates the
potential for common-method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). One important concern
in such cases is that common method variance may artificially inflate observed
relationships between variables. This however might not be a problem because
research has shown that the concern about common method bias has no empirical
basis (Spector, 1987). Still I performed the Harman's single factor test (Podsakoff et al.,
2003) to see if common method variance was a problem in the present study. If
common method variance existed, a single factor would emerge from a factor analysis
of all the measurement items, or one general factor that accounted for most of the
variance would result. The factor analysis revealed 13 factors with eigen values greater
than 1.0 that accounted for 64.2% of the total variance. The first factor accounted for
only 20.3% of the variance. These results suggested that common method variance
was not a serious problem in the present study.
İSTATİSTİK
ÖRNEKLEM BÜYÜKLÜĞÜ
Örneklem Büyüklüğü
NORMALLİK TESTLERİ
QQ Plots
SONUÇLARIN RAPORLANMASI
Raporlama Biçimi
Demografik Tabloların Sunumu
Çarpıklık ve Basıklık
Boyutların Sunumu
Ölçeğin Maddeleri Kimden Alındı
Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi Sonuçları
Maddeler Arası Korelasyon Sonuçları
ANOVA Sonuçları
ARAŞTIRMANIN SINIRLILIKLARI
Açıklama
Birinci Örnek
İSTATİSTİKÎ ANALİZLER
Analiz Aşamaları
ANOVA Sonuçları
Tek Demografik / Kompozit Değişken
Çoklu Demografik / Kompozit Değişken
Kompozit / Kompozit Değişken
Moderator - Katalizör Değişken
ICC Küme içi korelasyon analizi
GEÇERLİLİK ANALİZLERİ
Yüzey Geçerliliği
İçerik Geçirliliği-1
İçerik Geçerliliği-2
Yüzey ve İçerik geçerliliği (Word belgesi)
AÇIKLAYICI FAKTÖR ANALİZİ
DOĞRULAYICI FAKTÖR ANALİZİ
Regresyon Analizi
Etki Büyüklüğü
Etki Büyüklüğü
Etki Büyüklüğü--2
Faktör Analizi Varsayımları
Değişkenlerin Çoklu Normallik Testi
Birleşme geçerliliği
Linkler
Örneklem Büyüklüğü
NORMALLİK TESTLERİ
QQ Plots
SONUÇLARIN RAPORLANMASI
Raporlama Biçimi
Demografik Tabloların Sunumu
Çarpıklık ve Basıklık
Boyutların Sunumu
Ölçeğin Maddeleri Kimden Alındı
Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi Sonuçları
Maddeler Arası Korelasyon Sonuçları
ANOVA Sonuçları
ARAŞTIRMANIN SINIRLILIKLARI
Açıklama
Birinci Örnek
İSTATİSTİKÎ ANALİZLER
Analiz Aşamaları
ANOVA Sonuçları
Tek Demografik / Kompozit Değişken
Çoklu Demografik / Kompozit Değişken
Kompozit / Kompozit Değişken
Moderator - Katalizör Değişken
ICC Küme içi korelasyon analizi
GEÇERLİLİK ANALİZLERİ
Yüzey Geçerliliği
İçerik Geçirliliği-1
İçerik Geçerliliği-2
Yüzey ve İçerik geçerliliği (Word belgesi)
AÇIKLAYICI FAKTÖR ANALİZİ
DOĞRULAYICI FAKTÖR ANALİZİ
Regresyon Analizi
Etki Büyüklüğü
Etki Büyüklüğü
Etki Büyüklüğü--2
Faktör Analizi Varsayımları
Değişkenlerin Çoklu Normallik Testi
Birleşme geçerliliği
Linkler