3 Procedure

3.1 Pilot

The pilot administrations consisted of 36 items that were presented in one of four administration groupings (see Appendix B): 1) within substantive dimension (attitudinally grouped [but randomized within blocks of 4]), 2) within attitudinal dimension (substantively grouped [but randomized within blocks of 4]), 3) within substantive dimension (randomly distributed by attitude), and 4) within attitudinal dimension (randomly presented by substance).3

The six response options administered in the pilot were:

  • Strongly Disagree
  • Disagree
  • Slightly Disagree
  • Slightly Agree
  • Agree
  • Strongly Agree

The four “experimental” conditions therefore prioritized and reflected the 3x3 groupings or one of the organization schemes (cognitive, affective, and behavioral or dedication, absorption, and vigor).

We chose to control the order of item administration because of our a priori specification of a bi-factor structure, with the expectation that item ordering would serve as a response cue, yielding stronger factor structural support based on the organization scheme.

3.1.1 Sampling strategy (pilot)

The pilot sampling strategy consisted of snowball (aka referral) sampling as well as questionnaire posting within social media platforms (LinkedIn and facebook). The pilot goal was to reduce the final instrument from 36 candidate items (4 per “cell”) to 18 retained items (2 per “cell”). We hoped to obtain about 250 total responses viable for analysis.

The launch was informed by research looking at different “days of the week” and their effectiveness regarding response rate. This was both commercial as well as academic (e.g., Anseel et al., 2010).

Eagle I.O members sent a template email asking working adults to take the survey and forward it to family and friends who also qualify as participants. Eagle I.O members were also tasked with reaching out to other students, alumni, friends, and family through the following:

  • Facebook post on MSU I/O group page
  • LinkedIn profiles of all Eagle I.O members
  • Email first and second year students directly
  • Email MSU alumni directly
  • Email I/O professors
  • Mentors reached out to mentees individually
  • Survey was posted on the Eagle I.O webpage Pilot analyses

A Confirmatory Bi-Factor Analysis will be performed to determine the best candidate items for the final assessment.

3.2 Demographic Information

These are to be included in future administrations in an attempt to develop marketable norms:

  • Employees who work overtime vs. those who do not
  • Employees who get paid for overtime vs. those who don’t receive compensation for extra hours worked4

  1. Decision was made on 10/13 to have the order of presentation randomized within each of the broader organization blocks (for example, Condition 3: all Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Absorption items were randomly administered, then all ABC Dedication items, etc [although DAC was also randomized by block such that not every respondent had the same DAC ordering])↩︎

  2. I was thinking about this because at my job I have been working 12+ hours some days yet I do not get overtime pay. Not sure if this would work for what we are doing and I know my work experiences are not universal (nor should they be) haha!↩︎