Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

IOP Journal Now Accepting Commentaries


by SIOP Administrative Office

Deadline for Submission December 19!

Two focal articles have recently been accepted for Volume 10, Issue 2 of SIOP’s journal, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. They are now available for comment on the SIOP website.

The deadline for commentary submissions is December 19, 2016.

The first focal article for this issue is “The Licensure Issue in Consulting and I-O Psychology: A Discussion Paperby the Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force. The LCIOP Joint Task Force has been examining the controversial issue of licensing industrial-organizational and consulting psychologists since 2014. The authors argue that constructive engagement with licensure is important for setting the future direction of the laws and regulations that govern professional psychology. They review relevant background information, current pressures on regulators, and recent developments in this area. They outline recommendations for jurisdictions’ regulators as well the I-O and consulting psychology communities to consider, discuss, and possibly act upon. Others are invited to join the constructive, sometimes vigorous discussions they have enjoyed within the LCIOP Joint Task Force.

The second focal article is “Survey Key Driver Analysis: Are We Driving Down the Right Road?” by Jeffrey M. Cucina, Philip T. Walmsley, Ilene F. Gast, Nicholas R. Martin, and Patrick Curtin. One of the typical roles of industrial-organizational psychologists working as practitioners is administering employee surveys measuring job satisfaction/engagement. Traditionally, this work has involved developing (or choosing) the items for the survey, administering the items to employees, analyzing the data, and providing stakeholders with summary results (e.g., percentages of positive responses, item means). In recent years, I-O psychologists moved into uncharted territory via the use of survey key driver analysis (SKDA), which aims to identify the most critical items in a survey for action planning purposes. Typically, this analysis involves correlating (or regressing) a self-report criterion item (e.g., “considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job”) with (or on) each of the remaining survey items in an attempt to identify which items are “driving” job satisfaction/engagement. It is also possible to use an index score (i.e., a scale score formed from several items) as the criterion instead of a single item. That the criterion measure (regardless of being a single item or an index) is internal to the survey from which predictors are drawn distinguishes this practice from linkage research. This methodology is not widely covered in survey methodology coursework, and there are few peer-reviewed articles on it. Yet, a number of practitioners are marketing this service to their clients. In this focal article, a group of practitioners with extensive applied survey research experience uncovers several methodological issues with SKDA. Data from a large multiorganizational survey are used to back up claims about these issues. One issue is that SKDA ignores the psychometric reality that item standard deviations impact which items are chosen as drivers. Another issue is that the analysis ignores the factor structure of survey item responses. Furthermore, conducting this analysis each time a survey is administered conflicts with the lack of situational and temporal specificity. Additionally, it is problematic to imply causal relationships from the correlational data seen in most surveys. Most surprisingly, randomly choosing items out of a hat yields validities similar to those from conducting the analysis. Thus, the authors recommend that survey providers stop conducting SKDA until they can produce science that backs up this practice. These issues, in concert with the lack of literature examining the practice, make rigorous evaluations of SKDA a timely inquiry.

The focal articles can be downloaded from the Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice page.

The journal page also contains details on the process of preparing and submitting a commentary. Please contact Editor John Scott at JScott@APTMetrics.com with any questions about the commentary process.