Learning activity 5.2-Unit 5
Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J. (2017). Leader purposefulness within servant leadership: Examining the effects of servant leadership, leader follower-focus, leader goal-orientation, and leader purposefulness in a large U.S. healthcare organization. Administrative Sciences, 7(10), 1-20.
What sampling strategy was used and was it justified?
The study uses the probability sampling, and the purpose is the author wants to answer the research question; therefore they examined the relationship between four leader independent variables and four dependent variables to assess the relationship between dimensions of leader ‘s servant leadership focus and the effect of these dimensions on followers. They selected 5000 employees from a large healthcare organization; each employee has an equal opportunity to respond, 1713 participants provided complete respond and used for most study analysis. This random sample represents sample size from which statistical, the generalizations may be made to a larger organization ( Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7). So the purpose of using random sampling to reduce bias which may exist in the population.
Rate 3
Is the sample size appropriate and justified?
They selected 5000 employees from a large healthcare organization, and each employee has an equal opportunity to respond, 1713 participants provided complete respond and used for most study analysis. This random sample represents sample size from which statistical generalizations may be made to the larger organization. According to Plano-Clerk and Creswell (2015), this is the most rigorous form of sampling in quantitative research because the investigator can make the most reliable claim that the sample is representative of the population.
Rate 3
Are good quality measures used to gather data? How do you know they are good quality?
The authors used Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI), which provided an overall measure of servant leadership dimensions. Regression analyses were conducted to provide predictive modeling and indicators of the relative importance of each independent variable on the related dependent variable. Each of the 16 hypothesized relationships supported at a statistically significant level (<0.001) with positive correlations ranging from moderate to strong correlation, the lowest 0.40 to the highest 0.88 leadership effectiveness ( (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.1). High-reliability coefficient (0.98), pointed toward the value of utilizing PLI as a collective measure of SL.
Other independent variables were measured by:
Cammann et al.’s assessment of overall job satisfaction(JS) was 0.86. Balfour and Wechsler’s measure of organizational commitment (OC) was 0.90. Cable and Judge’s measure of perceived person-organization fit (POF) was 0.84. Ehrhart and Klien’s measure of leadership effectiveness was on the shortened scale 0.88 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7).
The different SL instruments were engaged in the literature review as points of comparison to the present study.
Additionally, two-tailed Pearson r correlation calculated for each of the intercorrelations between the independent and dependent variables. Which is required, when a random sample from the population collected in the presence of a relationship between variables, and no outliers.
Series of regression analysis conducted.
All correlations were statistically significant at <0.001 level, exceeding the acceptable standard for the two-tailed significance of <0.01 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10). They used the possible analytical technique and method to answer the research question.
Rated 3
Are the data gathered using ethical procedures?
The invitation to participate was sent to give equal opportunity to respond. The instrument provided anonymous feedback on the leader to whom the researched participant reported on the job (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.6).
Rate 3
Are the data gathered using standardized quantitative procedures?
All participants were asked the same questions and had the same choices for responding the questions. All items have pre-set response options vary from strongly disagree to agree strongly. All applicants are given one month to complete responses. No training received by the participant on how to complete (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7).
Rate 3
Does the study have a high level of internal validity?
They examined whether independent variables cause an effect on independent variables.
They used one measure per variable.
Other studies using other instruments were engaged to as a point of comparison. I believe this review has a high level of internal validity.
Rate 3
Does the study have an external level of validity?
5000 employees invited, 1780 participated, 1713 completed the response. The high rate of response from participants results in a larger sample size increases the possibility for generalization. They examined the demographic information obtained from participants to determine whether the individuals who participated are similar to the most significant group.
According to Plano-Clerk and Creswell (2015), “If the sample is similar o the larger population, then it provides some evidence that the results may be generalized.”
Rate 3
Quality rating
0=Poor
1= Fair
2= Good
3= Excellent
Overall quality
0-10= Low quality
11-16=Average quality
17-21= High quality
Total score=21
My overall assessment=21
Reference
Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.