Learning activity 5.3-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.
Were descriptive analyses reported?
They used mean to describe the response of all participants for continuous variables, standard deviation to measure the relative results to the mean, all calculated for all significant variables. They had standard to suppress results or to consider them in a calculation (criterion used to determine whether they obtain statistically significant results). They outlined these analyses in tables (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.8,9).
Rate 3
Good Hypotheses testing procedures were used? Did inferential statistics were used? (e.g., correlations, regression analysis, ANOVA, t-test)
They formulated eight hypotheses, which they are follower perspectives on four Independent variables of SL, they analyzed for hypothesized positive relationships with four dependent variables. They perform the Bartlett test for proposed hypotheses to identify their significance level which is <0.05, and They set the p-value <0.01. They followed the five steps for hypothesis testing, no alpha level stated in the research; however, they used KMO and Bartlett test (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.8 ). They used Regression analysis to test the predictive impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables. So multiple regression standardized coefficient beta used on independent variables. Also, they used multiple linear regression hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses further. R squared measures for the strength of relationships between independent variables and dependent variables. F values were used to find how the primary hypotheses relate to each other to predict a positive effect on the sub-hypotheses (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10-13).
Rate 3
What were the results? (What was found?) Were the results comprehensive? Did the results include sufficient information?
Results for hypothesized relationships:
Statistically significant positive relationships support each of the primary hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. The eight hypotheses supported by moderate (0.40 to 0.88). All correlations were statistically significant at the level of <0.001, which is exceeding the acceptable standard for the two-tailed significance of <0.01 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.9,10).
Results from multiple linear regression analysis:
Each of the independent variables was statistically significant predictors, and the relative importance of the independent variable was consistent across each model with leader follower-focus having the largest effect, leader goal-orientation having the second largest effect, and leader purposefulness the third largest effect (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10,11).
Results from Hierarchical regression analysis:
All R square change results support each of the sub-hypotheses as all models were and associated R square change findings were significant at a level of <0.001. R square change results also support the relative importance of follower-focus has the most significant predictive effect on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and leadership effectiveness, whereas follower-focus has the third most significant predictive impact on person-organization fit. Goal-orientation and leader purposefulness have more limited R square change results but are statistically significant at these lower levels (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.11-13).
The results all included in tables, and consistent with research design.
Rate 9
Did the analysis represent a good quantitative process?
The data analysis in the results to a certain extent was manageable to understand all details and analysis the researchers included.
They provided an objective explanation of the results, and statistical information found all related to the collected data.
Rate 3
Did the results provide a good explanation of the study’s purpose?
All the results were directed to answer the research question.
Only statistical test related to the study’s purpose calculated and reported.
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.