Updating search results...

Search Resources

22 Results

View
Selected filters:
  • meta-analysis
Why employees who speak up sometimes remain silent
Unrestricted Use
CC BY
Rating
0.0 stars

This resource is a video abstract of a research paper created by Research Square on behalf of its authors. It provides a synopsis that's easy to understand, and can be used to introduce the topics it covers to students, researchers, and the general public. The video's transcript is also provided in full, with a portion provided below for preview:

"Communication is key to business. If employees don’t communicate ideas or point out problems, organizations can struggle to improve efficiency and offer innovative products and services. That’s why leaders and organizations often encourage workers to voice their ideas and perspectives. If employees speak up and express their ideas and opinions, the thinking goes, then they’re not remaining silent about other problems or concerns. It turns out, that’s not the case. In an Academy of Management Journal paper, researchers analyzed multiple studies involving thousands of employees to understand the link between voice (how often employees volunteer constructive ideas or issues at work) and silence (the extent to which they intentionally withhold ideas or issues). The conclusion was that the two behaviors were virtually independent. The research found that voice and silence are driven by different psychological factors..."

The rest of the transcript, along with a link to the research itself, is available on the resource itself.

Subject:
Business and Communication
Management
Material Type:
Diagram/Illustration
Reading
Provider:
Research Square
Provider Set:
Video Bytes
Date Added:
02/26/2021
The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices
Unrestricted Use
CC BY
Rating
0.0 stars

From January 2014, Psychological Science introduced new submission guidelines that encouraged the use of effect sizes, estimation, and meta-analysis (the “new statistics”), required extra detail of methods, and offered badges for use of open science practices. We investigated the use of these practices in empirical articles published by Psychological Science and, for comparison, by the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, during the period of January 2013 to December 2015. The use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) was extremely high at all times and in both journals. In Psychological Science, the use of confidence intervals increased markedly overall, from 28% of articles in 2013 to 70% in 2015, as did the availability of open data (3 to 39%) and open materials (7 to 31%). The other journal showed smaller or much smaller changes. Our findings suggest that journal-specific submission guidelines may encourage desirable changes in authors’ practices.

Subject:
Psychology
Social Science
Material Type:
Reading
Provider:
PLOS ONE
Author:
David Giofrè
Geoff Cumming
Ingrid Boedker
Luca Fresc
Patrizio Tressoldi
Date Added:
08/07/2020