A Construct Validity Study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support

Transcription

1 Journal of Applied Psychology 1991, Vol. 76, No. 5,67-64 Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association. Inc /91/S.00 A Construct Validity Study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support Lynn McFarlane Shore Department of Management and W T. Beebe Institute of Personnel and Employment Relations Georgia State University Lois E. Tetrick Wayne State University Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986) recently conducted a study focused on a measure of perceived employer commitment that they called the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS). In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the dimensionality of the SPOS and to determine the distinctiveness of this construct from other similar constructs. Participants were 0 employees in a large corporation headquartered in the southeastern United States. The results support the SPOS as a unidimensional scale that is distinguishable from affective and continuance commitment. However, the data raise some question as to the empirical distinction between the SPOS and satisfaction. A great deal of research has been conducted on the concept of organizational commitment (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 198). Many other commitment concepts have been proposed and researched as well (Morrow, 198), such as job involvement (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Kanungo, 1979), career salience (Greenhaus, 1971), union commitment (Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson, & Spiller, 1980), and occupational commitment (Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1988). Each of these attitudes focuses on the individual's attachment to a particular aspect of the work situation, such as a job, union, or organization. What has been less thoroughly studied are employee perceptions of employer commitment to the individual (i.e., perceived organizational support). Recently, Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986) suggested that perceived organizational support is an antecedent of organizational commitment and offered a measure of perceived employer commitment, which they called the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS). They used a social exchange view to explain the relationship between these two forms of commitment. Essentially, this view suggests that an employee's inferences about the organization's commitment to him or her contributes to the employee's subsequent commitment to the organization. Eisenberger et al.'s (1986) results strongly supported this social exchange perspective of the commitment process. The notion that an employee's commitment to the organization develops as a result of an exchange relationship is not new in the commitment literature (Gouldner, 1960; Scholl, 1981). According to Etzioni (1961), employees become attached to an organization because they see a beneficial or equitable exchange relationship between their contributions to the organization and the rewards they receive for service. Consistent with Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn M. Shore, Department of Management, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4014, Atlanta, Georgia this perspective is Becker's (1960) notion of side bets: investments in the organization serve to bind the employee to the organization. Thus, attachment to an organization is seen as a state that can arise not necessarily through some crucial act on the part of the employee but rather through the accumulation of a series of relatively small side bets. Kanter (1968) also suggested that investment was an important mechanism for producing member continuance. To the extent that such investments are seen as irreversible, they provide employees with a personal stake in the fate of the organization, as well as making leaving costly. The social-exchange literature hence suggests that organizational commitment reflects employees' perceptions about the nature of the relationship that exists between themselves and the employing organization. However, this perspective appears to be very similar to the construct of perceived organizational support. According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), "employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being" (p. 501). Whereas measures of organizational commitment tend to focus on employees' attitudes toward the organization (e.g., "I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization"), the SPOS focuses on the employees' perceptions of the organization's attitude toward them (e.g., "The organization fails to appreciate any extra effort from me"). In fact, research shows that perceived organizational support is significantly associated with organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and affective and calculative attachment to the organization (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Given the conceptual similarity between organizational commitment and perceived organizational support, it is critical to investigate the distinctiveness of measures of these constructs. Another conceptual issue pertaining to the SPOS is whether employees have developed perceptions of organizational support that are distinct from their satisfaction with various aspects of their work experience. Much research has explored the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational 67

2 68 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND LOIS E. TETRICK commitment (e.g., Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Vandenberg & Lance, in press). Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) argued that the two constructs are distinct because commitment represents a global reaction to the organization as a whole whereas satisfaction is an affective reaction to various facets of the work situation. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that satisfaction and commitment are distinct (Brooke, Russell, & Price, 1988). Like organizational commitment, perceived organizational support represents an attitudinal response to the organization as a whole. It could therefore be argued that this new construct should also be distinct from satisfaction. In addition, because organizational commitment is correlated with both perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and job satisfaction (e.g., Farkas & Tetrick, 1989), it could also be logically inferred that perceived organizational support and satisfaction should be related. However, because of a lack of empirical evidence, the extent to which the individual really distinguishes satisfaction from perceived organizational support and the nature of the relationship between these two constructs is unclear. Thus, a comparison of the SPOS with work satisfaction would assess the degree of independence that perceived organizational support has from satisfaction with a number of facets of work, such as the supervisor, co-workers, pay, opportunities for growth, job security, the job itself, and the organization. Although initial research on the psychometric properties of the SPOS appears promising (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988), little evidence has accrued about the construct that underlies this scale. In particular, there has been no systematic study of the distinctiveness and redundancy of the SPOS in relation to other similar constructs, which is one means of establishing the construct validity of a scale (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate the construct validity of the SPOS by using confirmatory factor analysis techniques. The SPOS was compared with the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and the Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) and Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS; Meyer & Allen, 1984). In addition, the SPOS was compared with the Specific Satisfactions Scale from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) and the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale (Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann, 198) because much controversy exists in the literature on the nature of the relationship between satisfaction and commitment (Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Scholl, 1981). Sample Method Participants were 0 employees holding a variety of job positions (e.g., mechanics, secretaries, and supervisors) in a large multinational firm headquartered in the southeastern United States. There were 7 male and 58 female employees, and the average age of the employees was 47.9 years. Average organizational tenure for participants was.48 years. Data Collection Procedures and Measures The present research was part of a larger organizational survey with several purposes. A stratified random sample (by age and tenure) of 1,071 employees were contacted by mail and asked to participate in a longitudinal study of employee attitudes. Three hundred and eight of those contacted were newly hired and were not included in the present study. Of the remaining employees who agreed to participate (N = 48), 95% (7V= 0) returned their surveys. Thus, 4% of the employees who were asked to participate in the present study (N= 76) actually did so. The survey consisted of a series of questions on employee work attitudes, ratings of job performance, employee development experiences, and demographic information. Only measures used in the present study are described. These included the SPOS (Eisenberger et al., 1986); the short form of the OCQ (Mowday et al., 1979); the ACS and CCS (Meyer & Allen, 1984); the Specific Satisfactions Scale, which includes measures of satisfaction with security, pay, growth, coworkers, and supervision (Hackman & Oldham, 1975); the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale (Seashore et al., 198); and a single item asking respondents how satisfied they were with the organization. Attitude measures on the employee survey utilized 5-point scales and were scored such that higher values reflected a higher degree of support, commitment, or satisfaction. For the Specific Satisfactions Scale, anchors ranged from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5), and for the other attitude measures the anchors ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Items were grouped by scale in the questionnaire (i.e., they were not randomly intermixed). Analysis Data were analyzed in a two-step process. First, using LISREL-PC, Version 7 (Jbreskog & Sorbom, 1988), we assessed the covariance matrix of the items for each measure against a one-factor model to determine whether the scale was unidimensional. Then, four manifest indicators of each commitment construct, represented by the scales, were formed to test the distinctiveness of perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and satisfaction. This procedure was elected to avoid the use of item-level factor analysis as well as to enhance the subject-to-degrees-of-freedom ratio for testing the relations of interest (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The indices of fit provided by LISREL-PC that were used to assess the goodness of fit of the models estimated were the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and the root-mean-square residual (rmsr). In addition, the normed fit index (NFI; Bentler& Bonett, 1980) and the parsimonious fit index (PFI; Mulaik et al., 1989) were used on the basis of a null model of complete independence. Although Bentler and Bonett suggested that a NFI of.90 or greater signifies that the model estimated has accounted for the sample covariance matrix, Tanaka (1987) reported that this may be overly severe. Therefore, for this study, a criterion of.80 for the NFI in conjunction with the PFI was used to assess the adequacy of fit for the models estimated. Results Prior to examining the relations among the SPOS, OCQ, ACS, CCS, and satisfaction, we submitted each scale to confirmatory factor analysis to establish its unidimensionality (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The results of these confirmatory factor analyses are shown in Table 1 along with the means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha estimates of internal consistency. A single-factor model was found to adequately ac-

3 SURVEY OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 69 Table 1 Results of Tests ofunidimensionality for the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS), Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), Affective Commitment Scale (ACS), Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS), and Satisfaction Scale SPOS OCQ ACS CCS Satisfaction Facets of satisfaction Security Pay Growth Co-workers Supervision Job Organization No. of items M SD a x , df on AGFI Fit indices Note. All chi-square values were significant, p <.001. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; rmsr = root-mean-square residual; NFI = normed fit index; PFI = parsimonious fit index. rmsr NFI PFI count for the covariance matrices among the SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and CCS items (NFI =.906,.917,.887, and.870, respectively). Therefore, having obtained evidence of the unidimensionality of these scales, we followed Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) recommendation against using single items as indicators by forming composites of the items within each scale to serve as indicators of perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, affective commitment, and continuance commitment. That is, each item from a given scale was randomly assigned to one of four composites, which served as an indicator of that respective construct. The means and standard deviations of the resulting indicators for each construct are shown in Table. The single-factor model for the 14 items of the Specific Satisfactions Scale plus the items of the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale and the Organizational Satisfaction item did not adequately account for the covariance matrix (NFI =.66). Subsequently, a seven-factor model was estimated, which did receive support (NFI =.907). Therefore, the data indicated that each facet of satisfaction should be treated as a separate variable. However, because there were, at most, only 4 items to measure a specific satisfaction, a single composite indicator for each facet of satisfaction was formed as shown in Table. Thus, the covariance matrix among the manifest indicators (4 manifest indicators each for SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and CCS plus the 7 manifest indicators of satisfaction with security, pay, growth, co-workers, supervision, job, and organization) was computed and submitted to further analyses. Examination of the correlation matrix among the manifest indicators (see Table ) reveals that the indicators of a given construct were generally more strongly correlated with each other than with the indicators of the other constructs. However, there were moderate to strong correlations among all of the indicators of perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, affective commitment, and satisfaction. Only the indicators of continuance commitment appeared to be independent of the other variables. On the basis of this pattern of correlations, a two-factor model was estimated in which the indicators of the SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and satisfaction scales loaded on one factor and the indicators of the CCS loaded on a second factor. This model did not attain adequate fit, x (9) = 140. (GFI =.67, AGFI =.551, rmsr =.06, NFI =.765, PFI =.69), signifying that perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, affective commitment, and satisfaction were differentiable, at least in part. Next, an 11 -factor model was estimated in which the underlying, correlated dimensions were perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and seven specific facets of satisfaction (security, pay, growth, co-workers, supervision, job, and organization). On the basis of the overall fit indices (NFI =.940, PFI =.70) and the difference in the chi-square, Ax (40) = 1,054.9, p <.001, this model represented substantial improvement in fit over the two-factor model. The standardized factor loadings were all above.60 but are not reported here to conserve space. Examination of the factor correlations presented in Table indicated that the OCQ and the ACS were strongly correlated with each other (r =.89). This is consistent with prior research, which has suggested that the OCQ and the ACS both measure affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Furthermore, the SPOS was strongly correlated with both of these measures of commitment (r=.71 and.70, respectively). When the correlations with the specific facets of satisfaction differed for the SPOS, OCQ, or ACS, the SPOS appeared to be more strongly correlated (i.e., satisfaction with supervision correlated.65 with SPOS and only.44 and.45 for the OCQ and ACS, respectively). One exception was that the OCQ was correlated.71 with overall job satisfaction whereas the SPOS correlated only.61 with overall job satisfaction. This pattern of correlations raises questions

4 640 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND LOIS E. TETRICK Table Zero-Order Correlations Among Manifest Indicators of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Scale (ACS), Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS), and Specific Satisfactions (Security, Pay, Indicator M SD SPOS1. SPOS. SPOS 4. SPOS4 5. OCQ1 6. OCQ 7. OCQ 8. OCQ4 9. ACS1 10. ACS 11. ACS 1. ACS4 1. CCS1 14. CCS 15. CCS 16. CCS4 17. Security 18. Pay 19. Growth 0. Co-workers 1. Supervision. Job. Organization *.85*.87*.6*.51*.4*.64*.66*.80*.8*.5* *.5*.85*.50*.5*.7*.5* *.75*.6* *.4*.5*.64*.0*.5*.50*.1*.6* *.78* * * p<.05. as to the distinctiveness of the SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and the facets of satisfaction. A number of additional models were developed and tested to further explore the distinctiveness of the SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and the facets of satisfaction. A 5-factor model was estimated in which all facets of satisfaction were collapsed onto a single factor. This resulted in a considerable increase in the PFI over the 11 -factor model shown in Table (PFI =.789 vs..709), although the chi-square difference was significant, Ax (1) = 19.1, p <.01. The major change in the factor correlations was that the SPOS, OCQ, and ACS were all strongly correlated with satisfaction (r =.86,.8, and.77, respectively), which was partially due to the correction for attenuation resulting from the presence of multiple indicators for satisfaction. Because the largest correlation was still between the OCQ and ACS, a 4-factor model was fit to the data. The change in chi-square was significant, Ax (4)= 116.4, p <.01. However, the PFI reflected only a negligible decrement (see Table ; NFI =.889, PFI =.787), suggesting that the ACS and OCQ were not distinguishable. To test whether the SPOS could be differentiated from either satisfaction or affective commitment as measured by the OCQ and ACS, we estimated two -factor models. The fit indices and factor correlations are presented in Table. When perceived organizational support was combined with satisfaction, the PFI dropped from.787 to.77, A*; () = , p <.01, and when perceived organizational support was combined with affective commitment, the PFI dropped to.698, Ax () = 67.90, p <.01. In addition, for this latter model, the NFI dropped below.80 to.777, suggesting that this model did not adequately account for the data. Therefore, these analyses suggest that perceived organizational support as measured by the SPOS is empirically distinct from affective commitment as measured by the ACS and OCQ; however, there is some question as to whether perceived organizational support is distinguishable from satisfaction, at least as measured here. Discussion Given the popularity of commitment measures among researchers, it is critical to carefully evaluate the construct validity of each new measure prior to its extensive use. An important first step in the establishment of construct validity is to examine the factor structure of a scale. Consistent with Kottke and Sharafinski (1988), the present results have provided support for the unidimensionality of the SPOS as a measure of perceived organizational support. Furthermore, we have provided evidence that the SPOS is empirically distinct, as well as conceptually distinct, from affective and continuance commitment. Thus, the present study suggests that employees are able to distinguish their own commitment levels to the organization from their perceptions of the organization's commitment to them. This is important in light of Morrow's (198) review of the literature, which showed a plethora of commitment-related concepts and measures, many of which appeared to be redundant. The data did confirm that perceived organizational support is strongly correlated with affective commitment, as would be expected on the basis of the social exchange theory expressed by Eisenberger et al. (1986,1990) because organizational commitment is purported to develop as a result of perceived organizational support. What remains unclear is the relative lack of a relation between perceived organizational support and continu-

5 SURVEY OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 641 Support (SPOS), Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), Affective Commitment Growth, Co-workers, Supervision, Job, and Organization) * -.15* -.15* *.8*.66*.5*.4*.4*.4*.51* * *.9*.50*.5*.5* -.19* * *.8*.9*.9*.6*.6*.8*.66*.5*.66* ance commitment, especially in light of Eisenberger et al.'s (1990) finding that perceived organizational support was positively related to calculative involvement in the organization. One possible explanation, drawn from an examination of the items of the CCS, is that exchange ideology moderates the relation between perceived organizational support and continuance much as it was found to moderate the relation between perceived organizational support and absences (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Another explanation is that positive organizational experiences may lead to perceptions of organizational caring (perceived organizational support) and subsequent affective commitment, whereas perceptions of being treated poorly by the organization (e.g., lack of promotions or a demotion) may lead to the more negative form of commitment that is reflected in the CCS. The results also show that affective commitment, as measured by the ACS and OCQ, is empirically distinct from satisfaction. However, the empirical distinction between satisfaction and perceived organizational support as measured by the SPOS received less support. Perhaps both satisfaction and perceived organizational support reflect a global belief about the "personified" organization. This interpretation is consistent with theories of work adjustment and turnover (e.g., Wanous's [1980] matching model), which suggest that employees expect their needs to be fulfilled by the organization and that unfulfilled needs lead to lowered job satisfaction, lowered organizational commitment, and increased turnover. This notion of the personified organization is also similar to reciprocity, an element of organizational commitment suggested by Scholl (1981) and Gouldner (1960). Gouldner described reciprocity as a universal belief that (a) people should help those who have helped them and (b) people should not harm those who have helped them. According to Scholl (198J), reciprocity is the notion that an employee should repay benefits or opportunities provided by the organization through future performance. Thus, prior research linking satisfaction and organizational commitment may represent an employee belief system that caring organizations meet the needs of employees, such as the need for a satisfying and fulfilling job, and that this caring deserves commitment in return. This study raises the question as to whether individuals perceive that the organization is supportive because they are satisfied with their situation or whether perceived organizational support may be antecedent to satisfaction. In addition, it is not clear from the present results whether perceived organizational support and satisfaction should be treated as distinct concepts. In our view, perceived organizational support and satisfaction are different from one another in a number of ways. First, perceived organizational support is a global measure of employer commitment whereas satisfaction is focused on various facets of work. Second, although perceived organizational support is a cognitive assessment (i.e., set of beliefs) about organizational caring, satisfaction is an affective reaction to different elements of the work situation. We suspect that perceived organizational support may directly affect satisfaction, resulting in the lack of empirical independence found in the present study. Interestingly, the distinction between these constructs has not been studied previously. Clearly, further research is needed to address the relationship between perceived organizational support and satisfaction as well as differential antecedents and consequences of these two constructs. The present study provides evidence for the distinctiveness of the SPOS with affective and continuance commitment but shows less support for a lack of redundancy with satisfaction.

6 64 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND LOIS E. TETRICK Table Factor Correlations Factor SPOS. OCQ. ACS 4. CCS 5. Security 6. Pay 7. Growth 8. Co-workers 9. Supervision 10. Job 11. Organization.70*.5*.89*.5* 11 -factor model 8 -.1*.*.6*.64* -.15*.06. 9*. 45* _ -.16*. 8*.6*.66*.01. 9*.6* -.0.9*.8* *.5*.66* SPOS OCQ ACS CCS Satisfaction SPOS OCQ + ACS CCS Satisfaction 1. SPOS + satisfaction. OCQ + ACS. CCS 5-factor model combining specific satisfactions'",71*.70*.86* 4-factor model combining the OCQ and ACS'.74*.86*.89*.8*.8* *.06 -factor model combining SPOS and satisfaction 11.78* 1. SPOS + OCQ + ACS. CCS. Satisfaction.91* -factor model combining SPOS with affective commitment 1 Note. SPOS = Survey of Perceived Organizational Support; OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; ACS = Aifective Commitment Scale; CCS = Continuance Commitment Scale. a X (189) = 65.8; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) =.911; adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) =.870; root-mean-square residual (rmsr) =.04; normed fit index (NFI) =.940; parsimonious fit index (PFI) =.70. b % (0) = ; GFI =.857; AGFI =.81; rmsr =.055; NFI =.908; PFI =.789. c x (4) = 674.8; GFI =.87; AGFI =.799; rmsr =.056; NFI =.889; PFI =.787. d X (7) = 84.8; GFI =.799; AGFI =.756; rmsr =.04; NFI =.861; PFI =.77. " x (7) = 1,47.8; GFI =.6; AGFI =.554; rmsr =.068; NFI =.777; PFI =.698. *p<.05. This was an important first step in the establishment of the construct validity of the SPOS. Further studies are needed to address several unanswered questions. The fundamental nature of perceived organizational support is not yet clear. Greater construct explication is needed, particularly given the present findings with regard to satisfaction. Though research suggests positive performance outcomes of perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1990), little is known about factors that create these perceptions. Particularly needed are studies that track the development of these perceptions among new employees. When the construct that underlies the SPOS is more fully understood, the real utility of this scale relative to other similar scales can be assessed. References Anderson, J. C, & Gerbing, D. W (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 10, Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, -40. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness

7 SURVEY OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 64 of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88, Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W, & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 5, Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press. Farkas, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Gordon, M. E., Philpot, J. W, Burt, R. E., Thompson, C. A., &Spiller, W E. (1980). Commitment to the union: Development of a measure and an examination of its correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, Gouldner, H. P. (1960). Dimensions of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, Greenhaus, J. H. (1971). An investigation of the role of career salience in vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (198). LISREL 7. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in Utopian communities. American Sociological Review,, Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86, Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 4-. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, Morrow, P. C. (198). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of worker commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8, Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W, & Steers, R. M. (198). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New \brk: Academic Press. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-to-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, Porter, L. W, Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, Scholl, R. W (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.). (198). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New \fork: Wiley. Tanaka, J. S. (1987). "How big is big enough": Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child Development, 58, Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. (in press). On the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management. Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V (1988). A longitudinal assessment of the determinant relationship between employee commitment to the occupation and the organization. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia State University, Atlanta. Wanous, J. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Received January,1991 Revision received May 8,1991 Accepted May 9,1991 Correction to Edwards and Baglioni In the article "Relationship Between Type A Behavior Pattern and Mental and Physical Symptoms: A Comparison of Global and Component Measures," by Jeffrey R. Edwards and A. J. Baglioni, Jr. (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, Vol. 76, No., pp ), the sentence "Items with negative loadings were reversed" should be deleted from the note to Table. The original scoring procedures were used for all TABP measures for the analyses reported in Table.