File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1177/0018726712446015
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84864294277
- WOS: WOS:000306666200005
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity
Title | A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | biases common method variance creative industries creativity innovation job design leadership meta-analysis self-ratings work environment |
Issue Date | 2012 |
Publisher | Sage Publications Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journal.aspx?pid=105580 |
Citation | Human Relations, 2012, v. 65 n. 8, p. 1021-1047 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Both self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity (supervisor ratings, peer ratings, and objective measures of creativity) have been used frequently in the literature, but there have been no attempts to compare research results using different types of creativity measures. In the present meta-analysis, we examined the relationships of a wide array of personal characteristics and contextual factors with both types of creativity measures. The results suggest that, in a majority of cases, effect sizes are larger when self-ratings of employee creativity are used. The article concludes with a discussion of the circumstances when inflation of observed correlations is most likely to occur, some steps for reducing inflated observed correlations, and other issues germane to empirical creativity research. © The Author(s) 2012. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/164765 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.5 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 3.597 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Ng, TWH | en_HK |
dc.contributor.author | Feldman, DC | en_HK |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-09-20T08:09:07Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-09-20T08:09:07Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.citation | Human Relations, 2012, v. 65 n. 8, p. 1021-1047 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issn | 0018-7267 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/164765 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Both self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity (supervisor ratings, peer ratings, and objective measures of creativity) have been used frequently in the literature, but there have been no attempts to compare research results using different types of creativity measures. In the present meta-analysis, we examined the relationships of a wide array of personal characteristics and contextual factors with both types of creativity measures. The results suggest that, in a majority of cases, effect sizes are larger when self-ratings of employee creativity are used. The article concludes with a discussion of the circumstances when inflation of observed correlations is most likely to occur, some steps for reducing inflated observed correlations, and other issues germane to empirical creativity research. © The Author(s) 2012. | en_HK |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Sage Publications Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journal.aspx?pid=105580 | en_HK |
dc.relation.ispartof | Human Relations | en_HK |
dc.subject | biases | en_HK |
dc.subject | common method variance | en_HK |
dc.subject | creative industries | en_HK |
dc.subject | creativity | en_HK |
dc.subject | innovation | en_HK |
dc.subject | job design | en_HK |
dc.subject | leadership | en_HK |
dc.subject | meta-analysis | en_HK |
dc.subject | self-ratings | en_HK |
dc.subject | work environment | en_HK |
dc.title | A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity | en_HK |
dc.type | Article | en_HK |
dc.identifier.email | Ng, TWH: twhng@hkucc.hku.hk | en_HK |
dc.identifier.authority | Ng, TWH=rp01088 | en_HK |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/0018726712446015 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84864294277 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 210620 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84864294277&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_HK |
dc.identifier.volume | 65 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issue | 8 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.spage | 1021 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.epage | 1047 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000306666200005 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United Kingdom | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Ng, TWH=8564407300 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Feldman, DC=7402702773 | en_HK |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0018-7267 | - |