Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:23:12.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eternal Criterion Problem in the Context of Impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

Edward L. Levine
Edward L. Levine*
Affiliation:
Emeritus, University of South Florida
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edward L. Levine, 6717 Whiteway Drive, Temple Terrace, FL 33617. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The focal article by Aguinis et al. (2017) offers a rich brew of data and explication regarding the devilishly complicated concept of impact of sources (both science-based and practice-based), of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology articles, and of authors of articles in the discipline of I-O psychology. The criteria developed to assess the impact of these are simple frequency counts indexing the number of times items within each domain are cited by leading introductory I-O psychology textbooks, which in turn leads to ranked lists. These are then used as a basis for answering numerous highly significant questions about the discipline of I-O psychology, including its scholarly and practice-based underpinnings, and the future prospects of the field.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 588 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Campbell, P. K., Bernal-Turnes, P., Drewry, J. M., & Edgerton, B. T. (2017). Most frequently cited sources and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks: Implications for the science-practice divide, scholarly impact, and the future of the field. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (4), 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. (2017). The Undoing Project: A friendship that changed our minds. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Wallace, S. R. (1965). Criteria for what? American Psychologist, 20, 411–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitz, J. (1961). Criteria for criteria. American Psychologist, 16, 228–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar