Sample Adequacy and Implications for Occupational Health Psychology Research

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse S. Michel ◽  
Paige Hartman ◽  
Sadie K. O'Neill ◽  
Anna Lorys ◽  
Peter Y. Chen

Bergman and Jean (2016) skillfully summarize how the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature generally overrepresents salaried, core, managerial, professional, and executive employees. We concur that that the underrepresentation of traditional workers (i.e., wage earners, laborers, first-line personnel, freelancers, contract workers, and other workers outside managerial, professional, and executive positions) can negatively affect our science. In our commentary we extend the arguments of Bergman and Jean by (a) discussing the appropriate use of samples, which are determined by study goals and hypotheses, and (b) further examining samples in occupational health psychology (OHP) and related journals, which generally require worker samples.

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mindy E. Bergman ◽  
Vanessa A. Jean

In this article, we demonstrate that samples in the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature do not reflect the labor market, overrepresenting core, salaried, managerial, professional, and executive employees while underrepresenting wage earners, low- and medium-skill first-line personnel, and contract workers. We describe how overrepresenting managers, professionals, and executives causes research about these other workers to be suspect. We describe several ways that this underrepresentation reduces the utility of the I-O literature and provide specific examples. We discuss why the I-O literature underrepresents these workers, how it contributes to the academic–practitioner gap, and what researchers can do to remedy the issue.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Gillespie ◽  
Jennifer Z. Gillespie ◽  
Michelle H. Brodke ◽  
William K. Balzer

Bergman and Jean (2016) compare published industrial and organizational (I-O) literature with labor statistics, demonstrating an underrepresentation of “workers” (i.e., “wage earners, laborers, first-line personnel, freelancers, contract workers”) relative to managerial, professional, and executive positions. They note that one of four ways in which worker underrepresentation undermines the utility of I-O psychology research is that we could miss the role of worker status as a main effect on important variables and/or a moderator of key relationships, which could hinder understanding of important phenomena as they relate to workers. We applaud the emphasis on workers and agree with this basic premise.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document