박정수 (1992). 문항반응이론에서 일차원성에 관한 통게적 가설 검정. 한국교육, 19, 73-87.
성태제 (1991). 문항반응이론 입문. 양서원
성태제 (2005). 교육 평가. 학지사
성태제 및 김경희 (1993). 문항수, 문항난이도, 문항변별도 변화에 따른 신뢰도 계수와 검사정보함수의 변화. 교육평가연구, 6(2), 123-154.
이순묵 (1995). 요인분석. 학지사
이종구, 이순묵 (1991). SAS의 이해와 활용. 성원사
안창규 (1990). 검사의 신뢰도를 높이기 위한 문항선정 기준에 관한 연구. 부산대학교 학생 생활연구보, 25, 95-167
정 송, 이순묵, 이영선 및 이민수 (2011). MMPI 단축형 우울척도 개발: 문항기반 요인분석의 사용. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(3), 811-830
한윤영 (2013). 문항반응이론을 적용한 한국형 재구조화연함검사(K-RAT)의 문항탐색. 영재와 영재교육, 12(2), 93-113.
황정규 (1989). 학습과 교육평가. 교육과학사
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 76, 422-436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.
Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measure of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196.
Akan, O. H., Allen, R. S., & White, C. S. (2009). Equity Sensitivity and Organizational Citizenship behavior in a team environment. Small Group Research, 40, 94-112.
Allen, R., S., Takeda, M., & White, C. S. (2005). Cross-cultural equity sensitivity: A test of differences between the United States and Japan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 641-662.
Baker, F. B. (1992). Item Response Theory: Parameter estimation technique. NY: Marcel Dekker.
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 259-273.
Buelens, M. & Poelmans, S. A. Y. (2004). Enriching the Spence and Robbins’ typology of workaholism: Demographic, motivational and organizational correlates. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 440-458.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Cohen, P. Y., & P. M. Popovich (2002). Correlation: Parametric and nnparametric measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychoetrika, 16, 297-234.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlabum.
Foote, S. D., & Harmon, H. (2006). Measuring equity sensitivity, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. (21), 90-108.
Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitation of coeffcient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827-838.
Greenberg, J. (1979). Protestant ethic endorsement and the fairness of equity inputs. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 81-90.
Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and application. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Heneman, H. G. & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 129-142.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055-1064.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234.
Kickul, J. & Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 191-217.
Kickul, J., Gundry, L. K., & Posig, M. (2005). Does trust matter? The relationship between equity sensitivity and perceived equity sensitivity and perceived organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 56, 205-218.
King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142.
King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 301-317.
Lee, K., Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2001). The three-component model of organisational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 596-614.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. NY: Erlbaum Associates.
Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C., (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585-596.
Miner, J. B. (1980). Theories of organizational behavior. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press
Mowday, R. T. (1983). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R. M. Steers & L Porter(Eds), Motivation and work behavior (3rd. ed, pp. 91-113). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 539-560.
O’Neill, B. S. & Mone, M. A. (1998). Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 805-816.
Park, H-S, Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in comunication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 562-577.
Patrick, S. L., & Jackson, J. J. (1991). Further examination of the equity sensitivity construct. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 1091-1106.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350-367.
Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implication. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4(3), 207-230.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17
Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 855-910.
Shore, T. H., & Straus, J. (2008). Measurement of equity sensitivity: A comparison of the equity sensitivity instrument and equity preference questionnaire. Psychological Report, 102, 64-78.
Wheeler, K. G. (2007). Empirical comparison of equity preference questionnaire and equity sensitivity instrument in relation to work outcome preferences. Psychological Reports, 100, 955-962.
Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). A unidimensioinal latent trait model for continuous item responses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 223-237.
Ferrando, P. J. (1996). Calibration of invariant item parameters in a continuous item response model using the extended LISREL measurement submodel. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, 419-439.
- Abstract viewed - 98 times
- PDF downloaded - 156 times
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© Korean Journal for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2016
How to Cite
A preliminary study for refinement of equity preference questionnaire
Application of Item response theory(IRT)
Vol 29 No 2 (2016): Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Submitted: May 10, 2019
Published: May 31, 2016
Equity Preference Questionnaire (EPQ; Sauley & Bedeian, 2000) was developed as an alternative measure of Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI; Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987) assessing the construct of equity sensitivity. However, EQP appeared to have sub-dimensions, making it difficult to explain which the sub-factors are relavant to the equity sensitivity and causing the dispute on the validity issue, including the multidimensionality, of the measure. Current study, by using the principal component analysis, was able to confirm that EPQ was unidimensional. Besides, with the use of Item Response Theory (IRT; Embretson, & Reise, 2000), the EPQ measuere was investigated at the item level, which was unable to precisely estimate, in the classical test theory, the trait of both ‘Benevolents’ and ‘Entitleds’ comprised of equity sensitivity. Based on the results of both item and test information funcion in IRT, 6 out of 16 items were dropped from the measure due to the lack of the item information. The modified EPQ resulted in single factor as originally devised by Sauley and Bedeian(2000), and the predicting power of the revised measure remained stable. Implications are noted for further inquiry into refinement of modified EPQ.