Insufficient Effort Responding in Management Research: A Critical Review and Future Directions

IF 9.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Jason L. Huang, Zhonghao Wang, Ran Huang, Dongyuan Wu, Huijie Shi
{"title":"Insufficient Effort Responding in Management Research: A Critical Review and Future Directions","authors":"Jason L. Huang, Zhonghao Wang, Ran Huang, Dongyuan Wu, Huijie Shi","doi":"10.1177/01492063251330268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Insufficient effort responding (IER) presents a significant challenge in management research, potentially leading to flawed inferences. This review critically examines IER practices in 17 leading management journals from 2012 to 2023, highlighting inconsistencies in screening methods, cutoffs, and reporting. We find that IER screening is more prevalent in studies using online paid samples, experimental tasks, and computerized data collection. However, researchers’ IER-related practices, specifically the use of multiple detection methods, predicted IER removal rate above and beyond these study characteristics. Our review revealed that, despite increasing awareness, IER detection and reporting remain unstandardized, with varied practices across studies. While attention checks are frequently used, details about their implementation are often inadequately reported, and multiple detection methods, though recommended, are inconsistently applied. Variability in cutoffs and reliance on single-item checks raise concerns about the risk of retaining IER cases or mistakenly excluding attentive respondents. Our assessment of the impact of IER removal suggests that while it generally improves reliability and model fit, its effect can vary widely across measures and studies. We call on methodologists to resolve existing inconsistencies by developing clearer, empirically derived guidelines for IER detection and removal. We urge researchers to adopt more comprehensive and transparent reporting practices to enhance replicability and methodological rigor, with a flowchart to guide research design and method communication. This review underscores the need for a more systematic approach to IER mitigation in management research to enhance data quality and research validity.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251330268","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Insufficient effort responding (IER) presents a significant challenge in management research, potentially leading to flawed inferences. This review critically examines IER practices in 17 leading management journals from 2012 to 2023, highlighting inconsistencies in screening methods, cutoffs, and reporting. We find that IER screening is more prevalent in studies using online paid samples, experimental tasks, and computerized data collection. However, researchers’ IER-related practices, specifically the use of multiple detection methods, predicted IER removal rate above and beyond these study characteristics. Our review revealed that, despite increasing awareness, IER detection and reporting remain unstandardized, with varied practices across studies. While attention checks are frequently used, details about their implementation are often inadequately reported, and multiple detection methods, though recommended, are inconsistently applied. Variability in cutoffs and reliance on single-item checks raise concerns about the risk of retaining IER cases or mistakenly excluding attentive respondents. Our assessment of the impact of IER removal suggests that while it generally improves reliability and model fit, its effect can vary widely across measures and studies. We call on methodologists to resolve existing inconsistencies by developing clearer, empirically derived guidelines for IER detection and removal. We urge researchers to adopt more comprehensive and transparent reporting practices to enhance replicability and methodological rigor, with a flowchart to guide research design and method communication. This review underscores the need for a more systematic approach to IER mitigation in management research to enhance data quality and research validity.
管理研究中的努力不足:批判性回顾与未来方向
努力响应不足(IER)在管理研究中提出了一个重大挑战,可能导致有缺陷的推论。本综述对2012年至2023年17种主要管理期刊的IER实践进行了批判性审查,突出了筛选方法、截止点和报告的不一致性。我们发现,在使用在线付费样本、实验任务和计算机数据收集的研究中,IER筛查更为普遍。然而,研究人员的IER相关实践,特别是使用多种检测方法,预测的IER去除率超出了这些研究特征。我们的回顾显示,尽管人们的认识不断提高,但IER的检测和报告仍然不标准化,在不同的研究中存在不同的做法。虽然经常使用注意力检查,但关于其实施的细节往往没有得到充分的报告,并且多种检测方法虽然被推荐,但应用不一致。截止时间的变化和对单项检查的依赖引起了人们对保留IER病例或错误地排除细心的应答者的风险的担忧。我们对去除IER影响的评估表明,虽然它通常可以提高可靠性和模型拟合,但其效果在不同的测量和研究中差异很大。我们呼吁方法学家通过制定更清晰、经验推导的IER检测和去除指南来解决现有的不一致。我们敦促研究人员采用更全面和透明的报告实践,以提高可复制性和方法的严谨性,并使用流程图来指导研究设计和方法交流。这篇综述强调需要在管理研究中采用更系统的方法来缓解环境影响,以提高数据质量和研究有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.40
自引率
5.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信