Journal Of Organizational Behavior Management Research Articles

Trends in Reporting Procedural Integrity: A Comparison.

Procedural integrity refers to the extent to which an independent variable is implemented as described. Measuring procedural integrity is one important factor when considering internal and external validity of experiments. Experimental articles in behavior-analytic journals have rarely reported procedural-integrity data. The purpose of this study was to update previous reviews of whether articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis reported procedural integrity, spanning a period from 1980 to 2020, and compare reporting in JABA to recent reviews of studies published in Behavior Analysis in Practice (2008-2019) and the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (2000-2020). Procedural integrity continues to be underreported across all three journals, but an increasing trend in reporting procedural integrity is evident inthe Journal ofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis and BehaviorAnalysis inPractice. In addition to our recommendations and implications for research and practice, we provide examples and resources to assist researchers and practitioners with recording and reporting integrity data.

Reporting Demographic Variables in JOBM and JAP: A Comparison and Call to Action

ABSTRACT Data on participant demographics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status) can be used to evaluate the existence of disparities and other correlations between the impact of an intervention and people’s intersecting identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender) yet these data are seldom reported in behavior-analytic studies. To date, no review has been conducted evaluating the reporting of demographic variables within the subfield of organizational behavior management (OBM). OBM interventions often involve multiple participants across levels of an organization, posing unique considerations for reporting demographic variables and potentially identifiable information in accordance with an organization’s preference for disclosure and human resource policies. Interventions in industrial/organizational psychology may encounter similar barriers to reporting demographic variables. Therefore, we reviewed articles published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) and the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) from 2015 to 2021 to evaluate current trends in the reporting of demographic variables. Studies that included participants and presented data (i.e., both applied and laboratory research; N = 205) were included for review and were coded based on the setting, method, and reported demographic variables. Results indicated that age and gender/sex were reported in about half of studies in JOBM and most studies in JAP, but race, socioeconomic status, and first language were rarely reported across journals. Considerations for reporting demographic variables in OBM and the utility of those data are discussed.

Procedural Integrity Reporting in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (2000–2020)

ABSTRACT In behavior analytic research, procedural integrity refers to the extent to which the independent variable is implemented as described. Collecting and reporting data on procedural integrity are important for assessing the internal validity of a study; it assists in verifying that the independent variable, and not an extraneous variable, is responsible for intervention effects. Previous research suggests that data on procedural integrity are infrequently reported in behavior analytic studies. In organizational behavior management in particular, no recent evaluation of the reporting of data on procedural integrity exists. In the current study, we examined all empirical articles published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) from 2000 to 2020 to examine reporting of data on procedural integrity. We found that only 23.7% of studies reported these data. Furthermore, we found that 43.8% of studies appear to be at high risk, meaning they included multiple person-implemented intervention components and no measure of procedural integrity. We conclude by offering some possible reasons as to why the number of JOBM studies reporting these data is so low and by suggesting some ways to increase the collection and reporting of procedural integrity data.

An introduction to volume 41 of the journal of organizational behavior management

Volume 41, issue 1 of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) provides something for everyone. As part of our ongoing special series of manuscripts which will also be featured as c...

Has OBM Found Its Heart? An Assessment of Procedural Acceptability Trends in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

ABSTRACT Procedural acceptability measures can be used to inform and improve the long-term viability of interventions in Organizational Behavior Management (OBM). However, little is known regarding the use of procedural acceptability assessments across studies employing OBM methodology. In the present review, we evaluated the use of procedural acceptability measures across all articles in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) for the first decade (1977–1986) and the most recent decade (2010 to 2019). We coded each article for industry, organizational performance problem type, participant type and reported use of procedural acceptability measures. Formal procedural acceptability measures were reported in 20% of articles included from the first decade and 35% of articles included from the most recent decade of JOBM. The use of procedural acceptability measures appears to be on an increasing trend, but the frequency of reported use of acceptability measures differed across industries. Furthermore, most articles included limited information on how acceptability was assessed. Unique considerations for the use of procedural acceptability measures in OBM and recommendations are discussed.

Ranking of the Most Prolific Authors, Universities, and Organizations in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

ABSTRACT Over the years, reviews in behavior analysis have sought to identify the most prolific researchers and institutions. The goal of these reviews was to offer one resource for behavior analysts to identify experts in behavior analysis and quality graduate programs. However, most of these reviews omitted the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), making the results less relevant to those who work in organizational behavior management. The purpose of this review was to extend previous findings and identify the most published researchers, academic institutions, and organizations in JOBM since its inception. Furthermore, we calculated the citation rate (per year, per article) for each of the top 20 most published authors. The results, implications, and opportunities for further analysis are discussed.

Participation of Women in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management: An Update and Extension

ABSTRACTA number of articles have examined the participation of women in behavior analysis research. However, most have excluded JOBM from the analysis. For this review, we coded participation of women yearly, since the inception of the journal. We examined participation of women overall, as first authors, as sole authors, and in empirical articles. We also assessed collaborations between genders and identified the ten most published women in JOBM. Next, we examined the current editorial board and associate editors to provide updated information on the participation of women in those roles. Overall, we found an increasing trend of participation of women over the years with participation approaching parity in most categories in the most recent years. Finally, we discussed these results and suggested greater attention be paid to increasing participation of other underrepresented groups.

Human Performance Technology: Further Reflections on Human Competence

ABSTRACTIn the 1990s Thomas and Marilyn Gilbert were finishing revision to Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (1978) based on 20 years of experience implementing performance improvement in many organizations. The evidence gathered from these applications strengthened and deepened their confidence in the utility of their approach to organizational performance. Technologies in communications, data processing, automation, and more were emerging that offered ways to greatly expand the reach of behavior science in organizations and education. They saw opportunity and expansion. Tom passed away in 1995 before the book was published. The nearly finished book, to be titled “Handbook of Human Performance Technology” sat, untouched, in Marilyn’s home for over 20 years. Marilyn graciously shares their material in the following pages of this special issue of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM). Readers will find many interesting and provocative updates and revisions to the 1978 book. These extend the original text, elaborate the analysis, and hint at the future directions that they saw ahead. The Gilberts worked together for decades although Marilyn’s contributions have been generally unrecognized in the behavior analysis community. This special issue helps remedy that oversight. Perhaps the greatest recognition is ahead as the next generation of behavior scientists builds upon their pioneering work and applies their groundbreaking ideas with other emerging developments to solve today’s challenges.

A Literature Review of Organizational Behavior Management Interventions in Human Service Settings from 1990 to 2016

ABSTRACTWe reviewed the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), and Behavior Analysis in Practice (BAP) from 1990 to 2016, to identify articles that evaluated organizational behavior management interventions in a human service setting. Of those articles, 75 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review, 44 from JABA (1990 to 2016), 22 from JOBM (1990 to 2016), and 7 from BAP (2008 to 2016). We categorized each selected article by setting, employee population, client population, assessment, dependent variable, independent variable, and outcome measures. Results from the review are discussed for all three journals. Recommendations are made to broaden the scope of population and dependent variable targets, include more assessments, and include outcome data when applicable.

An Analysis of the Commonality and Type of Preintervention Assessment Procedures in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (2000–2015)

ABSTRACTWe reviewed all issues of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) from 2000 through 2015 to identify the percentage of empirical articles, which utilized some form of preintervention assessment. In addition, we categorized five types of assessment used and compared the number of assessments conducted in each category. Finally, because assessment is considered to be particularly important in the subdiscipline of behavioral safety (McSween, 2003), and prior research has not examined the commonality of assessment in this area, we also analyzed the frequency and type of assessment procedures used in behavioral safety and compared this to the use of assessment in OBM in general. Results indicated that 28% of the empirical articles in JOBM used some form of preintervention assessment. Indirect methods were the most often used type of assessment. In addition, 48% percent of the articles in JOBM, which employed a safety-related dependent variable, included some form of assessment. The most frequently used type of assessment in behavioral safety was historical assessment. Based on these data, the use of some form of preintervention assessment in OBM appears to be occurring with some regularity, and assessment in behavioral safety is more common relative to assessment in OBM in general.

Tactics to Ensure Durability of Behavior Change Following the Removal of an Intervention Specialist: A Review of Temporal Generality Within Organizational Behavior Management

ABSTRACTThe endurance of behavior change over time, including the time period after a behavior specialist has ceased to offer direct services, is an important consideration for both organizational behavior management and behavior analysis in general. This article considers a dozen strategies labelled temporal generality tactics that may foster the maintenance and institutionalization of intervention efforts in organizational settings. The use of such tactics was examined by conducting a comprehensive review of articles published between 1977 and 2014 in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. The results of this review suggest that although follow-up measures are frequently collected, explicit and proactive strategies to systematically increase the success of long-term behavior change are rarely used or researched.

The Use and Validation of Preintervention Diagnostic Tools in Organizational Behavior Management

Functional analyses and assessments have become the accepted gold standards in many applied areas of behavior analysis, including Organizational Behavior Management (OBM), in recent years. Despite their acceptance, OBM data on such tools have been largely absent. There are several assessment alternatives in OBM (e.g., ABC, PIC/NIC, Behavior Engineering Model), but two assessment approaches most common in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management are Behavioral Systems Analysis (BSA) and the Performance Diagnostic Checklist (PDC). To date there have been no comprehensive reviews of BSA or the PDC from which one might draw ideas for application, research, and the advancement of the field. The goals of this paper are to (a) provide a review of the BSA and PDC literature within the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), (b) discuss the implications of the results of the review, and (c) provide suggestions for future research utilizing BSA and the PDC.

Motivating Operations in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management: Review and Discussion of Relevant Articles

Every article published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management from 1982 through 2012 that contained the term motivating operation (or a related term) was examined. Seventy-six articles used a relevant term. Authors used the term in attempts to categorize and explain the behavioral effects of many aspects of interventions (e.g., rules, feedback, goal-setting), everyday occurrences in organizations (e.g., nicotine deprivation, top management support), and characteristics of behaving individuals (e.g., optimism, personality state), which on the one hand suggests that the motivating operation concept has been of value in organizational behavior management research as published in the journal. On the other hand, none of the articles demonstrated the successful use of a motivating operation as the term was initially defined, which suggests that the MO concept has been substantially expanded or widely misused by authors of the evaluated articles.

Money and Journal of Organizational Behavior Management Interventions: A Review

Practitioners and business leaders can use monetary data to quantify the financial outcomes of interventions in organizational behavior management (OBM). The primary purpose of this review was to investigate the occurrence and classification of monetary data in the OBM literature. Other purposes were to demonstrate ways in which such data contribute to the measurement of value and to provide recommendations for its reporting and publication. Accordingly, a review was conducted of publications in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. Cumulative yearly results showed that cost data were reported more often than cost plus benefit data, and cost plus benefit data were reported more often than benefit data alone. More cost than benefit data were reported, most often with social validity, followed by institutionalization, then maintenance measures. However, more cost plus benefit data were reported than either cost or benefit data with a maintenance measure. It is concluded that reporting cost and benefit data would be beneficial to the field of OBM.

The Publication History of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management: An Objective Review and Analysis: 1998–2009

The purpose of this study was to extend into a third decade previous reviews conducted by Balcazar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhinney, and Hopkins (1989) and Nolan, Jarema, and Austin (1999) of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM). Every article published in JOBM between 1998 and 2009 was objectively reviewed and analyzed for trends and patterns. Based on data collected in the current review it was determined that JOBM has demonstrated growth and has continued to meet its first objective: JOBM would encourage Organizational Behavior Management researchers to conduct thorough research on organizational problems with the hope that the ensuing data and results would be useful to those individuals resolving organizational concerns. The fulfillment of JOBM's second and third objectives were identified as possible areas for improvement. Increases in “organizationally relevant” research and in reliability measures, follow-up data, cost/benefit analyses, and social validity measures, and inclusion of executive-level employee participants are recommended.

Human Simulations in Behavior Analysis (1987–2010): Facilitating Research in Complex Human Behavior

The authors reviewed human empirical studies from 1987–2010 in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB), Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), and Psychological Record (PR). Out of 2286 empirical studies, the authors classified 45 as simulation research, which fell into 4 main categories including organizational, gambling, financial, and other. JOBM contained over half of the simulations, while JEAB contained two. A subsequent citation analysis found that the original simulations informed 15 service-delivery articles, across five journals. In addition, the original articles also informed 35 other behavioral simulations across 19 journals. Simulation research could be ideally placed between theory and application to facilitate empirical research and applications in complex human behavior and the development of an empirically validated, comprehensive, system of behavior analysis.

Teaching with Purpose: An Interview with Thomas E. Ludwig

Thomas E. Ludwig is the John Dirk Werkman Professor of Psychology at Hope College, where he joined the faculty in 1977 after receiving his PhD in development and aging from Washington University in St. Louis. His research focuses on developmental issues in cognitive neuropsychology. He is also the author or coauthor of more than a dozen sets of instructional computer activities, including PsychSim, PsychQuest, PsychOnline, PsychInquiry, Exploring Human Development, ActivePsych, and Concepts in Action. In 2003, Hope College presented him with its Provost's Award for Excellence in Teaching, and in 2005, the American Psychological Foundation honored him with the Charles L. Brewer Distinguished Teaching of Psychology Award. Timothy D. Ludwig received an MA from Wake Forest University and a PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from Virginia Tech. Since 1994, he has been on faculty at Appalachian State University where he has received the University Deans Distinguished Graduate Faculty Award and the UNC Board of Governors Award for Excellence in Teaching. He is currently the editor of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management and serves on the board of the Organizational Behavior Management National Network. He is the author of dozens of scholarly articles and one book that empirically document the successes of behavioral methods to improve safety and quality in industry. David J. Ludwig is emeritus professor of psychology at Lenoir-Rhyne University. He received an MDiv from Concordia Seminary, in St. Louis, and a PhD in personality from Washington University in St. Louis. His creative blending of psychology and religion has spanned more than 40 years as a university professor, a licensed psychologist, and a Lutheran minister. During this time, he has authored seven books, several DVD series, and numerous professional articles, while speaking internationally on practical ways to develop healthier personal and family relationships.

Positive and Negative Reinforcement, A Distinction That Is No Longer Necessary; Or A Better Way to Talk About Bad Things

(2005). Positive and Negative Reinforcement, A Distinction That Is No Longer Necessary; Or A Better Way to Talk About Bad Things. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management: Vol. 24, No. 1-2, pp. 207-222.

Participation of Women in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

We examined participation by women in four journals devoted to organizational behavior management from 1978 to 2000. The percentage of articles with at least one female author, female authors, female first authors, editorial board members, and associate editors generally increased for all four journals. Increases in female first authors were particularly dramatic. However, the percentage of female editorial board members in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management and Personnel Psychology was considerably lower than the percentage of female first authors, and increases lagged behind the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Academy of Management Journal. The results are consistent with those found by McSweeney and Parks (2002), McSweeney, Donahoe, and Swindell (2000), and McSweeney and Swindell (1998) in other areas of behavior analysis and psychology, and suggest the possibility of a glass ceiling effect. Results also suggest, that in JOBM, the gender discrepancy may be due to differential publication rates of males and females.

Performer-Level Systems Analysis

A review of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management(1992-2001) was conducted to determine how “systemic” the applied behavioral interventions were. Criteria for the term “systemic” in an organizational behavior context were derived from Rummler and Brache's (1995) Human Performance System (HPS). Six dependent measures derived from Rummler and Brache's HPS were used to evaluate the systemic nature of the interventions. The dependent variables were classified into one of three mutually exclusive categories: whether the variable was modified, discussed but not modified, or absent. The classification of variables was used to determine the degree to which an intervention was “systemic.” Results indicated that considerations of systemic factors were often modified and rarely merely discussed. A majority of the studies examined dealt with 2, 3, or 4 of the 6 systemic variables evaluated.