Crafting an Online Instrument to Conduct Research on Workplace Bullying

Year 2017, , 105 - 111, 15.01.2017

Leah P. Hollis

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.1.105

Abstract

Instrument design is a powerful research approach to answer questions on a unique research topic. If the design was crafted to gather demographic information, and included open-ended remarks from respondents, the instrument could gather data that could be used in primary and secondary analyses on the same topic. Further, the quantitative data could establish independent and dependent variables for statistical tests, while the open-ended questions could garner qualitative data. This researcher created a 35-question instrument on workplace bullying for American higher education and conducted a study on 142 American community colleges. The findings revealed that 64% of respondents endured workplace bullying (Hollis, 2016). This data set supported several book chapters that included descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and qualitative data from the respondents. Further, by using the demographic data, the researcher was able to conduct a variety of analyses regarding workplace bullying and the association in community colleges involving race, gender, and sexual orientation. This practical essay will discuss insight to instrument development including a reflection on the literature review that informed the instrument design

Keywords

Workplace bullying, instrument design, qualitative data

References

• Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Choragwicka, B. (2010). Response rates in organizational science, 1995-2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business Psychology. 25:335–349. DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9157-6.
• Baatard, G. (2012). A Technical Guide to Effective and Accessible Web Surveys. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 10(2), (pp. 101-109), available online at www.ejbrm.com.
• Croasmun, J. T., & Ostrom, L. (2011). Using likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19-22.
• Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
• Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2008). Workplace bullying and intention to leave: the moderating effect of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(4), 405-422. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2008.00081.x
• Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M. DiGuiseppi, C. Pratap, S., & Wentz, R. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review BMJ; 324:1183.
• Fan, W. & Yan, Z. (2010). Affecting response rates of the web survey: A systemic review. Computers in Human Behavior. (26), 132-139.
• Fox, R. J., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467–491.
• Fritz, J. (2014). Organizational misbehavior. In J. C. Lipinski, Laura M. (Ed.), Bullying in the workplace: Causes symptoms, and remedies (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Glasø, L. & Notelaers, G. (2012). Workplace bullying, emotions, and outcomes. Violence and Victims, 27(3), 360–77.
• Goldblatt, V. (2007). Bye-bye bullies: How to get people to want to work: conflict, fault-finding and rights-based hierarchical structures are unproductive. Such tedious bully tactics no longer cut it. New Zealand Management, 54(4), 39–41. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 1291917771).
• Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Hollis, L. P., & McCalla, S. A. (2013). Bullied back in the closet. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 4(2), 6-16.
• Hollis, L. P. (2016). Bruising the Bottom Line: Cost of Workplace Bullying and the Compromised Access for Underrepresented Community College Employees. In The Coercive Community College: Bullying and its Costly Impact on the Mission to Serve Underrepresented Populations (pp. 1-26). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Hollis, L. P. (2016a). Cybershaming–Technology, Cyberbullying, and the Application to People of Color. In The Coercive Community College: Bullying and its Costly Impact on the Mission to Serve Underrepresented Populations (pp. 125-135). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Hollis, L. P. (2016b). The Importance of Professor Civility in a Computer-Based Open-Access Environment for a Minority-Serving Institution. In The Coercive Community College: Bullying and its Costly Impact on the Mission to Serve Underrepresented Populations (pp. 65-82). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Hollis, L. P. (2016c). Socially Dominated: The Racialized and Gendered Positionality of Those Precluded from Bullying. In The Coercive Community College: Bullying and its Costly Impact on the Mission to Serve Underrepresented Populations (pp. 103-112). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Joseph, J. (2001). Survey research design. Library Hi Tech, 19 (4), p. 419- 421.
• Jurnak, M. (2010). The cost of losing good employees. New Hampshire Business Review, 32(1), 21.
• Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality and Quantity, 47(4), 2025-2047.
• Likert, R. (1931). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1-55.
• Lutgen-Sandvik, A. & Arsht, S. (2014). How unaddressed bullying affects employees, workgroups, workforces, and organizations: The widespread aversive effects of toxic communication climates. In J. C. Lipinski, Laura M. (Ed.), Bullying in the workplace: Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 51-68). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 657-674.
• Mithaug, D. E. (1996). Equal opportunity theory: Fairness in liberty for all. Sage Publications.
• Moreno, R., Martínez, R. J., & Muñiz, J. (2006). New guidelines for developing multiple-choice items. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2(2), 65-72.
• Munoz-Leiva, F., Sanchez-Fernandez, J., Montoro- Rios, F., Ibanez-Zapata, J. (2009). Improving the response rate and quality in web based survey through personalization and frequency of reminder mailing. Quality and Quantity (44).1037–1052. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-009-9256-5.
• Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). The bully at work: what you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim your dignity on the job. Sourcebooks, Napersville, IL.
• Orr, L. (2012). The rise of the smart phone: are you leveraging mobile? 10 tips for mobile friendly survey creation. Alert, 52(3), 32-34.
• Platek, R. (1985). Some important issues in questionnaire development. Journal of official statistics. 1(2), 119-136.
• Ray, J. (1980). How many answer categories should attitude and personality scales use? South African Journal of Psychology, 10, 53-54.
• Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. (2007). Color, labels, and interpretive heuristics for response scales. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 91-112.
• Wiedmer, T. (2010). Workplace bullying: Costly and preventable. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 77(2), 35-41.
• Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 613–629.