05.03.2016 Views

In Search of Evidence

jqluvth

jqluvth

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Chapter 7<br />

Based on these exclusion criteria, 10 Dutch and 181 U.S. respondents were omitted<br />

from the survey. No restrictions were applied regarding sub-discipline (e.g. HR or<br />

finance), organizational level (e.g. senior or mid-level management), or industry.<br />

We sent an email with an invitation to participate and a secured link to the<br />

online questionnaire to a random sample <strong>of</strong> 30,000 U.S. managers from the<br />

leadership directory and a convenience sample <strong>of</strong> 2,972 Belgian and Dutch<br />

managers. We emailed a reminder twice to all non-responders. The response rate<br />

for the American sample was 3% (n = 924), while the overall response rate for the<br />

Belgian—Dutch sample was 30% (n = 875), giving an overall final sample size <strong>of</strong><br />

1,566. One explanation for the difference in response rate is that a large number <strong>of</strong><br />

the American invitations were undeliverable, either because <strong>of</strong> incorrect email<br />

addresses or the manager having left the organization they were listed under.<br />

Another explanation is that, in contrast with the U.S. sample, those in Belgian and<br />

Dutch sample were contacted through established relationships, such as alumni<br />

organizations. Characteristics <strong>of</strong> the 1,566 respondents are described in Table 1.<br />

The typical respondent was a 50- to 59-year-old male manager with a master’s<br />

degree and more than 10 years <strong>of</strong> experience in the field <strong>of</strong> general management.<br />

Statistical Analysis<br />

The first step we took in preparing the results <strong>of</strong> the questionnaire for use was<br />

to examine the nature <strong>of</strong> our missing data. <strong>In</strong> this case, the rate <strong>of</strong> missing values<br />

ranged from 0% to 19.3% (mean 9.2%), thus emphasizing the need to choose an<br />

appropriate method for approximating these missing values. We considered the<br />

data to include patterns <strong>of</strong> missing at random and missing completely at random,<br />

which necessitates using a robust imputation technique. Specifically, we opted for<br />

the multiple imputation (MI) approach using the Markov chain Monte Carlo<br />

method (Rubin, 1987). This method uses an iterative version <strong>of</strong> stochastic<br />

regression imputation to create multiple copies <strong>of</strong> the data set (in our case 20),<br />

each <strong>of</strong> which contains different estimates <strong>of</strong> the missing values. The advantage <strong>of</strong><br />

MI over other missing data approaches is that the sample size is preserved, and the<br />

parameter estimates for all <strong>of</strong> the imputed datasets are pooled, providing more<br />

accurate estimates. To represent the broad trends uncovered in our analyses, we<br />

reported categorical data as percentages, while continuous data were reported as<br />

means and standard deviations. We tested a possible association between level <strong>of</strong><br />

education, level <strong>of</strong> experience (tenure), and attitude towards evidence-based

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!