Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35472069›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Perceived evidence use: Measurement and construct validation of managerial evidence use as perceived by subordinates.

Denise M Jepsen, Denise M Rousseau

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Denise M JepsenDepartment of Management, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7106-8972
Denise M RousseauHeinz School of Public Policy and Management and Tepper School of Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United State of America.
Carnegie Mellon University · USMacquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the promise of evidence-based management as a practice for improving decisions and their outcomes in organizations, little empirical study exists on the effects of evidence use in the workplace. The present research develops a scale to assess subordinate perceptions of managerial evidence use in decision making and provides empirical evidence of the relationships this measure has with established workplace and organizational phenomena. First, scale development studies in four samples, including a field site and MBA courses with students employed full time, show that perceived evidence use can be measured reliably and is distinct from other leadership measures. Second, a cross-sectional study of 308 employees in 18 aged care homes demonstrates a positive relationship between employee perceptions of managerial evidence use and commonly used measures of leader member exchange, trust in supervisor, work-based learning, and organizational performance ratings, and a negative relationship with employee distress. These results suggest implications for leadership and management practices in contemporary, information-rich environments and novel insights into how employees can be affected by managerial evidence use.

Indexed as

LeadershipWorkplaceAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEmploymentHumansOrganizations

Identifiers

PMID35472069
PMCPMC9041857
OpenAlexW4224577382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.