In reviewing the internal properties of Least-Preferred Co-worker (LPC) measures, Rice (1978a) indicated four major problem areas needing research: scale content, respondent classification, referent person stereotyping, and score stability. This study addressed these issues by constructing three versions of a new LPC measure and comparing their psychometric properties to those of Fiedler's (1967) LPC.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
2.
Cronbach, L. J. , Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., and Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The Dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
3.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128-148.
5.
Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.
6.
Fiedler, F. E. , Chemers, M. M., and Mahar, L. (1976). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader-match concept. New York: Wiley.
7.
Fox, W. M. (1976). Reliabilities, means, and standard deviations for the LPC scales: Instrument refinement. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 450-461.
8.
Garvin, D. and Rice, R. W. (1982). Subjective meaning of the LPC scale: The view of respondents. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 203-218.
9.
Joreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183-202.
10.
Kennedy, J. K. (1982). Middle LPC leaders and the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 1-14.
11.
Mitchell, S. K. (1979). Inter observer agreement, reliability, and generalizability of data collected in observational studies. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 376-390.
12.
Mitchell, T. R. (1970). Leader complexity and leadership style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 166-173.
13.
Osgood, C. E. , May, W. H., and Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
14.
Rice, R. W. (1978a). Psychometric properties of the esteem for least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. Academy of Management Review, 3, 103-116.
15.
Rice, R. W. (1978b). Construct validity of the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1199-1237.
16.
Rice, R. W. (1979). Reliability and validity of the LPC scale: A reply. Academy of Management Review, 4, 291-294.
17.
Rice, R. W. and Seaman, F. J. (1981). Internal analyses of the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 109-120.
18.
Schmitt, N. (1978). Path analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 155-173.
19.
Schriesheim, C. A. , Bannister, B. D., and Money, W. H. (1979). Psychometric properties of the LPC scale: An extension of Rice's review. Academy of Management Review, 4, 287-290.
20.
Shiflett, S. C. (1974). Stereotyping and esteem for one's least preferred coworker. Journal of Social Psychology, 193, 55-63.
21.
Shiflett, S. C. (1981). Is there a problem with the LPC score in leader match?, Personnel Psychology, 34, 765-769.
22.
Stinson, J. E. and Tracy, L. (1974). Some disturbing characteristics of the LPC score. Personnel Psychology, 27, 477-485.
23.
Tucker, L. R. and Lewis, C. A. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
