This paper provides an introductory discussion of Bayesian statistics and their applicability to OD evaluation. Bayesian statistics provide an alternative to traditional statistics in the evaluation of OD interventions. Bayesian statistics allow for the explicit quantification of prior probabilities and give management and consultants control over the determination of the practical significance of an intervention. This makes Bayesian evaluation methods a more flexible tool for investigating dynamic interventions in systems. A discussion of the role of subjectivity in Bayesian statistical analysis and examples of how Bayesian evaluation strategies may be used in OD settings are provided.
Apostolakis, G.Expert judgment in probabilistic safety assessment. In C. A. Clarotti and D. V. Lindley (Eds.), Accelerated life testing and experts' opinions in reliability. New York: North-Holland, 1988, pp. 116-131.
2.
BERGER, J. O.The robust Bayesian viewpoint. In J. B. Kadane (Ed.), Robustness of Bayesian analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 1984, pp. 63-124.
3.
BERGER, J. O., & BERRY, D. A.Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity. American Scientist, 1988, 76, 159-165.
4.
BORUCH, R. F., CORDRAY, D. S., & WORTMAN, P. M.Secondary analysis: Why, how, and when. In R. F. Boruch, D. S. Cordray, and P. M. Wortman (Eds.), Reanalyzing program evaluations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1981, pp. 1-20.
5.
BROWN, L. D.Planned change in underorganized systems. In T. Cummings (Ed.), System theory for organization development. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1980, pp. 181-203.
6.
BULLOCK, R. J., & SVYANTEK, D. J.Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985, 70, 108-115.
7.
BULLOCK, R. J., & SVYANTEK, D. J.The impossibility of using random strategies to study the organizational development process. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1987, 23, 255-262.
8.
CAMPBELL, D. T., & ERLEBACHER, A.How regression artifacts in quasi-experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look harmful. Disadvantaged Child, 1970, 85-210.
9.
COOK, T. D., & CAMPBELL, D. T.Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
10.
DENNING, P. J.Bayesian learning. American Scientist, 1989, 77, 216-218.
11.
EDEN, D.Team development: A true field experiment at three levels of rigor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985, 70, 94-100.
12.
GOLEMBIEWSKI, R. T., PROEHL, C. W., Jr., & SINK, D.Estimating the success of OD applications. Training and Development Journal, 1982, 36, 86-95.
13.
HARKEMA, R.Simultaneous equations: A Bayesian approach. Belgium: Rotterdam University Press, 1971.
14.
HUSE, E. F., & CUMMINGS, T. G.Organization development and change. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1985.
15.
IVERSON, G. R.Bayesian statistical inference. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, (1984).
16.
JONES, P. K., & NOVICK, M. R.Implementation of a Bayesian System for Prediction in m Groups. ACT Technical Bulletin No. 6, The American College Testing Program, Iowa City, IA, 1972.
17.
KYBURG, H. E., Jr.The logical foundations of statistical inference. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1974.
18.
LINDLEY, D. V.Making decisions. London: Wiley-Interscience, 1971.
19.
MISLEVY, R. J.Bayes Modal Estimation in Item Response Models. Research Report No. 85-33, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, 1985.
20.
NOVICK, M. R.Data analysis in the absence of randomization. In R. F. Boruch, D. S. Cordray, and P. M. Wortman (Eds.), Reanalyzing program evaluations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.
21.
NOVICK, M. R.The centrality of Lord's Paradox and exchangeability for all statistical inference. In H. Wainer and S. Messick (Eds.), Principles of modern psychological measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983, pp. 41-54.
22.
NOVICK, M. R., & JACKSON, P. H.Statistical methods for educational and psychological research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
23.
PHILLIPS, L. D.Bayesian statistics for social scientists. London: The Whitefriars Press, (1973).
24.
POLASEK, W.Multivariate regression systems: Estimation and sensitivity analysis of two-dimensional data. In J. B. Kadane (Ed.), Robustness of Bayesian analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 1984, pp. 229-310.
25.
POLLARD, W. E.Bayesian statistics for evaluation research: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1986.
26.
PORRAS, J. I.Stream analysis: A powerful way to diagnose and manage organizational change. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1987.
27.
ROSNOW, R. L., & ROSENTHAL, R.Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 1989, 44, 1276-1284.
28.
SCHMIDT, F. L., & HUNTER, J. E.Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 529-540.
29.
SCHMIDT, F. L., HUNTER, J. E., PEARLMAN, K., & SHANE, G. S.Further tests of the Schmidt-Hunter Bayesian validity generalization procedure. Personnel Psychology, 1979, 32, 257-281.
30.
SCHMIDT, F. L., OCASIO, B. P., HILLERY, J. M., & HUNTER, J. E.Further within-setting empirical tests of the situational specificity hypothesis in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 1985, 38, 509-524.
31.
SUSSMAN, G., & EVERED, R.An assessment of the scientific merit of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 582-603.
32.
THISSEN, D., & WAINER, H.Some Supporting Evidence for Lord's Guideline for Estimating "c." Research Report No. 85-15. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, 1985.
33.
WAGENAAR, W. A.The proper seat: A Bayesian discussion of the position of expert witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 1988, 12, 499-510.
34.
WOODMAN, R. W.Evaluation research on organizational change: Arguments for a "combined paradigm" approach. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1989, 3, 161-180.
35.
YOUNG, R. K., & VELDMAN, D. J.Introductory statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1977.
36.
ZAGUMNY, M. J.Organizational development: A new view for OD evaluations. Proceedings of the Midwest Academy of Management, Columbus, OH, 1989.
