The six-item Perceived Cohesion Scale (PCS) was created to measure perceived cohesion in groups. However, only large groups were used to assess the validity and reliability of the measure, leaving in question the use of the PCS with small groups. This study adapts the measure of cohesion to the small-group arena. Results provide support for the validity and reliability of the adapted measure for use within the small group.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arbuckle, J. (1997). AMOS 3.6 documentation package. Chicago: Small Waters.
2.
Bagozzi, R. P. , & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
3.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
4.
Bentler, P. M. , & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
5.
Bollen, K. A. (1986). Sample size and Bentler and Bonnet’s nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika, 51, 375-377.
6.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations modeling with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
7.
Bollen, K. A. , & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479-504.
8.
Dennis, A. R. , George, J. F., Jessup, L. M., Nunamaker, J. F., & Vogel, D. R. (1988). Information technology to support electronic meetings. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12(4), 591-624.
9.
DeSanctis, G. (1988, August). Small group research in information systems: Theory and method. Paper presented at the Harvard Colloquium on Experimental Research in Information Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia.
10.
Fellers, J. W. (1989). The effect of group size and computer support on group idea generation for creativity tasks: An experimental evaluation using a repeated measures design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
11.
Gopal, A. (1991). The effects of technology level and task type on group outcomes in a group decision support system environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
12.
Hoyle, R. H. , & Crawford, A. M. (1994). Use of individual-level data to investigate group phenomena, issues and strategies. Small Group Research, 25, 464-485.
13.
Hu, L. -T. , & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Joreskog, K. G. , & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.
15.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990.
16.
McDonald, R. P. , & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 247-255.
17.
Meredith, W. (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
18.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. , Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 34(7), 40-61.
19.
Pinder, C. C. (1984). Work motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
20.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
Stasser, G. (1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussions. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 48-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Tucker, L. R. , & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
23.
Wheaton, B. , Muthen, B., Alwin, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (84-136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Wheeler, B. C. , & Mennecke, B. M. (1992). The School of Business Policy Task manual (No. 92-524). Working Paper, Indiana University, Bloomington.
25.
Wheeler, B. C. , Mennecke, B. M., & Scudder, J. N. (1993). Restrictive group support systems as a source of process structure for high and low procedural order groups. Small Group Research, 24, 504-522.
26.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
