CallahanJ. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310371492.
2.
ChretienJ. L.NimonK.ReioT. G.,Jr.LewisJ. (2020). Responding to low coefficient alpha: Potential alternatives to the file drawer. Human Resource Development Review, 19(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320924151.
3.
CollinsJ. C. (2013). Illustrating relevance, questioning norms, and creating space. Human Resource Development Review, 12(4), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484313492334.
4.
GeorgiouI. (2021). The literature review as an exercise in historical thinking. Human Resource Development Review, 20(2), 252–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211004027.
5.
GraßmannC.SchermulyC. C. (2021). Coaching with artificial intelligence: Concepts and capabilities. Human Resource Development Review, 20(1), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320982891.
HoltonE. F.,III. (2002). The mandate for theory in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302011001.
LesterJ. N.ChoY.LochmillerC. R. (2020). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: A starting point. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484320903890.
10.
NimonK.ReioT. G.,Jr. (2011). Measurement invariance: A foundational principle for quantitative theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 10(2), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311399731.
11.
NimonK.ReioT. G.,Jr. (2011). Regression commonality analysis: A technique for quantitative theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311411077.
12.
NimonK.ReioT. G.,Jr. (2011). The use of canonical commonality analysis for quantitative theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 10(4), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311417682.
13.
ReioT. G.,Jr. (2010). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9(4), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380331.
14.
ReioT. G.,Jr. (2021). The ten research questions: An analytic tool for critiquing empirical studies and teaching research rigor. Human Resource Development Review, 20(3), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843211025182.
15.
RoccoT. S.PlakhotnikM. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617.
Storberg-WalkerJ. (2003). Comparison of the Dubin, Lynham, and Van de Ven theory-building research methods and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 2(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303002002007.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283.
VernonD.HockingI.TylerT. C. (2016). An evidence-based review of creative problem solving tools. Human Resource Development Review, 15(2), 230–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316641512.
