What Is Wrong With Turnover Research? Commentary on Russell's Critique

Peter W. Hom and Rodger W. Griffeth

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2013, vol. 6, issue 2, 174-181

Abstract: Dr. Russell (2013) provocatively critiqued turnover research, expressing a sentiment that we share—namely, the lamentable modest predictability of turnover. All the same, we disagree with certain criticisms of turnover theory, methodology, and practicality. We organize our reactions into sections: predictive validity for the standard turnover criterion; other criteria for model evaluation; incremental validity controlling quit intentions; Russell's proposed methodology, the potential biases of the Russell and Van Sell (2012) test; and an alternate approach by Hom, Mitchell, Lee, and Griffeth (2012).

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:inorps:v:6:y:2013:i:02:p:174-181_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().