Analyse comparative des méthodes de classifications: l'exemple du bien-être au travail

Jordane Creusier () and Franck Biétry ()
Additional contact information
Jordane Creusier: NIMEC - Normandie Innovation Marché Entreprise Consommation - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - ULH - Université Le Havre Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UNIROUEN - Université de Rouen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - IRIHS - Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire Homme et Société - UNIROUEN - Université de Rouen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université
Franck Biétry: NIMEC - Normandie Innovation Marché Entreprise Consommation - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - ULH - Université Le Havre Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UNIROUEN - Université de Rouen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - IRIHS - Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire Homme et Société - UNIROUEN - Université de Rouen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Many researches in human relation management, marketing or strategy try to identify profiles. Their shared aim is to study links between concepts. This keen interest for profiles creation takes into account samples' heterogeneity. This person-centered approach succeeds in conceptual clarification and managerial advice which better fits with the context than the ones which result from average estimation. To succeed, researchers can use several classification methods. The "traditional" ones are midpoint, median, scale center split, non-hierarchical method as K-means clusters, hierarchical methods or combined method. More recently, a new generation appears from American studies : mixture models. The first section of this paper is dedicated to a presentation and a critical study of these "traditional" and new generation "methods". Their limits and mixture models' advantages are described. Indeed, Latent Profile Analysis and Factor Mixture Analysis come with a large number of statistical indicators which define the profiles' number. The arbitrary part in this key step of the decision process is reduced but not totally deleted. To empirically illustrate the mixture models' comparative advantages, we used a multidimensional concept which comes from the organizational behavior field : Well-being at work. We used the EPBET scale (positive scale of well-being at work) on a large sample of French employees. This scale defines well-being at work starting from four dimensions : management, colleagues, environment and time. This example shows the dependency of the profiles' number and people allocation in these profiles on the traditional method which has been used. We find four to sixteen profiles according to the method. Thanks to the indicators, the mixture model methods show a stable classification. This statistical way is really useful to increase conceptual knowledge and to resolve decision stake in management science.

Keywords: Factor Mixture Analysis; Well-being at work; Classification; Profiles; Methodological comparison; Bien-être au travail; Profils; Comparaison méthodologique (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014-01-16
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02004278
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Published in RIMHE : Revue Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme(s) & Entreprise, 2014, 10 (1), pp.105-123. ⟨10.3917/rimhe.010.0105⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-02004278/document (application/pdf)

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:hal:journl:hal-02004278

DOI: 10.3917/rimhe.010.0105

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().