Instructions This exam is designed to assess your ability to apply the concepts we have been discussing in class. On the following pages are four organizational intervention evaluation scenarios. For each scenario, briefly respond to each of the associated questions. You may use any notes or other reference materials at your disposal, but you must work individually. Do not discuss the questions and your answers with anyone else. You should be able to address each scenario in 1 page or less. This assignment does not need to be written in narrative text—bullet points answering each point will suffice. Note: Each scenario is worth 5 points and the total test is worth 20 points.
1
Scenario I A benefits administrator is interested in determining whether the company’s employees prefer
Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO), Preferred Provider Organization (PPO), or Point of
Service (POS) medical programs. The administrator first asks all 200 of the company’s
employees to rate their overall satisfaction with employee benefits on a 1-7 scale. A total of 77
employees respond to the survey. Then, using the personnel records, she looks up the type of
plan each employee is enrolled in:
● 35 of the 77 employees are enrolled in the HMO program
● 28 of the 77 employees are enrolled in the PPO program
● 14 of the 77 employees are enrolled in the POS program
The administrator finds that employees enrolled in the HMO rated their overall satisfaction with
their benefits higher than the employees enrolled in the PPO or POS programs. She concludes
that employees prefer the HMO program and decides to eliminate the other medical plans.
Please describe the following:
1. The study’s design 2. The predictor(s) [independent variable(s)] 3. Outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] 4. Threats to internal and external validity (and a justification for each; this does not need to
be exhaustive, just mention the threats most likely to impact the conclusions) 5. Describe whether you think the conclusions that the researcher came to are accurate and
justify your conclusion.
2
Scenario II
In response to a published article discussing the trend toward flexible work schedules, the CEO of
a retail organization wanted to evaluate whether her company should adopt a flexible work
schedule policy. The article cited higher employee satisfaction and no loss in productivity. The
CEO randomly assigned employees to different work schedules. Some employees were assigned
regular hours (i.e., 9am-5pm Mon-Fri), while other employees were assigned flexible hours (i.e.,
working whenever is best for them so long as they worked 40 hours a week). After six months,
employees were asked to respond to a job satisfaction survey on a 1-7 scale. In addition, the
managers were asked to rate the job performance of their direct reports, also on a 1-7 scale.
Please describe the following:
1. The CEO’s hypothesis 2. The predictor(s) [independent variable(s)] 3. Outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] 4. Threats to internal and external validity (and a justification for each; this does not need to
be exhaustive, just mention the threats most likely to impact the study) 5. Any ethical or fairness concerns about the study
3
Scenario III
The HR Director at a company is interested in determining what employee characteristics relate
to high sales performance. Due to the importance of interacting with customers she suspects that
sales associates who are higher in the personality trait Agreeableness will have higher sales
numbers. However, she also believes that having experience on the job may impact the nature of
the relationship between Agreeableness and sales numbers. To examine this relationship she
has a sample of 200 current sales associates complete an Agreeableness measure (with scores
ranging from 0-100), obtains tenure information (in months), and collects sales numbers (in
dollars) for the current quarter. She finds that higher Agreeableness scores are positively related
to sales numbers for low tenure employees (0-2 years). However, Agreeableness is not related to
sales numbers for higher tenure employees (2+ years). Based on these results the HR Director
decides to implement the use of the Agreeableness measure for hiring decisions for new sales
associates and promotion decisions for experienced sales associates (2+ years).
Please describe the following:
1. The design used by the researcher 2. The predictor(s) [independent variable(s)] 3. Outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] 4. The moderator variable 5. Describe whether you think the conclusions that HR Director came to are accurate and
justify your conclusion.
4
Scenario IV A Learning & Development researcher wants to know if in-class leadership training is more
effective than online training, and if online training is more effective than no training. She expects
the results of her proposed study to generalize to leaders at all levels in her organization. She
randomly samples from mid-level managers with 3-5 years of experience, and obtains a sample
of 99 mid-level managers with an average tenure of 4.1 years on the job. She then randomly
assigns 33 managers to receive in-class leadership training, 33 managers to receive online
leadership training, and 33 managers to receive no leadership training. Three months after the
training, she administers a 360-degree feedback survey measuring leadership behaviors to the
direct reports, peers, and supervisors of the 99 managers. As she expected, managers who
received in-class training received significantly higher 360 ratings than managers who received
online training, and managers who received online training received significantly higher 360
ratings than managers who received no training. Based on these results, she recommended that
the in-class leadership training should be optional for all managers and senior leaders, and that
online training should be mandatory for all new managers who decide not to attend the in-class
training.
Please describe the following:
1. The researcher’s hypothesis/hypotheses 2. The researcher’s population of interest 3. The researcher’s sample 4. Threats to internal and external validity (and a justification for each; this does not need to
be exhaustive, just mention the threats most likely to impact the study) 5. Describe whether you think the conclusions that the researcher came to are accurate
and justify your conclusion.
5