Erratum: Employee well‐being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross‐cultural validation

• Date: 01 July 2015
• Author: Chi Zhang,Weichun Zhu,Haixia Zhao,Xiaoming Zheng
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2033
• Published date: 01 July 2015

Erratum: Employee well-being in organizations:

Theoretical model, scale development, and

cross-cultural validation

XIAOMING ZHENG

1

*, WEICHUN ZHU

2

, HAIXIA ZHAO

1

AND CHI ZHANG

1

1

School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China,

2

School of Labor and Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, U.S.A.,

Following the publication online of this article, errors and issues were identified that require correction and/or

clarification. Thus, we reproduce the corrected descriptions and table below.

First, in Study 3’s section on confirmatory factor analysis, we should have noted that, in Model 3 of Table 4, the

three first-order factors of EWB (i.e., LWB, WWB, and PWB) were left uncorrelated.

Second, as to Study 5, we wish to clarify that we used parcels in conducting the CFA analyses given the relatively

small sample size (N= 290), which may impair model estimations. We followed the procedures adopted by previous

research (e.g., Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas, Van Quaquebeke, & Van Dick, 2012; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, &

Widaman, 2002; Piccolo, Greenbaum, den Hartog, & Folger, 2010) to create indicators from dimensional scores

or item parcels based on item-to-construct-balance method. Specifically, we used the dimensional scores of LWB,

WWB, and PWB as indicators for EWB. In terms of Study 5, we would also like to note that (1) in the original

Table 5, there were 29 manifest variables (3 for EWB, 10 for PA, 10 for NA, and 6 for job satisfaction), leading

to 371 dfs, and (2) in the other alternative models (Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4) of the original Table 5, we

constrained correlations to 1 to merge two factors, resulting in a change of only 1 degree of freedom (i.e., 372

dfs). Moreover, some of the results in Table 5 were incorrectly presented, namely, mis-reporting a CFI value

(0.91) smaller than TLI value (0.92). After checking the original data, we found that a few (less than 2% of the total

sample) missing values were not handled earlier. Thus, we first replaced these missing values with the series means

and then conducted model comparisons. Given the relatively small sample size in Study 5 (N= 290), the parceling

procedures we adopted earlier (i.e., utilizing the dimensional scores of LWB, WWB, and PWB as indicators for

EWB) are still not enough to rule out the impairment on model estimations. In order to get more accurate fit indexes,

besides using LWB, WWB, and PWB as indicators of EWB, we also created item parcels for PA, NA, and job

satisfaction, utilizing the item-to-construct-balance method to reduce the number of estimated parameters (Kovjanic

et al., 2012; Little et al., 2002; Piccolo et al., 2010) in analyzing the data. To be specific, based on the factor loadings

for PA, NA, and job satisfaction, we respectively created three item parcels for each variable and re-estimated

parameters and repeated the above procedures same as what are reported in the paper. As shown in the corrected

Table 5, the corrected CFA results for the four-factor benchmark model are “χ

2

= 119.32, df =48, CFI = 0.96,

TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05.”

Third, the results of CFA for EWB in Study 6 were listed incorrectly and should have been “χ

2

= 365.37, df = 132,

CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06”, after treating a small percentage (less than 2%) of missing

values. Few correlations and regression coefficients in Studies 5 and 6 changed slightly after treating the small

percentage of missing values, but all the hypothesis testing results and conclusions do not change.

*Correspondence to: Xiaoming Zheng, School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. E-mail: zhengxm@sem.

tsinghua.edu.cn

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 13 May 2015, Accepted 14 May 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 645–647 (2015)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2033

Erratum