4.4 Article

Time Dependence in the Cox Proportional Hazard Model as a Theory Development Opportunity: A Step-by-Step Guide

期刊

ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10944281231205027

关键词

cox proportional hazard model; time dependence; proportional hazard assumption; survival analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Cox proportional hazard model is commonly used in survival analysis for organizational research, but time dependence often poses challenges. While traditional views see time dependence as an empirical nuisance, it can also be viewed as an opportunity for theory development. However, researchers rarely consider time dependence as an opportunity and fail to test for it. This study aims to change this pattern by providing a step-by-step guide for testing time dependence and utilizing it for theory development, demonstrated with an empirical example.
The Cox proportional hazard model has often been used for survival analysis in organizational research. The Cox model needs to satisfy one critical assumption-time independence-that the effects of independent variables are constant over survival time (also known as the proportional hazard assumption). However, organizational research often encounters time dependence in the Cox model. Organizational studies have traditionally seemed to view time dependence as an empirical nuisance, but we highlight that it is also a theory-development opportunity. Indeed, from our review of AMJ and SMJ papers published in a recent 10-year period, we found that researchers rarely considered time dependence as a theory-development opportunity, and worse, many of them did not test for (or report tests for) time dependence. The purpose of our study is to change this pattern. To this end, we provide a step-by-step guide to facilitate testing for time dependence and using time dependence as a theory development opportunity. We also demonstrate our step-by-step guide with an empirical example.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据