4.6 Article

Supply chain management research: Key elements of study design and statistical testing

期刊

JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 178-186

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2014.12.001

关键词

Supply chain; Effect size; Statistical power; Reliability; Empirical research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past three decades, supply chain management (SCM) has evolved from its origin's as a nascent field of study to encompass construct definition, identification of the field's central issues, and establishment of its conceptual boundaries. At this point, a sufficient body of empirical SCM research has been put forward to allow for quantitative assessment of the field. Therefore, we examine three key elements of study design to assess what has happened, what is currently happening, and where we should be heading as a field. To do so, following a pattern of reviews in similar disciplines, we begin with an examination of effect sizes of the relationships under investigation. Results show that effect sizes in SCM research have marginally increased over time and that sub-domains within SCM that receive the most scholarly attention also have higher effect sizes. We also conduct a post hoc analysis of statistical power and empirically examine a range of factors and study contexts that could influence power. Findings suggest that average statistical power in SCM research exceeds the statistical power of most related disciplines and is particularly high in several unique contexts. Lastly, we find that measurement reliability and the use of control variables have increased over time, possibly suggesting the field has matured, instilling a degree of confidence in its research. Overall, our results show that SCM research is becoming more empirically rigorous, but we also uncover key areas that warrant improvement. We describe implications of our review for the design of future SCM empirical studies. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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