Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rice, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by Seaman, F. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Internal Analyses of the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale

Robert W. Rice

State University of New York at Buffalo

F. James Seaman

University Research Corporation, Washington, D. C.

Responses of 226 undergraduates to a 22-item version of Fiedler's (1967) Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale were subjected to several internal analyses. Factor analysis, correlations between subscale scores, cross-tabulation of classification decisions, and comparisons of internal consistency coefficients for subscales and total scale all suggest that this version of the LPC scale has two relatively independent factors. The first factor reflects the social characteristics of one's least preferred co-worker and the second factor concerns task competence characteristics. Two classroom samples with n = 21 and n = 36 yielded 9-10 week test-retest reliability coefficients of .71 and .63 for Total LPC scores; and somewhat lower stability coefficients were reported for the two subscale scores. Discussion focused in the practical implications of these results for researchers using the LPC scale.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 41, No. 1, 109-120 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/001316448104100111
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
A. P. Hare, S. E. Hare, and H. H. Blumberg
Wishful Thinking: Who Has the Least Preferred Coworker?
Small Group Research, August 1, 1998; 29(4): 419 - 435.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
J. K. Barge and D. W. Schlueter
Leadership as Organizing: A Critique of Leadership Instruments
Management Communication Quarterly, May 1, 1991; 4(4): 541 - 570.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. K. Kennedy Jr., J. M. Houston, M. A. Korsgaard, and D. D. Gallo
Construct Space of the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale
Educational and Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1987; 47(3): 807 - 814.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
S. D. Ashworth and J. T. Hazer
Scale Content, Respondent Classification, Referent Stereotyping, and Stability in Four LPC Measures
Educational and Psychological Measurement, March 1, 1986; 46(1): 107 - 123.
[Abstract]