Human Resources Development Consortium1The Reliability and Validity of The OCAIHuman Resources Development Consortium2Reliability tudy 1! by "uinn and preit#er $1%%1& in 'hich (%) e*ecutives from +) different public utility firms rated their o'n or,ani#ation-s culture. They included top mana,ers $1/ percent of the sample&0 upper1middle mana,ers $23 percent&0 middle mana,ers $/% percent&0 and line and staff 'or4ers $2 percent&. ! Cronbach alpha coefficients $a reliability statistic& 'ere computed for each of the culture types bein, assessed by the instrument. 5ach coefficient 'as statistically si,nificant and very satisfactory compared to normal standards of reliability. ! Coefficients 'ere .(2 for the clan culture0 .(% for the adhocracy culture0 .(/ for the hierarchy culture0 and .(1 for the mar4et culture. In other 'ords0 respondents tended to rate their or,ani#ation-s culture consistently across the various 6uestions on the instrument.Human Resources Development Consortium/Reliability tudy 2! 7eun,0 8roc4ban40 and 9lrich $1%%1& also provided evidence of reliability in their study of 1:0/:: e*ecutives in 1:)2 businesses. These businesses included many of the corporations on the list of ;ortune 3:: companies. The 4ey respondents 'ere human resource e*ecutives and various associates that these e*ecutives selected to complete the assessment instrument. ! The number of respondents avera,ed nine per business. The OCAI 'as used to ,ather data on the culture of each of these or,ani#ations. The various 6uestion alternatives 'ere ,rouped to,ether into the appropriate culture types0 and reliability coefficients 'ere computed. The results showed that the clan culture reliability was .79, the adhocracy culture reliability was .80, the hierarchy culture reliability was .76, and the market culture reliability was .77. In each case0 reliability coefficients e*ceeded satisfactory levels. endall-s co1 efficient of concordance 'as computed0 'hich produced a coefficient of .()2 $p F .::1&0 indicatin, stron, support for discriminant validity. In other 'ords0 these three tests usin, the multi trait1multi method procedure provided support for both conver,ent and discriminant validity of the model and the instrument.Human Resources Development Consortium(Validity @ OCAI! The multidimensional scalin, procedure also produced stron, support for conver,ent and discriminant validity. sho's the positionin, of each culture type 'hen measured 'ith t'o different types of instruments. ! Guttman and Cin,oes- coefficient of alienationr = .076) and Shepherd and Kruskal's stress coefficient (stress = .056) indicate a satisfactory fit of the data to the model (see Kruska1 !ish" 1#7$). %oreo&er" it can 'e seen from the fi(ure that each culture type appears in the appropriate )uadrant" that like cultures are positioned closer to(ether than to other unlike culture types" and that each culture type is positioned in a different )uadrant. Stron( support is pro&ided" in other *ords" for con&er(ent and discriminant &alidity usin( this multidimensional scalin( techni)ue. Human Resources Development Consortium+Human Resources Development Consortium%