Compare methods

	Event History Turnover Analysis	Organizational Identification Scale
Field	Organizational Behavior	Organizational Behavior
Family	Survival analysis	Latent structure
Year of origin	1993	1992
Originator	Paul D. Allison; June G. Morita, Thomas W. Lee & Richard T. Mowday	Fred Mael & Blake E. Ashforth
Type	Time-to-event modeling of employee turnover	Unidimensional latent-construct measurement model
Seminal source	Morita, J. G., Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1993). The regression-analog to survival analysis: A selected application to turnover research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1430-1464.	Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
Aliases	Survival Analysis of Turnover, Hazard Modeling of Employee Turnover, Time-to-Turnover Analysis, Employee Tenure Survival Models	Mael and Ashforth Identification Scale, OID Scale, Organizational Identification Questionnaire, Social-Identity Organizational Identification Measure
Related	3	3
Summary	Event history turnover analysis models not just whether employees leave but when they leave, treating tenure as a duration and the act of quitting as an event whose timing carries information. Paul Allison's 1984 monograph brought event history methods — survival and hazard models — into the social sciences with a regression-oriented treatment that handles the censoring inherent in longitudinal data. Morita, Lee, and Mowday's 1993 Academy of Management Journal paper applied these techniques to turnover research, showing organizational scholars how to model the hazard of leaving and why time-to-event methods are superior to simple stayed-versus-left comparisons. The core object is the hazard function, the instantaneous risk of quitting given that one has stayed so far, which can depend on tenure and on employee and job characteristics. Because some employees are still present when the study ends, the analysis must correctly handle censored observations rather than discarding or mis-coding them. The result is a model that explains and predicts the timing of turnover.	The Organizational Identification Scale is Mael and Ashforth's widely used measure of the extent to which people define themselves in terms of their organizational membership. It rests on the social-identity reformulation of identification that Ashforth and Mael advanced in their 1989 Academy of Management Review article, which defined organizational identification as a perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of its successes and failures as one's own. Their 1992 Journal of Organizational Behavior study, using alumni of a college, introduced and validated a concise self-report scale and tested a model of its antecedents and consequences. The scale treats identification as a self-definitional, cognitive construct distinct from organizational commitment, which is more attitudinal and exchange-based. Validated as essentially unidimensional, the instrument links organizational antecedents such as distinctiveness and prestige to outcomes such as support and advocacy. It became the standard measure of organizational identification in the field.