Irregularities in the results section of the thesis[]
While VroniPlag Wiki is usually restricted to the documentation of plagiarism, there are several problematic observations in the results section of the thesis that can be documented on the basis of the published thesis alone. This is done here.
- Pages 61-62:
- It is claimed that all study participants, who are assigned to Generation Z (n=175) hold an academic degree. "With 100% academic degreee, the Generation Z represents the clearest difference to all other Generations [sic]." (p. 61, see also: Fig. °22 Level of education referred to generations, p. 62)
- For information on assignment to generations, see p. 117, question 8: "Year of birth and generational division: [...] Year of birth after 2000 (Generation Z)."
- The study was conducted May through July 2019 (see p. 49). Accordingly, the people assigned to Generation Z are at most 18 years old. It seems very unrealistic that all these people hold an academic degree. In the German education system one has to complete the Abitur (around the age of 18 years) and then at least 3 years of study before an academic degree can be obtained.
- Pages 75-78:
- On page 75 the author alleges that the "following figures show the factors used in the further course of calculating statistical correlations according to the procedure described".
- The number of factors extracted per class of needs can be found in figures 39 to 41 on pages 76 to 77. You learn that 6 factors are extracted for basic needs (Fig. °39), 3 factors are extracted for social needs (Fig. °40) and 3 factors are extracted for growth needs (Fig. °41). This results in a total of 12 extracted factors. (It remains unclear which factors these are and which items load on these factors.)
- On page 77 the author alleges that figure 42 shows "the extracted factors in terms of employer attractiveness sorted by importance - as measured by Generation Y."
- However, contrary to expectations, 14 factors are then listed in figure 42 on page 78. They are not, as announced, ordered according to importance in relation to Generation Y. Factor labels (translated) and order in which the factors are presented in figure 42 are identical in Ruthus 2013 (see p. 140 in Ruthus 2013).
- Pages 81-82:
- It is stated that results regarding the frequency of use of information channels are presented in figures 44 and 45 (see page 79 for information regarding range: "[...] survey participants should assess different information channels (1 = regularly, 2 = occasionally, 3 = rarely, 4 = I do not use)"). Given this range from 1 to 4, the mean values greater than 4 presented in the figures seem implausible.
- In addition on page 81 the figure caption reads: "Fig. °44 Significant mean differences between the generations I (m: 1=very important, 5=very unimportant)". This figure is supposed to show frequencies of use of different information channel x generation. Information channels were not evaluated regarding importance (see questionnaire p. 120). Ergo, figure caption is inconsistent with content of figure.
- Copies of illustrations in figures 44, 45 are found in the appendix (pp. 147-152), 7 of the 11 illustrations in figures 44, 45 are copied twice.
- Pages 86-87:
- Correlation coefficients are presented based on calculations including entire sample (N=1346) on page 86 in figure 48.
- On page 87 the author claims: "The results of the study support hypothesis 3: There is a significant correlation between the non-fullfillment of job-related needs in the German health care sector and the employees intention to change with regard to Generation Y". This claim seems unfounded as there are no correlation coefficients and tests of significance presented for the sub-sample Generation Y (n=597).