Erratum: Employee well‐being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross‐cultural validation

Following the publication online of this article, errors and issues were identified that require correction and/or clarification. Thus, we reproduce the corrected descriptions and table below. First, in Study 3's section on confirmatory factor analysis, we should have noted that, in Model 3 of Table 4, the three first-order factors of EWB (i.e., LWB, WWB, and PWB) were left uncorrelated. Second, as to Study 5, we wish to clarify that we used parcels in conducting the CFA analyses given the relatively small sample size (N = 290), which may impair model estimations. We followed the procedures adopted by previous research (e.g., Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas, Van Quaquebeke, & Van Dick, 2012; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002; Piccolo, Greenbaum, den Hartog, & Folger, 2010) to create indicators from dimensional scores or item parcels based on item-to-construct-balance method. Specifically, we used the dimensional scores of LWB, WWB, and PWB as indicators for EWB. In terms of Study 5, we would also like to note that (1) in the original Table 5, there were 29 manifest variables (3 for EWB, 10 for PA, 10 for NA, and 6 for job satisfaction), leading to 371 dfs, and (2) in the other alternative models (Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4) of the original Table 5, we constrained correlations to 1 to merge two factors, resulting in a change of only 1 degree of freedom (i.e., 372 dfs). Moreover, some of the results in Table 5 were incorrectly presented, namely, mis-reporting a CFI value (0.91) smaller than TLI value (0.92). After checking the original data, we found that a few (less than 2% of the total sample) missing values were not handled earlier. Thus, we first replaced these missing values with the series means and then conducted model comparisons. Given the relatively small sample size in Study 5 (N = 290), the parceling procedures we adopted earlier (i.e., utilizing the dimensional scores of LWB, WWB, and PWB as indicators for EWB) are still not enough to rule out the impairment on model estimations. In order to get more accurate fit indexes, besides using LWB, WWB, and PWB as indicators of EWB, we also created item parcels for PA, NA, and job satisfaction, utilizing the item-to-construct-balance method to reduce the number of estimated parameters (Kovjanic et al., 2012; Little et al., 2002; Piccolo et al., 2010) in analyzing the data. To be specific, based on the factor loadings for PA, NA, and job satisfaction, we respectively created three item parcels for each variable and re-estimated parameters and repeated the above procedures same as what are reported in the paper. As shown in the corrected Table 5, the corrected CFA results for the four-factor benchmark model are "χ2 = 119.32, df = 48, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05." Third, the results of CFA for EWB in Study 6 were listed incorrectly and should have been "χ2 = 365.37, df = 132, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06", after treating a small percentage (less than 2%) of missing values. Few correlations and regression coefficients in Studies 5 and 6 changed slightly after treating the small percentage of missing values, but all the hypothesis testing results and conclusions do not change. Finally, we note that, in Study 7, the observed chi-square values for the Chinese and the American samples from the M-Plus output are 314.12 and 190.44, respectively. Also, in Model 2 of Table 10, we wish to clarify that we did not constrain the correlations among three sub-factors. The CFA analyses were conducted using the AMOS in studies 3, 5, and 6; while in Study 7, M-Plus was used. The other analyses in Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 were conducted using SPSS. We would like to thank Professor Haibo Yu and Professor Jin Zhang for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article. We are especially grateful to the action editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments in the review process. We also acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 71272022). Xiaoming Zheng is an associate professor of Leadership and Organization Management in the School of Economics and Management at Tsinghua University in China. He earned his PhD degree from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. His main research interests include leadership, positive organizational behavior, and strategic human resources management. Weichun Zhu is an assistant professor at the School of Labor and Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State University. He earned his PhD degree in Management from the University of Nebraska. His research interests include transformational leadership, crisis leadership and its functional mechanisms, and ethical leadership/decision making in organizations. Haixia Zhao is a research associate in the School of Economics and Management at Tsinghua University in China. She earned her PhD degree from Hua Zhong University of Science and Technology, China. Her main research interests include human resource management and positive organizational behavior. Chi Zhang is a senior manager of the human resources department in Xinxing Cathay International Group Co., Ltd. He earned his Master's degree in Management from Tsinghua University in China. His main research interests include leadership and positive organizational behavior.