組織研究學者常採用現有的量表進行研究。但是，如果缺乏適當的驗證程序，這種做法是值得商榷的。本研究調查了台灣學術研究的實務，以確認這個問題的嚴重性。調查的對象是於2004年至2008年間在台灣主要學術刊物上所發表，並包含潛在構念的組織研究論文。本研究自146個組織研究中找到791個潛在研究構念；其中，263個構念的測量是直接翻譯自現有的國外量表，352個則是採用改編後的國外量表。在該期間，組織承諾，工作滿意度和績效是台灣最常見的研究構念。本研究發現，大多數使用現有西方量表對台灣樣本所進行的研究並未報告適當的量表驗證程序，以確保測量的等值性。文內對這些研究結果的意涵進行了討論，並提供建議以改善組織研究的嚴謹性。

Adopting existing measures in their research is common for organizational researchers. However, this practice is questionable when proper validation procedures are lacking. This study surveyed the extent of this practice in Taiwan’s academic society to determine the severity of the situation. The target of this investigation was those articles that include latent constructs in an organizational research and that were published in major Taiwanese academic journals between 2004 and 2008. This effort uncovered 146 organizational studies containing 791 research constructs. Of the 791 constructs, 263 were translated from an existing foreign scale and 352 were measured using an adaptation of an existing foreign scale. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and performance were found to be the most frequently studied constructs in Taiwan during this period. Most studies applying existing Western scales to Taiwanese samples did not report proper scale validation procedures to ensure measurement equivalence. The implications of these research findings are discussed, and suggestions are provided to improve the rigor of organizational research.