 participants using different method and various data source to avoid the problem of mono-method bias and our constructs measured by multiple methods to minimise any validity threat of our study (Donaldson and Grant-Vallone, 2002). We also change the anchors for the ends of the scales to get the reasonable skewed end, collect additional data and examine them simultaneously. We also employed Linacre's anchored maximum likelihood method, using the many facet Rasch model to address rater bias. We also check single factor which indicated less than 34% variances in the data (σ2 = 33.15) by using Harman's single-factor test, further to get more authenticity of data we employed EFA and CFA tests also, to remove any CMV issues. 3 Material and methodology 3.1 Participants With the prior approval of the management of the concerned factories, we displayed fliers on visible location as advised by the management of the respective factory. Flier showed the purpose, schedule, eligibility criterion, voluntary nature and confidentiality assurance of the current research. We have adopted straight and simple approach to distributing/ collect data and guide participants to complete battery of questionnaire with their signature on an informed consent form. We identified 15 teams as existed in sugar factories traditionally, from the different sections of five sugar factories having the similar crushing capacity. Size of the team ranges from 4 to 12 individuals within each The influence of psychosocial adjustment factors on team embeddedness 319 department of multiple shifts. Total participants were 643 out of which 501 selected due to clear and clean responses to the survey questionnaire. Survey questionnaire containing 49 items in an easy and understandable language known to participants and they were asked to rate using the available survey scales. A volunteer was also assigned to help participants to avoid any mistake. Survey questionnaire distributed in the first week of April 2016 and again repeated in September 2016. On both occasion, survey activity was offered independently to employees and their participation was exclusively voluntary with their consent and management permissions within time specially reserved for this activity. The items were equipoise for effects control and we grouped data into two factors: 1 PSF 2 PSD. PSD factor identified four variables, PADW, PADT, TECN, and TAAD. Whereas, PSF observed five variables NPAS, lack of (negative) team leader experience and qualification (NTEQ), NTEN NCMD, and LITA. We analyse both factors to observe the outcome influence on PSD. We also combined raw data of both survey questionnaire as the participation population scoring rate was identical on a Likert
participants using different method and diverse datum source to avoid the trouble of mono - method diagonal and our constructs measured by multiple method acting to minimize any validity menace of our study (Donaldson and Grant - Vallone, 2002). We also deepen the anchors for the ends of the scale to get the reasonable skewed end, collect additional datum and examine them simultaneously. We also employed Linacre's anchor maximum likelihood method, practice the many facet Rasch model to cover rater bias. We besides check single factor which indicated less than 34% division in the data (σ2 = 33.15) by using Harman's single - factor test, far to induce more authenticity of data we employed EFA and CFA tests also, to remove any CMV issues. 3 Material and methodology 3.1 Participants With the prior blessing of the management of the implicated factories, we displayed fliers on visible placement as advised by the management of the respective factory. Flier showed the purpose, agenda, eligibility criterion, voluntary nature and confidentiality assurance of the current inquiry. We have adopted straight and simple overture to distributing/ collect data and guide participants to complete battery of questionnaire with their signature on an informed consent form. We identified 15 teams as existed in carbohydrate factories traditionally, from the unlike section of five sugar factories having the exchangeable crushing capacity. Size of the team ranges from 4 to 12 person within each The influence of psychosocial adjustment factors on team embeddedness 319 department of multiple shifts. Total player were 643 out of which 501 selected due to well-defined and clean responses to the sketch questionnaire. Survey questionnaire incorporate 49 items in an comfortable and understandable language know to participants and they were asked to rate use the available survey scale. A volunteer was also assigned to help participants to avoid any mistake. Survey questionnaire distribute in the first week of April 2016 and again repeat in September 2016. On both occasion, survey activity was offered independently to employees and their participation was entirely voluntary with their consent and management permissions within time specially reserved for this activity. The items were equipoise for effects control and we group datum into two agent: 1 PSF 2 PSD. PSD factor identified four variables, PADW, PADT, TECN, and TAAD. Whereas, PSF observed five variables NPAS, lack of (damaging) team leader experience and qualification (NTEQ), NTEN NCMD, and LITA. We analyse both agent to observe the outcome influence on PSD. We also combined raw datum of both survey questionnaire as the participation population scoring rate was identical on a Likert
 pagticipants using differekt method and vatiius dava sourde to avuid the problem of mono-methov biqs ane our constructs measufed by muptiple mwthovs to minimise aig validlcy thdcat oy iur study (Donakdson and Crant-Vallone, 2002). Fe apso change the anchors for the ends of the sfales to get tre rtasjnabmv wkewed end, collect additional data aid examine them simultaneously. We also emoloyfd Linacre's anchorfd maximum oikejuhood method, using the many facet Tasch model to address rater biar. We clso check wibglf factor whirh indpcated less tmsn 34% vasiances in the data (σ2 = 33.15) bb usung Harman's single-facvor test, further to det more duchenticity of data we enploygd EFD ana CFX ttstx zlso, tl rxmove any CJV issues. 3 Naterial and methodpljty 3.1 Participahts Wieh the prior approval of the management ox tge concerned factories, qe displayed fliers oj visible location as advised by the management of the res[ectite faebjft. Vlier showed the purpose, schedule, eligibility drotvrion, voluntary ncture and confidrnhisjity assurancg of thz chrrent research. We have aqoptee straighu and simple approach to distribyting/ collecn dara and guide partieipants to cumplgte baytery of questionnaire cith tgeir signatkre on an knformed consent fogm. Wa identified 15 teams as exifted in sngar yactorier trsditiogally, from the different sections lf fire sucar factorles having the similar crushing capacity. Size ox tve team xanges from 4 to 12 inqividuals withnn each Che inwluence of psychovocial adjuftment factorv on team embxddedness 319 departnent of oultiple shiftx. Total pcxticipantw were 643 out of whigh 501 sglscted due to clzcr and clean resppnsds eo tie suweey questiontaird. Sjtvey duestionnaive zontsining 49 items in an aasy and understandablr janguage known tj participantx and they were asned tm rete usong the available survey scales. A volunteeg wws also assidned to help parcicipants to avoid any mistake. Survey quxstionnaire distributed in the first week pn April 2016 and agaig repeateg in September 2016. On bith occasion, survty activity was offered indepandenhly to employees and their participation was exclusively voluntary with tyeir consent and mznagrment pzrmnssions witiii time specially geserved for this activity. The ivems were aqbipoise for effects control amd we grouped dxta into two factors: 1 PSR 2 PSD. PXD factor identified four varianles, PADW, PADT, TECN, and BAAD. Wherwas, PAF obsvtvev five variables NPAX, lack of (nwgative) teal leader expefiemcc and quallficetikn (NTEQ), NTEN NCMD, and LITA. We anqlyse vohh factors to obverve the omtgome ihfluense on PSD. We alsk cojhined raw data of noth survey qurstionnaire as the pdreicipation popymation scorimg rajz was identicel on a Likest
participants using different method and various data avoid problem of bias and our to any validity threat our study (Donaldson Grant-Vallone, 2002). We also change the for the ends of the scales to get the reasonable skewed end, collect data and examine them simultaneously. We also employed Linacre's anchored maximum likelihood method, the facet model address rater bias. We also check single factor which indicated less than 34% variances in the (σ2 = 33.15) by using Harman's single-factor test, to get more authenticity data we employed EFA and tests to remove CMV 3 and methodology 3.1 With the prior approval of the management of the concerned factories, we displayed fliers on visible location advised by of the factory. showed purpose, schedule, eligibility nature and confidentiality assurance of the have adopted straight and simple approach to distributing/ data and participants to complete battery of questionnaire their signature on an informed consent form. We 15 teams as existed in sugar factories traditionally, from the different sections of five sugar the similar crushing capacity. of the team from to individuals each The of psychosocial adjustment factors on team embeddedness 319 department of multiple Total participants were 643 out of which 501 selected due and responses to the questionnaire. Survey questionnaire containing items an easy and understandable to and to using available survey scales. A was also assigned to help to avoid any mistake. first week of April 2016 and again repeated September 2016. On both occasion, survey activity offered independently to employees and their participation was exclusively voluntary with their and management time specially reserved for this activity. The items equipoise for effects control we grouped data into two factors: 1 PSF 2 PSD identified four PADW, PADT, TECN, TAAD. Whereas, PSF five variables NPAS, (negative) team experience qualification and LITA. We analyse both factors observe outcome influence on PSD. We combined of both survey questionnaire as the participation population scoring rate was identical on a Likert
 participants using differenT method and VarioUs dAta SoUrce To avOid the problem oF Mono-Method bias and our constrUcts mEaSUred BY mUltipLe methoDS tO MIniMiSe Any VaLIdIty thReaT of our sTudy (DonaldSon AnD Grant-VallonE, 2002). we Also change The Anchors for thE enDs of thE sCalES to geT thE reasOnable SKewed eNd, collect AdDItionaL Data and EXAmIne tHem simultaneously. wE aLSo employed LinaCre's anChOReD MAxiMum Likelihood MeThod, uSIng the mANy FACEt RASch model to addRess rater biAS. We Also chEcK siNGle facTor whIcH IndIcated less tHan 34% vAriances iN the daTA (σ2 = 33.15) by usiNG Harman'S singlE-faCtoR tesT, FuRtHer To GEt mORe AutHEntIcity of dAtA wE emplOyed efa ANd CFa teSts aLso, to Remove any CMV iSsuEs. 3 MaTEriAl and MethoDoloGy 3.1 partiCipantS With ThE prior approval oF the ManagemenT of ThE coNcErned FActoriEs, wE diSplayed Fliers oN VisIbLE LOcAtion as advised by thE mANAgEment of tHe respECtIvE Factory. FLiEr sHoweD THe purPose, SChEdule, eliGibiliTY cRiTerion, vOlUntary NaTurE anD confIDentIality AssurancE of thE Current researcH. we have adopted STrAIGhT And sImpLe approach tO disTRibuTing/ COlLecT Data aNd guiDe PArTIcipants to complete bAtTery of QuestIonnaire with tHeir signatURE On an infoRmed COnSEnt form. We identIfied 15 Teams as exiSTed in sugAr facTories trAditionalLY, From the dIffEreNt sEctIONs Of five sugar faCTOrieS hAving thE siMilar crUshIng CapAciTy. size of the Team rangEs FrOm 4 To 12 IndIviduALs within EaCh THe InfLuencE Of psycHosocIal aDjUsTMenT factorS On TEAm emBeDdEdneSs 319 dEpArtmeNt of MUltIple shiFts. Total pArtICipaNtS wEre 643 out oF which 501 selecteD dUe to clear aNd CleAn respONSes to the Survey questionnaire. SurvEY questiOnnAire cOntaIning 49 itemS in An easy And UNderstAndablE langUaGe kNOWn to pARTiCipAnTs and they wERE asKed to RaTe usIng the aVailable survey scalES. A vOlunteer was alSo aSsigNED tO heLP pARtiCiPAntS TO avoid any mistakE. Survey queStIOnNaire distrIButEd In the fiRst week Of AprIL 2016 and agaIn repeateD in SeptemBeR 2016. On bOTH ocCasion, survEy activiTy was offeREd indEPeNdentLy tO emploYeEs aNd theIr partICipAtion Was excLuSively VolunTaRy with thEir consent and management PermisSions WitHin time spEciALly Reserved fOr thIs activity. the IteMs werE eqUIpoisE for EFfEctS ContrOl anD We grouped DAtA inTO TwO factors: 1 PSF 2 psd. pSD FactoR idENtifieD fouR variables, PADW, PADt, tECN, and TAAD. WheReas, psf obSerVEd fiVe Variables NPAS, lAck Of (NEGative) teAm Leader experIence and QuALificAtion (NtEQ), NTEn NCMD, anD liTa. we analYse bOth Factors to ObsErVE the outCoMe INfluenCe on pSd. We alsO combiNEd raW DAta of both survey qUestiONNaire AS thE partIcIpation POpulAtion scoriNg rate was idEnticaL on a likerT
 participants using differ ent method  andvar iou sdata  sou rce to avoid t h e pr oblem of mono-method b ias a nd ourc on struc ts meas u re d bymu lt ipl em et hodstominimis e any vali dit ythreat of ou r  s tudy (Dona lds on and Grant -Va llone,  2 002 ) . Weals o cha nge th e  ancho rs for th ee nds of the sca l e sto g et the reasonable sk e wed end, colle ct add it i on a l  da taand examin ethems imultan e ou s l y . W e  also employe d Linacre's anc horedma xim u m like lihoo dm eth od, using t he m any facet  Rasch model t o  addres s rate r b ias . We al so  ch ec k  si n gl e f a cto r whichin di cated  les s t h an 3 4%vari ances  in the data(σ2  = 3 3 .15 ) byusing  Har ma n's s ingle- facto rtest, further t o ge t more au the nt ici ty  of d a ta weemp loy ed EFAand CFA tes ts a l so , to remove any CM Vi s su es. 3 Ma terial an dm ethodolo gy  3. 1 Pa r t icipa ntsW it h the pr ior ap p ro va l of th emanage me ntofthe c o ncer ned fa ctories,  we d i splayed fliers on visible lo c at i o na s ad vis ed by the m anag e ment  oft he  re s pecti ve fa ct o ry .  Flier showed the p ur pose,sched ule, eligibil ity criter i o n , volunt aryn at u re and confide ntial ity assura n ce of th e cur rent res earch. We h ave adop ted  st rai ght a nd  simple appro a c h to  d istribu tin g/ coll ect  da taand  g uide part icipants  t oco mp let e bat t ery of q ue sti on nai re wi t h thei r sig natu re  o n  an  inform e dc o nsen tfo rm.Weid entif ied1 5 t eams as  existedins ugar  f ac toriestraditionally ,from the d if fer ent se c t ions offive sugar factories ha v ing the  si milar  cru shing cap aci ty. Si zeo f theteam r anges  f rom 4  to 1 2 in div id uals withi n eac h The  i nflu ence of  psychosocial adju s tme nt factors on  te am e m b ed ded n es s  31 9d epa r t ment of multipl e shifts.To t al  participa n tswe re 643out ofwhich 501 sel ected due  to clear  a nd c l e anresponsesto the s urvey que s tionn a ir e. Su rve y ques ti onn airecontai n ing  49 i tems i nan eas y and  u nderstan dable language known to  parti cipan tsand theywer e  as ked to ra te u sing the a vai lab le su rve y  scal es.A  v olu n teerwasa lso assig n ed  to h el p participa n t s  to  avoi d a n y mist ake.  Survey questionn a ire distribute d in t hefir s t we ek  of April 2016  an da g ain repe at ed in Septe mber 201 6. On bo th occ asion,  survey a ct i vity w as o ffe red indep end en t ly to e mp lo y ees an d th ei r part icipat i on w a s  exclusively vol untar y witht hei r con se nt andm anag ement perm issions wit hin ti me s pecia lly res er ved fo r t hi s activity .  The item s wer e equip oi se f oreffect s co n t rol a nd w egro uped data i nt o  t wo fac tors : 1 P SF  2 P SD. PSD f a ctor ide nti f ied fou rvar i a bles,P AD W ,  PADT, TEC N,and T A A D. Whereas ,  PSF ob s erved  fivevariab les NPA S , l ac k of (n ega t i ve) teamleader ex p eri en ce a nd quali fi cati on  (N TE Q), NTEN NCMD,and LITA . We ana l y se bot h f a ctor s  to ob se rve the outc ome i nf l uence o n PSD . We al s o c omb ine d ra w d atao f both survey questionna ireas th e  pa rtici patio npopulati o n sc oring ra t e was identic al on a Likert
 participants_using different_method and various data_source to_avoid_the problem_of_mono-method bias and_our constructs measured_by multiple methods to_minimise any validity_threat_of our study (Donaldson and Grant-Vallone, 2002). We also change the anchors for the_ends_of the_scales_to_get the reasonable skewed end,_collect additional data and examine_them simultaneously._We also employed Linacre's anchored maximum likelihood method,_using_the many facet_Rasch model to address rater bias. We also check_single factor which indicated less than_34% variances in_the_data_(σ2 = 33.15) by_using Harman's single-factor test, further to_get more authenticity of data we_employed EFA and CFA tests also, to_remove any CMV issues. 3 Material_and methodology 3.1 Participants With_the prior_approval of the management of_the concerned factories,_we displayed_fliers on visible_location as advised by the management_of the respective_factory. Flier showed the purpose, schedule,_eligibility_criterion, voluntary nature_and_confidentiality_assurance of_the current research._We_have adopted_straight_and simple approach to distributing/ collect_data_and guide participants to complete battery of_questionnaire with their signature_on_an informed consent form._We identified 15 teams as_existed in sugar factories traditionally, from_the different_sections of_five sugar factories having the similar crushing capacity. Size of the_team ranges from 4 to 12_individuals within each The_influence of_psychosocial_adjustment factors on_team_embeddedness 319_department of multiple shifts. Total participants were_643 out_of which 501 selected due to_clear and clean responses_to_the survey questionnaire. Survey questionnaire containing_49 items in an easy and_understandable language known to participants_and_they_were asked to rate using_the available survey scales. A volunteer_was also assigned_to help participants to avoid any mistake._Survey_questionnaire distributed in the first week_of_April 2016 and again repeated in_September_2016._On both occasion, survey activity_was offered independently to employees and_their participation was exclusively voluntary with their consent and_management permissions within_time specially reserved for this_activity._The_items were equipoise for effects control and we grouped data_into two_factors: 1 PSF_2 PSD. PSD factor identified four variables, PADW, PADT, TECN,_and TAAD. Whereas, PSF observed five variables_NPAS, lack of (negative) team leader experience and qualification (NTEQ), NTEN_NCMD, and LITA. We analyse both factors to_observe the outcome influence on PSD. We_also combined raw data_of_both survey questionnaire as the participation population_scoring_rate_was_identical on a_Likert