The Multidimensionality of Revised Developmental Work Personality Scale

Transcription

1 The Multidimensionality of Revised Developmental Work Personality Scale Work personality has been found to be vital in developing the foundation for effective vocational and career behavior (Bolton, 1992; Hershenson, 1996a, 1996b; Strauser, Waldrop, & Ketz, 1999). The development of the Revised Developmental Work Personality Scale (RDWPS) scale has been tested and validated in people with disabilities as well as groups of young adults (Strauser & Keim, 2002; O Sullivan & Strauser,2010; Wong, O Sullivan & Strauser, 2012). However, research investigating the multidimensional structure of the scale and measurement invariance of scale items has been scarce, which are valuable pieces of validity evidence for the scale. This study aimed to (a) examine the multidimensional structure of the RDWPS suggested by previous literature, (b) investigate the measurement invariance of RDWPS with respect to gender, and (c) examine the construct validity of the scale by investigating its correlation with work engagement. With data obtained from final 603 college students (224 male and 383 female participants) at a large midwestern public university, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance with respect to gender were performed. Results of EFA with a randomly selected set of half (n=301) of the participants demonstrated that reducing to an 11-item scale from its original 14-item scale would result in a better fit. Cattell s scree test and parallel analysis identified four-factor solution initially. Only item 11 and 14 loaded saliently onto the fourth factor and based on literature, three-factor solution was recommended. Item 11 and 14 were removed because of cross-loadings and irrelevance to the survey focus; then item 4 were moved due to the cross-loading and concept repetition. The remaining items were then fit to a three factor EFA model explaining 80% of the total variance (see Table 1 for subscales and their items). A three factor CFA model was estimated on the other half of the dataset (302 students). Th approximate fit indices for the model were acceptable. Additionally, local fit was acceptable as the largest residual correlation was 0.13, which was less than 0.2. Factor loadings were generally high, except for Item 10 (Table 1). Measurement invariance across gender sub-groups were tested and analyzed with a fourstep multi-group confirmative factor analysis (Table 2). Factor loading for item 15 was noninvariant, with a weaker relationship to the Social Skills trait for males than females. Thresholds for item 6 were non-invariant, being generally easier for females to endorse than males after accounting for Work Task trait score. However, non-invariance of these items was explainable as construct relevant, and the effect size of non-invariance was small. Thus all 11 items were retained in a three-factor model with an interpretation sufficiently consistent across genders. Finally, study found the RDWPS scale was moderately correlated with the Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student (Table 3) providing correlational evidence for its construct validity. Our results have provided validity evidence for the parsimonious 11-item RDWPS, and suggest it may perform better than the original 14-item RDWPS scale.

2 Table 1 Standardized Factor Loadings for Items in the Specified Three-Factor Model and Internal Consistency for Each Factor 11-item Revised RDWPS Scale Factor 1 Social Skills Cronbach α =.79 Factor Loading Item 2 Item 3 Item 15 I was in trouble a lot with my teachers. When I was in school, I had problems getting along with classmates. I got in arguments a lot with classmates when I was in school Factor 2 Work Task Cronbach α =.89 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 In school I completed my work on time. In school I tried my best even if I didn t like what I was doing. It was important for me to complete all my school work. It made me feel good when I completed all my school work. I complete all my assignments in school Factor 3 Role Model Cronbach α =.73 Item 10 Item 12 Item 13 When I needed help with my homework, one of my parents was available to help. Growing up, I had someone who inspired me. There was someone in my life whom I admired

3 Table 2 Fit statistics for measurement equivalence/ invariance of RDWPS scores across genders Model 2 df Δ 2 Δdf Δp RMSEA CFI 1. Dimensional/ configural Metric/ Weak < Metric/ Weak (free item 15) Strict/ strong (free item 15) Strict/strong (free item 15 and 6) Note. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root square error of approximation; change in chisquare was calculated via the DIFFTEST function in Mplus 8.1. Table 3 Pearson correlation between RDWPS scale and UWESS scale RDWPS Total 1 2. UWESS Total.274** 1 3. Social Skills.655**.140** 1 4. Work Tasks.784**.329**.490** 1 5. Role Model.643**.143**.143**.272** 1 6. Vigor.191**.756** **.206** 1 7. Absorption.149**.842** **.098*.617** 1 8. Dedication.308**.890**.165**.182**.182**.481**.581** 1 Note. All ** correlation indicates significance at the.01 level.

4 Reference Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Bolton, B. (1992). Manual for the Work Personality Profile: Self Report Version. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Training and Research Center for Rehabilitation Studies. Borsboom, D. (2006). When does measurement invariance matter? Medical care, 44(11), S176- S Bowen, N. K., & Masa, R. D. (2015). Conducting measurement invariance tests with ordinal data: A guide for social work researchers. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 6, Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp ). Newbury Park, CA:Sage. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,

5 Davey, A., Savla, J., & Luo, Z. (2005). Issues in assessing model fit with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Oxford, England: International Universities Press. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R.L.& Black, R. (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. (2010) Multivariate data analysis. 7 th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hershenson, D.B. (1996a). A systems reformulation for a developmental model of work adjustment. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 40,2-10. Hershenson, D.B. (1996b). Work adjustment: A neglected area in career counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., and Mullen, M. R., Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6 (1), 53-60, Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.

6 Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Lange, D., Strauser, David R., Alston, Reginald, Chiu, Chung-Yi, & Wong, Alex. (2015). The Relationship of Psychosocial Factors and Academic Success, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Meade, A.W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P.W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, Morizot, J.M., Ainsworth, A.T., & Reise, S.P. (2007). Towards modern psychometrics: Application of item response theory models in personality research. In R. w. Robin, R.C. Fraley, & R.F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp ). Guilford Press. Nunnally, J.C.& Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. O Sullivan, D., & Strauser, D. R. (2010). Validation of the developmental work personality model and scale. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,54, doi: / O Sullivan, D., Strauser, D. R., & Wong, A. W. K. (2012). Examining differences in developmental work personality across disability category: Implications for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation., 42(2), 259. Pai, A, L.H., Mullins, L.L., Drotar, D., Burant, C., Wagner,J., & Chaney, J.M. (2007). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the Child Uncertainty in Illness Scale among children with chronic illness. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32,

7 Pendergast, Von Der Embse, Kilgus, & Eklund. (2017). Measurement equivalence: A nontechnical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, bf Schaufeli, W. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker,A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES utrecht work engagement scale, preliminary manual (Version 1 ed.). The Netherlands: Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University. Strauser, D.R., Waldrop, D.G., & Ketz, K. (1999). Reconceptualizing the work personality. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42, Strauser, D. R., & Keim, J. (2002). Developmental work personality scale: An initial analysis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, doi: / Tanaka, J. (1987). 'How big is big enough?': Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child Development, 58, Vandenberg, R.J.& Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3,

8 Wong, A. W., O Sullivan, D., & Strauser, D. R. (2012). Confirmatory factor analytical study of the revised developmental work personality scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(4),