Testing the Measurement Invariance of Thriving at Work Scale Across Occupational Groups

Year 2021, , 73 - 84, 30.04.2020

Ömer Erdem Koçak

https://doi.org/10.38009/ekimad.920473

Abstract

Thriving at work scale was developed by Porath et al (2011), and adapted to Turkish by Koçak (2016). The original scale has two dimensions, each of which has five items; however, the Turkish version has four items for each dimension. The Thriving at Work Scale has never been tested for measurement invariance, neither in its English or Turkish versions. The scale was tested for measurement invariance across academicians, highly educated white-collar employees, and low-educated blue-collar workers in this study. The results of the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis supported both configural and metric invariance. However, scalar and partial scalar invariance were not supported. The findings highlighted the importance of taking occupational group differences into account when examining employees' levels of thriving at work, and that analysis should include controlling for potential effects of occupations.

Keywords

Thriving at work, Measurement Invariance, Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis

İşte Kendini Yetiştirme Ölçeğinin Meslek Grupları Arasında Ölçüm Değişmezliğinin Test Edilmesi

Abstract

İşte Kendini yetiştirme ölçeği Porath vd (2011) tarafından geliştirilmiş, Koçak (2016) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlanmıştır. Orijinal ölçek beşer sorudan oluşan iki boyutuyla toplam 10 soru iken Türkçe uyarlamasında dörder sorudan oluşan iki boyut bulunmaktadır. Ölçek, gerek orijinali üzerinden gerekse de Türkçe uyarlaması üzerinden daha önce ölçüm değişmezliği incelemesine tabi tutulmamıştır. Bu çalışmada da Türkiye’den akademisyenler, beyaz yakalı çalışanlar ve mavi yakalı çalışanların katıldığı araştırmalardan elde edilen veri ile bu üç meslek grubu üzerinden ölçeğin ölçüm değişmezliği test edilmiştir. Yapısal ve metrik değişmezlik sağlanmıştır. Ancak skalar ve kısmi skalar değişmezlikler konusunda değişmezlik bulunamamıştır. Sonuçlar, çalışanların kendini yetiştirme seviyelerinin incelendiği araştırmalarda meslek grubu farklılıklarının göz önünde bulundurulması gerektiği ve olası etkilerinin kontrol edilerek analiz yapılması gerekliliğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

İşte Kendini Yetiştirme, Ölçüm Değişmezliği, Çok Gruplu Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi

References

• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329-341.
• Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of educational psychology, 99(2), 274.
• Bakker, A. B., van Veldhoven, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the demand-control model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 3–16.
• Boussabbeh, M., Ben Salem, I., Prola, A., Guilbert, A., Bacha, H., Abid-Essefi, S., & Lemaire, C. (2015). Patulin induces apoptosis through ROS-mediated endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway. Toxicological sciences, 144(2), 328-337.
• Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. 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), 456.
• Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press.
• Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 169-191.
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 14(3), 464-504.
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
• Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10), 1040.
• Gerbasi, A., Porath, C. L., Parker, A., Spreitzer, G., & Cross, R. (2015). Destructive de-energizing relationships: How thriving buffers their effect on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1423.
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
• Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental aging research, 18(3), 117-144.
• Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., & Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invarient: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor invariance. Southern Psychologist.
• Hu, X., Kaplan, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2010). An examination of blue-versus white-collar workers’ conceptualizations of job satisfaction facets. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 317-325.
• Karasek Jr, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative science quarterly, 285-308.
• Koçak, Ö.E., Demir H., Gülcü İ. ve Kahraman İ., (2017). İşkolik Davranışlar, Algılanan Katkı ve Yaşam Doyumu İlişkisinde İşte Kendini Yetiştirmenin Aracı Etkisi, Yayınlanmamış Çalışma, İstanbul
• Koçak, Ö.E., Çırpan H., Vardarlıer P. (2017). How Thriving at Work Enables Work Context to Influence on General Life Satisfaction, Eurasian Business, Economics and Politics Forum. 21th May, İstanbul.
• Koçak, Ö. E. (2016). How to Enable Thriving at Work through Organizational Trust. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 5(4), 40.
• Levy, D. M. (2016). Scrolling forward: Making sense of documents in the digital age. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.. Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(3), 378.
• Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis examination of reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen's Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 241-250.
• Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International journal of educational research, 13(2), 127-143.
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525-543.
• Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, NY: Routledge
• Millsap, R. E., & Meredith, W. (1992). Inferential conditions in the statistical detection of measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(4), 389-402.
• Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., & Sach, F. (2012). Thriving at work—A diary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 468-487.
• Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 266-284.
• Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A., & Schorch, S. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527.
• Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250-275.
• Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552.
• Somer, O. (2004). Gruplararası karşılaştırmalarda ölçek eşdeğerliğinin incelenmesi: Madde ve test fonksiyonlarının farklılaşması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 19(53), 69-82.
• Spreitzer, G. M., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Thriving in organizations. Positive organizational behavior, 74-85.
• Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization science, 16(5), 537-549.
• Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486-492.
• 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(1), 4-70.
• Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M. B. (2016). A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of Management, 42(4), 982-1004.