View
216
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
The gap between actual and desired complexity of work - different ways to assess difference-scoresRigotti, T., Schyns, B., Mohr, G. & Paul, T.
• Definition
• Theory I: The theory of action regulation
• Theory II: Problems in measuring differences
• Methods
• Results
• Conlusions and Discussion
Definition
I have to produce my own solutions todo my job.
there are always new demands, I haveto learn. (e.g. new tasks).
I can plan the process of my work bymyself.
I am responsible for the results of mywork.
In my place of work
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
In a good place of work
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Actual complexity of work
Desired complexity of work
Willingness to occupational change is defined as the experienced gap between actual complexity of work and the positive rating of complexity. Complexity describes higher regulation demands in the sense of action regulation theory.
• Hierarchic and sequential completeness
Theory I: The action-regulation theory
Levels of action-regulation Sensorimotor level, level of flexible action patterns, intellectual level, heuristic level
• „Action is goal-oriented behavior that is organized in specific ways by goals, information integration, plans, and feedback and can be regulated consciously or via routines.“ (Frese & Zapf, 1994)
General definition of action
Completeness of tasks
Enhancement of personality
Var(X) rXX + Var(Y) rYY - 2COV(XY)
Var(X) + Var(Y) - 2COV(XY)
Horst (1961)
Theory II: Problems in measuring differences
1. „Un”reliability
2. Regression-effect
3. Intervall-niveau of the measures
+2rExEyX Y)1)(1( YYXX rr
Williams & Zimmermann (1977)
• Coefficient Alpha (Cronbach, 1951)
• Kruder-Richardson Formula 8 (Kruder & Richardson, 1937)
rDD‘ =
Methods
Analysis of the instrument
= .64
= .65
= .61/ willingness to change
0.794 0.55
0.727 0.46
0.601 0.34
0.686 0.42
39%48%
actual complexity /
Item factors Item-total-corr.
I have to producemay own solutionsto do my job.
0.841 0.60
there are alwaysnew demands. Ihave to learn (e.g.new tasks)
0.690 0.38
I can plan theprocess of my workon my own.
0.584 0.31
I am responsible forthe results of mywork.
0.614 0.33
/ desired complexity
0.794 0.52
0.691 0.42
0.719 0.44
0.557 0.31
36%
Results
Connections to other scales
Partial - Corr.Controllingfor X
Y-X X Y
Selfinitiativ .47** .15 .25* .51**Irritation -.35** -.28* .04 -.31**Occupational selfefficacy .17 -.07 .28* .26*
Subscales AVEMTendency for resignation -.34** -.32** -.04 -.32**Readiness to exhaust one self .13 -.02 .19 .20Occupational ambition .28* .09 .12 .26*
Subscales ABBSuperior -.16 -.32** .38** .05Colleagues -.01 .02 -.13 .00Task -.04 -.46** .61** .18Job Conditions .32** -.08 .39** .39**
Partial - Corr.Controllingfor X
Y-X X Y
Selfinitiativ .47** .15 .25* .51**Irritation -.35** -.28* .04 -.31**Occupational selfefficacy .17 -.07 .28* .26*
Subscales AVEMTendency for resignation -.34** -.32** -.04 -.32**Readiness to exhaust one self .13 -.02 .19 .20Occupational ambition .28* .09 .12 .26*
Subscales ABBSuperior -.16 -.32** .38** .05Colleagues -.01 .02 -.13 .00Task -.04 -.46** .61** .18Job Conditions .32** -.08 .39** .39**
Partial - Corr.Controllingfor X
Y-X X Y
Selfinitiativ .47** .15 .25* .51**Irritation -.35** -.28* .04 -.31**Occupational selfefficacy .17 -.07 .28* .26*
Subscales AVEMTendency for resignation -.34** -.32** -.04 -.32**Readiness to exhaust one self .13 -.02 .19 .20Occupational ambition .28* .09 .12 .26*
Subscales ABBSuperior -.16 -.32** .38** .05Colleagues -.01 .02 -.13 .00Task -.04 -.46** .61** .18Job Conditions .32** -.08 .39** .39**
Partial - Corr.Controllingfor X
Y-X X Y
Selfinitiativ .47** .15 .25* .51**Irritation -.35** -.28* .04 -.31**Occupational selfefficacy .17 -.07 .28* .26*
Subscales AVEMTendency for resignation -.34** -.32** -.04 -.32**Readiness to exhaust one self .13 -.02 .19 .20Occupational ambition .28* .09 .12 .26*
Subscales ABBSuperior -.16 -.32** .38** .05Colleagues -.01 .02 -.13 .00Task -.04 -.46** .61** .18Job Conditions .32** -.08 .39** .39**
Results
The influence of various computational modells on significant scores D1 = Y-X
XrYrD xxyy 2ˆ
)()()(ˆ3 XYrXYXYrD DDDD
YYD ˆˆ4 XY 21
ˆ
)()()(ˆ215 YyXxXYD
aXYD 6ˆ
27)(1
1050ˆ
XY
ZXYZ
r
XrYD
with
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Various Computational models
Perc
enta
ge o
f per
sons
with
si
gnifi
cant
sco
re
Results
Intercorrelation of the modells
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6D2 .97D3 1.00 .97D4 .73 .74 .73D5 .99 .96 .92 .63D6 .87 .87 .87 .97 .81D7 .73 .74 .73 1.00 .64 .97
D1 = Y-X
XrYrD xxyy 2ˆ
)()()(ˆ3 XYrXYXYrD DDDD
YYD ˆˆ4 XY 21
ˆ
)()()(ˆ215 YyXxXYD
aXYD 6ˆ
27)(1
1050ˆ
XY
ZXYZ
r
XrYD
with
Results
D1 D2/ D3 D4/ D7 D5 D6sig N M d N M d N M d N M d N M d
Age 01
6615
42.4540.40
.20 5526
42.2941.62
.06 738
42.1041.88
.02 3447
43.3541.15
.22 3942
43.2640.98
.23
How manycompanys
01
6615
0.420.47
.05 5526
0.400.50
.10 738
0.400.75
.30 3447
0.440.43
.01 3942
0.380.48
.11
Conse-quences ofchange
01
6314
3.062.92
.16 5225
3.152.79
.42 698
3.033.02
.01 3245
3.222.90
.40 3740
3.212.86
.43
Satisfactionwith jobconditions
01
6515
2.462.26
.35 5426
2.472.34
.23 728
2.382.83
.94 3347
2.542.34
.36 3842
2.552.31
.43
Likelinessof change
01
6615
3.492.82
.73 5526
3.443.22
.24 738
3.413.00
.41 3447
3.583.21
.42 3942
3.563.19
.41
.30 .21 .34 .28 .32
T-Tests of variables with the various difference-score modells
Conclusions
• Taking into account that the pre- and posttest are highly linked and
semantically different (not parallel) - the difference can be a reliable measure
• "[...]although the meaning of a given difference score seems obvious, it is impossible to know what a difference score correlation means without looking at the relation between the components of the difference score and
the outcome measure."(Griffin, Murray & Gonzales, 1999).
• willingness to occupational change seems to be inhibited by internal stressors• Positive resources, like selfinitiativ, occupational ambition are connected with a lower experience of discripancy between actual and desired complexity of work
• The various concepts to compute a difference lead to different amounts of persons with a significant score• the simple difference seems to be an unbiased measure
Recommended