Upload
others
View
6
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
State Versus Trait Conceptualisation of Psychological Capital.
Jacqueline Louise Thomas
BA. (Hons Psychology)
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The University of
Western Australia
School of Psychology
2014
! 2!
! 3!
Abstract
A recent stream of research termed Positive Organisational Behaviour, has
resulted in a field of research focused upon an individual’s Psychological Capital
(PsyCap), a higher order construct comprised of hope, optimism, self-efficacy and
resilience. PsyCap has been be defined as “an individual’s positive psychological
state of development and as characterised by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to
take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a
positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3)
persevering towards goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in
order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and
bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (Luthans, Youssef, &
Avolio, 2007, p. 3). Higher levels of PsyCap within an individual have been linked to
a number of desirable outcomes including positive work attitudes such as job
satisfaction, engagement and affective commitment, behaviours such as increased
performance and increased well-being (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011;
Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007).
PsyCap has been described as a ‘state-like’ construct, meaning that the
construct is more stable over time than a pure state but less stable than a trait. It is
measured via the PsyCap Questionnaire, termed the PCQ-24, which has a reported
test-retest reliability of .52 over a period of two weeks (Luthans, Avolio, et al.,
2007). For an organisation, the advantage of a state construct able to result in
desirable outcomes is that the organisation may be able offer training or bring about
interventions to increase that construct, thereby improving organisational
performance. Alternatively, if a construct is stable over time and related to positive
! 4!
outcomes, organisations might be able to select employees already possessing the
desired level of the trait, thereby reducing expenditure on training and interventions.
A review of the literature concerning each of the individual PsyCap
components (hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resilience) revealed that each has
been successfully conceptualised and measured as both state and trait constructs.
This thesis aimed to determine if it was possible to create pure state and pure trait
versions of the PCQ-24, and to assess the validity of the trait version as an employee
selection tool. Phase one of the research was concerned with the design of these two
scales. The scale designed to measure a state construct was termed the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale, while the scale designed to measure a trait construct was
termed the Generalised PsyCap scale.
In phase two, the stability and validity of these scales over time was assessed
via longitudinal studies. It was hypothesised that the Moment Specific PsyCap scale
would meet the criteria for a state and that the Generalised PsyCap scale would meet
the criteria for a trait. This phase included two studies, one using a sample of
employees and one using student samples. The results showed that the Generalised
PsyCap scale met the criteria for a trait scale, but the Moment Specific scale met
neither the criteria for a state or trait scale, indicating that similarly to the PCQ-24 it
is still best described as ‘state-like’. In addition this research showed that the two
scales demonstrated acceptable internal reliability and predictive, concurrent,
convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, the second study of phase two revealed
that significant order effects occur when the two scales are completed one after the
other, such that responses to the second scale are consistent with those of the first.
Therefore it was concluded that the two scales should not be completed by
individuals within a single testing session.
! 5!
Finally, the third phase of this study aimed to assess the validity of the
Generalised PsyCap scale as an employee selection tool. In this study participants
completed the Generalised PsyCap scale on their first day of employment at a new
job. At the end of a three-month training period, and again six months later at the end
of their probation period, participants again completed the Generalised PsyCap scale
together with scales required to assess the Generalised PsyCap scale’s predictive
validity. The results showed that the Generalised PsyCap scale did not meet the
criteria for classification as a trait in this final study, and did not demonstrate
predictive validity. However, Generalised PsyCap scores were related to desirable
outcomes (such as increased job satisfaction, commitment and engagement and
reduced intention to turnover and need for recovery) when the scales were
administered at the same point in time. In contrast to the studies in phase two,
Generalised PsyCap scores did not significantly correlate with performance in the
final study.
Overall, while the results of this study indicate that it is possible to measure a
more stable version of the PsyCap construct than that measured via the PCQ-24,
situational or environmental influences involved in the transition to a new job alter
levels of this construct rendering it an invalid employee selection tool. A greater
understanding of the factors that influence an individual’s PsyCap during this
transition period would be beneficial to organisations to allow them to ensure
maximal levels of PsyCap are maintained during this transition. Additionally, this
research suggests that increased levels of PsyCap may be beneficial to performance
only in some job types, and that research across a wider range of jobs is required to
understand for which occupations increased levels of PsyCap may be desirable and
for which it may not.
! 6!
Table of Contents
Abstract.........................................................................................................................3
Table of Contents..........................................................................................................6
Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................7
Chapter 1: General Introduction..................................................................................9
Chapter 2: Assessment of the PCQ-24 and Development of the Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap Scales................................................................................47
Chapter 3: Psychometric Assessment of the Generalised and Moment Specific
PsyCap scales………………………..........................................................................60
Chapter 4: Assessment of order and rating scale effects for Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap scales.................................................................................89
Chapter 5: Validity of Generalised PsyCap as an Employee Selection Tool…….142
Chapter 6: General Discussion................................................................................170
References.................................................................................................................188
! 7!
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all those who have supervised me along the PhD
journey for the various contributions they have given. Thanks must go to Dr Elliot
Wood for his guidance during the early phases of refining the research question and
devising the strategy. I would also like to thank Professor David Morrison for his
input throughout the entire process, and particularly for his contribution in shaping
the structure of the thesis. Finally, I would like to sincerely thank Professor Mark
Griffin for taking me on as a student at the completion of my PhD. I have appreciated
your support as an advisor throughout the PhD, and would like to particularly thank
you for the feedback you offered on the final draft.
I offer my heartfelt thanks to Professor Colin MacLeod, who although not in
a supervisory role, has been an invaluable source of both academic and at times
emotional support and encouragement throughout my thesis. Your wisdom,
enthusiasm for research, and willingness to give your time and energy to others are
all traits I admire greatly.
Trying to conduct research in the ‘real world’ can be a challenging thing for a
student, and I would like to acknowledge the input of two individuals- Augie and Eli,
who have helped this research reach fruition. Thank you Augie for your belief in the
value of the research and introductions you gave me, and to Eli for the time and
effort you put in to organising me many data collection opportunities, as well as
experiences to give me insight into the working environment I was studying. I will be
forever grateful to the two of you.
I would also like to acknowledge the input of the Department of Corrective
Services (DCS), Western Australia. Employees of the department have been obliging
! 8!
participants and valuable sources of information, all willing to give their time to
support my research. Please note, that although willing supporters of my research,
the material included within this thesis cannot be considered as endorsed by DCS or
an expression of the policies of DCS.
I’ve been fortunate enough to meet, enjoy the company of, and draw support
and advice from some amazing office buddies; Danny, Pippa and Ben and pseudo
office buddies; Ann and Jason, through the course of my research. These are the
friends that have been there to bounce ideas off, share their knowledge, fix my
computer issues, offer comfort during the stressful times, share fun during the dull
times, celebrate the highs and pick me up during the lows. In short- you guys have
made the last few years bearable during the worst times and a lot of fun during the
best.
On the home front, I’d like to thank my husband Trav and my parents Jenny
and Wayne for the support they have offered throughout my studies. Thank you for
offering a listening hear, advice, and any help I asked for, but perhaps more so, thank
you for the silent support and strength you always offer, and for not asking questions
when you sensed that I didn’t want to answer them. A special thanks to my Dad, who
has also dared to answer all the academic questions I have asked, and proof read
many assignments in the early days- all with the knowledge that my responses to
feedback were not always positive. I couldn’t have wished for a better environment
in which to study, learn and live, and I thank both my Mum and Dad for creating and
providing it.
! 9!
CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Positive Psychology
Interest in positive psychology increased when the American Psychological
Association’s president Martin Seligman called upon psychology to reorient itself
towards the study of human strengths (Seligman, 1999). Seligman argued that before
the first world war psychology had three missions; to cure mental illness, to make the
lives of all people more productive and fulfilling and to identify and nurture high
talent (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). However, historical and economic
reasons, coupled with a human tendency for negative emotions to override positive
ones, resulted in psychology’s adoption of a ‘disease model’ of psychology in the
post war era. Within this model, the focus of psychology became repairing damage
rather than studying the factors that allow people and communities to flourish and
excel. Following this disease model, the discipline of psychology as a whole
developed a strong negative bias in its areas of study.
In recent times however, there has been in a flurry of activity in the study of
positive psychology (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). Positive psychology
is “an umbrella term for the study of positive emotions, positive character traits, and
enabling institutions” (Seligman et al., 2005, p. 410). It has been defined as “the
study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal
functioning of people, groups, and institutions” (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 104). It
addresses the two neglected missions of psychology; making the lives of all people
more productive and fulfilling, and identifying and nurturing talent.
! 10!
Positive psychology in organisational psychology
It can be argued that similarly to all fields of psychology, research in
organisational psychology has tended to focus upon deficits rather than positive
aspects of organisational life (Caza & Caza, 2008; Luthans, 2002a, 2002b). Some
examples of this include more attention being devoted to negative rather than
positive affectivity, stress and burnout rather than eustress and resistance to change
as opposed to celebration of change (Luthans, 2002a).
Positive psychology, when translated into an organisational setting has
largely followed two separate but complimentary streams of research; positive
organisational scholarship (POS) and positive organizational behaviour (POB). POS
investigates ways in which organisations and their members flourish and prosper. Its
focus is upon the dynamics in organisations that contribute to human strengths and
thriving as well as the cultivation of positive states in groups and organisations
(Dutton, Glynn, & Spreitzer, 2006). Alternatively, Fred Luthans (2002b) proposed
the discipline of POB and defined it as “the study and application of positively
oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be
measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in
today’s workplace” (p. 59). Thus, POB places a stronger emphasis upon
understanding the strengths of an individual and how they can be developed and
contribute to the success of an organisation, whereas POS places more emphasis
upon organisational factors that will result in success for the organisation.
In accordance with the POB definition, a psychological capacity must meet a
number of criteria to qualify for inclusion in the discipline. First, it must be positive.
This notion aims not to exclude all negative research from organisational
! 11!
psychology, but to add a discipline that places an emphasis upon the positive
(Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). This reflects the views within the general movement
of positive psychology that a more balanced approach to research must begin by
correcting the current imbalance between positive and negative topics. Next, for
inclusion in POB, a construct must have extensive research foundations and be able
to be validly measured. Luthans argues that this criterion differentiates POB research
from other positively focused books of the more ‘self-help’ variety (Luthans,
Youssef, et al., 2007). Additionally, in order to be classified as a POB construct, a
construct must be developed and managed at the individual (rather than
organisational) level. This is a criterion which differentiates POB from POS. Finally,
the POB definition requires that the capacities are state-like, and therefore open to
development. This criterion distinguishes POB from other positive approaches to
organisational psychology that may focus upon psychological traits.
Luthans and colleagues identified four constructs that meet the criteria for
inclusion in POB; hope, optimism, resilience and self-efficacy (Luthans, 2002b;
Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). They additionally argued that these four constructs
combine to form the higher order construct they term Psychological Capital
(PsyCap), which also meets the criteria for classification as a POB construct. While
there has been a flurry of research about PsyCap’s predictive validity and the
potential to increase an individual’s PsyCap, little longitudinal research has been
conducted and as such there remain some unanswered questions around how stable
an individual’s level of PsyCap remains over extended periods of time.
In accordance with the POB criteria, Luthans and colleagues define the
PsyCap constructs as being ‘state-like’ and open to development (Luthans, Avolio, et
al., 2007).The focus of this thesis is upon whether this definition or a more pure
! 12!
definition such as state or trait would be more accurate. This is considered
particularly important due to the differential uses for the state versus trait qualities of
an individual in organisational settings. This chapter will next discuss the importance
of the state versus trait distinction for organisational psychology and review the way
in which states and traits have been classified within POB and other streams of
research. A clear understanding of how a state and trait is defined is important to
establish criteria as to how to define the PsyCap construct. Following this, each of
the POB constructs will be introduced in more detail before discussing their stability
over time. The review of the individual PsyCap constructs will show why there is
reason to consider the potential for PsyCap to be classified as either a pure state or a
pure trait.
The importance of the state versus trait distinction in organisational psychology
Positive organisational behaviour is focused upon the psychological strengths
that an individual can possess which may result in positive work performance or
positive work attitudes such as high job satisfaction and organisational commitment.
If there is a particular strength that an employee can possess which predicts positive
job performance or work attitudes, an organisation may choose between two
different methods of ensuring this strength is present within its employees. The first,
and the method encouraged in POB research, is to develop the strength in existing
employees. Alternatively, rather than investing in interventions to increase the
individual strengths of employees, organisations may choose to select employees
already high in the strength. One factor which must be considered when deciding
between these two methods is how stable the strength is in individuals. If the strength
is known to vary over time then it may be beneficial to develop it within existing
employees. However, if it is stable over time and resistant to attempts to change it,
! 13!
then an organisation will benefit from selecting employees already possessing the
desired level of the strength. This is an important choice for organisations and it is
important that the stability of a construct over time is well understood to make this
decision effectively. However, the discussion below will show that the way in which
the stability of the POB constructs have been described is not sufficiently clear for
organisations to be certain which strategy is the best one to adopt.
The classification of states and traits
Wright (2007) states that the role of time or timing has not been well
considered in practical organisational research and that “nowhere is this lack of
awareness more evident than in the failure to provide a legitimate temporal
distinction between what constitutes a state as opposed to a trait” (p. 179). Despite
the lack of a clear temporal distinction between state and trait, Wright does claim that
“generally speaking, personality research typically considers person characteristics as
dispositional or trait-like if they have some measure of temporal continuity and if
they are capable of influencing subsequent behaviour” (p. 180). In contrast, he
suggests that a state is “most accurately operationalized when narrowly measured ‘at
this moment’ or ‘today’”(p. 180). Simply, a trait can be conceptualised as a constant
feature, whereas a state is circumstantially dependent and changes with time
(Salminen, Saarijarvi, Aairela, & Tamminen, 1994).
Luthans and colleagues argue that states and traits should be conceptualised
as existing on a continuum of different degrees of stability rather than as
dichotomous stable or unstable constructs (Avey, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2008). They
base this conclusion upon the findings of Conley (1984). Conley investigated the
stability of general intelligence, the personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion
and psychotism, and the construct of self-opinion by reviewing a large number of
! 14!
longitudinal studies which had been previously conducted using those constructs. In
this review Conley concluded that intelligence was more stable than personality and
that personality was more stable than self-opinion. This finding was interpreted as
initial evidence that there is a hierarchy of consistency rather than a state versus trait
dichotomy.
The problem with the continuum perspective is that it allows for only a vague
classification of a construct’s stability and this imprecision begs the questions of how
should stability be defined; by how much, how frequently or at what rate can one
expect to see change in a construct near the centre of the continuum? Answers to
these questions are of importance when an organisation makes decisions about
whether the develop a construct in existing employees, whether to select employees
already possessing the desired levels of the construct or whether a combination of the
two methods would be most beneficial to organisational performance.
The co-existence of states and traits.
Importantly, it should be noted that it is perfectly possible that a single
construct can exist in both a state and trait form. Research into anxiety, for example,
has shown this to be the case. When stating that someone is anxious, one may be
referring to the fact that they are anxious at that particular point in time (due to the
presence of a stressor; state anxiety), or that they chronically or frequently have
higher levels of state anxiousness than most people (trait anxiety). Thus, a person
with an elevated trait-anxiety score is “generally more disposed than the average
person to respond with state anxiety, and, unless (he) lives in a very sheltered
environment, he is likely to experience anxiety states more often than other people”
(Spielberger, 1966, p. 16). Reflecting this distinction, Spielberger and colleagues
(1970) developed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, which consists of separate self-
! 15!
report scales for measuring state and trait anxiety. The state scale requires
respondents to indicate their feelings related to anxiety at a specified point in time,
whereas the trait scale requires them to indicate how they generally feel in terms of
anxiety related symptoms. Similarly, the more positive construct of subjective well-
being has been classified as both a state and a trait (Diener, 1984).
The review of each of the four central POB constructs (hope, optimism,
resilience and self-efficacy) below will show that they have each been linked with
positive organisational outcomes and conceptualised and measured successfully as
both state and trait constructs. However, PsyCap, the construct comprised of the
combination of the four constructs has only been conceptualised and measured as
‘state-like’ (e.g. Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007), consistent with the continuum
perspective. The lack of research conducted to investigate PsyCap as a trait construct
appears to be a gap in our understanding of PsyCap, which will be addressed in this
thesis. As each of the PsyCap components has been successfully measured as state
and trait, it also appears likely that there may be a state rather than ‘state-like’
construct of PsyCap. Therefore, research in this thesis will attempt to measure state
and trait components of PsyCap rather than adopting the continuum perspective. In
classifying traits and states as separate constructs, Wright’s (2007) distinction that a
construct can be considered a trait if it demonstrates temporal continuity and can
influence subsequent behaviour will be used. If a construct does not meet these
criteria it will be considered a state.
Hope
Leading hope theorist C.R. Snyder and colleagues have defined hope as “a
positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of
! 16!
successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy), and (b) pathways (planning to meet
goals)” (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991b, p. 287). Put simply, hopeful thinking is
the belief that one can find pathways to reach a desired goal and the belief that one
can muster the motivation to use those pathways (Snyder, 2002).
A fundamental aspect of hope theory is that much of human behaviour is goal
directed, and goals are the foundation upon which Snyder’s (1989) hope theory was
built (Rand & Cheavens, 2009). Lopez, Snyder and Pedrotti (2003) outline a number
of factors related to goals. First, a goal must be of sufficient value before a person
will pursue it. Goals may be approach-oriented (i.e. aim to achieve something) or
preventative in nature (i.e. aim to avoid something). They can also vary temporally
(i.e. long versus short term goals) and in their difficulty to achieve. People high in
hope generate more, and generally more clearly defined goals than those low in hope
(Snyder, 2002).
The pathways component of hope refers to whether an individual perceives
that he or she is able to identify one or more workable routes to achieve a goal.
Research has shown that people high in hope are effective in generating alternative
pathways to goals (Snyder, Harris, et al., 1991). The ability to generate alternative
routes to goals is important when encountering barriers or blockages to goal
achievement (Rand & Cheavens, 2009). When faced with barriers, people high in
hope are able to generate alternative pathways and continue towards goal attainment,
whereas those low in hope may no longer see the goal as attainable.
Agency is the motivational component of goal-theory and involves
affirmative self-talk such as “I can do this” and “I won’t give up” (Snyder, Lapointe,
Crowson, & Early, 1998). Agency differs from pathways thinking and self-efficacy
! 17!
in that it reflects the intention and will to act rather than perceiving the ability (self-
efficacy) or the route (pathways) to achieve a goal. Hopeful thinking requires that
both the agency and pathways components are present (Snyder, Irving, et al., 1991b).
The two components are thought to influence each other such that during goal pursuit
pathways thinking augments agency thinking and vice versa (Rand & Cheavens,
2009; Snyder, Harris, et al., 1991). If either component of hopeful thought is lacking,
then the likelihood of goal attainment is impaired (Adams et al., 2003).
Although most theories of hope can be grouped into either emotion-based
models or cognition-based models, the two approaches are beginning to merge and
hope can be seen to have both affective and cognitive qualities (Lopez et al., 2003).
Snyder’s hope theory emphasises the cognitive component of hope, but also contains
an emotive component. According to the theory, people’s perceptions of their goal
pursuits causally affect their emotions; people appraise encountering barriers to goals
as stressful, positive emotions result from perceptions of goal attainment and
negative emotions reflect a perceived lack of success (Lopez et al., 2003). Supporting
research has shown that successfully achieving a goal or overcoming obstacles
causes positive emotions whereas insurmountable goal blockages generate negative
emotions (Snyder et al., 1996).
Emotions during goal pursuit (caused by the perceived degree of success of
goal attainment) also serve as reinforcing feedback for the goal directed behaviour.
For example, if someone perceives their goal progress to be going well, the feedback
of positive emotions reinforce the goal pursuit progress and maintain motivation. If
the person is not doing well, negative emotions and accompanying self-critical
thoughts may undermine the goal attainment progress (Lopez et al., 2003). However,
there is a difference in emotions and motivation between those high and low in hope.
! 18!
High hope people are likely to view barriers to goals as a challenge and remain
motivated but pursue a different pathway to a goal, whereas low hope people more
typically experience negative emotions and become stuck, and often abandon their
goal pursuits when faced with barriers.
Hope and positive organisational outcomes. Being high in hope has been
found to have many benefits for individuals. It has been linked with improved
physical health (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991a), lower levels of depression or
dysphoria (Carifio & Rhodes, 2002; Kwon, 2000), better overall psychological
adjustment (Kwon, 2002), greater social competence (Barnum, Snyder, Rapoff,
Mani, & Thompson, 1998), higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of
negative affect (Snyder et al., 1996). Similarly to anxiety, affect has been shown to
have both state and trait components (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This is one
piece of evidence that opens the possibility to the hope construct similarly having
both state and trait components.
According to hope theory, high hope employees should set more personal
goals for achievement, be motivated to work towards achieving those goals, be
readily able to find alternative pathways when faced with blockages, be less likely to
interpret any blockages faced as stressful, and are more likely to experience positive
emotions. What does the research to date indicate about the impact of being a high
versus low hope employee or leader of employees? The research reviewed below
will show that it has been linked to job performance, perseverance and attitudes
towards work.
Initial research which has suggested that high hope may be related to high
work performance was obtained from academic samples. A number of studies have
! 19!
measured participant’s hope, and found it to be a significant predictor of future
academic performance (Ciarrochi, Heaven, & Davies, 2007; Curry, Snyder, Cook,
Ruby, & Rehm, 1997; Snyder, 1994; Snyder, Irving, et al., 1991a). These studies
have found that dispositional hope scores in high school and college populations
have been able to predict academic achievement (i.e. semester grades and overall
grade point averages), even when accounting for previous indicators of academic
achievement or ability (i.e. the students’ grade point averages or measures of verbal
and numerical aptitude). Snyder and colleagues (1996) additionally showed that state
hope scores were predictive of performance on a complex verbal learning task. Aside
from academic achievements, work in college samples has found that hope was able
to predict the sporting achievements of participants beyond predictions made by self-
esteem, mood, confidence, amount of time practiced and natural athletic talent
(Curry et al., 1997).
In studies of a number of different employee samples, Peterson and Byron
(2008) found individual’s hope scores to be predictive of their job performance.
Those with higher hope scored more highly on objective performance ratings taken a
year after the hope ratings. This study additionally found that management
executives higher in hope produced more and better quality solutions to work related
problems. In terms of employee commitment and retention, studies with children
playing sports and academics have found that high-hope people are more likely to
continue with (as opposed to quitting) an activity (Snyder, 2002). Studies have
additionally reported a significant correlation between hope and job satisfaction
(Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007).
An individual’s level of hope is not only important for their individual
performance, but a leader’s level of hope has been shown to influence the well-being
! 20!
of their employees as well. An exploratory study conducted with managers of fast-
food restaurants found that restaurants run by managers high in hope had better
profits, higher retention of employees, and higher levels of employee satisfaction
than those run by managers low in hope (S. J. Peterson & Luthans, 2003). Similarly,
Mansfield (2007) found that the level of hopefulness of the CEO and top leadership
team of an organisation were able to predict the employees’ job satisfaction and
retention likelihood.
The stability of hope. In 1991 Snyder and colleagues (Snyder, Harris, et al.,
1991) proposed the Hope Scale, a measure of dispositional hope. In this paper they
stated that “The present model assumes that hope is consistent across situations and
time. Although specific situations may exert a unique influence on the level of hope,
there is nevertheless a resiliency once this cognitive set is established. Generally,
because of their underlying sense of agency and pathways in achieving goals, higher
as compared with lower hope people should have more goals across the various
arenas of their life, and they should select and attain more difficult goals” (Snyder,
Harris, et al., 1991, p. 571). The dispositional aspect of hope described here was
supported by four reported samples in which the test-retest reliability of the scale had
been examined. The reported test-retest correlations were .85 over a three week
interval, .73 over an 8 week interval and .76 and .82 over 10 week intervals in two
separate samples. These test-retest correlations are of a similar magnitude to the test-
retest correlations of other scales designed to measure traits. For example, a review
Schuerger and colleagues (1982) reviewed the test-retest reliabilities of a number of
different scales designed to measure personality traits. They found that the average
test-retest reliabilities of the personality variables ranged from .67-.91 over a period
of 1-2 weeks, and from .61-.80 after one to two years.
! 21!
In 1996, Snyder and colleagues (Snyder et al., 1996) developed the State
Hope scale. They developed this scale on the premise that “in contrast to the more
enduring type of motivational set, there should be a temporal state that is related to
the ongoing events in people’s lives... People probably have dispositional hope that
applies across situations and times, but they also have state hope that reflects
particular times and more proximal events. State hope, as measured in a given
moment, provides a snapshot of a person’s current goal-directed thinking” (Snyder et
al., 1996, p. 321). When validating the state hope scale, participants completed the
scale on a daily basis for a period of four weeks. The test-retest correlations of the
scores across any two days ranged from .48 to .93. These test-retest correlations
show the potential for state-hope to vary significantly over small periods of time.
The proposed relationship between state and trait hope is that an individual’s
trait hope scores should set a range within which state hope may vary. Thus, an
individual with high trait hope should have a higher range of state hope scores than
an individual with low trait hope (Snyder et al., 1996).
Optimism
Perhaps the most popular view of an optimist is that of a person who sees the
glass as being half-full rather than half empty. This expression reflects the view of
optimists as people who believe that the world is the ‘best of all possible worlds’
(Reivich & Gillham, 2003). Within psychological research, optimism is more
strongly linked to expectations about either specific or general outcomes. Optimists
can be readily summarised as people who expect good things to happen, whereas
pessimists are people who expect bad things to happen (Carver, Scheier, Miller, &
Fulford, 2009). Although the terms optimist and pessimist are used to conveniently
! 22!
differentiate between those high and low in optimism, some argue that the two
groups are not qualitatively distinct from each other. Rather, all people sit
somewhere on a continuum which ranges from very optimistic to very pessimistic,
with most people situated near the centre of the continuum (Carver et al., 2009).
However, contrasting views have also been presented, with some evidence
suggesting that optimism and pessimism are distinct dimensions (Bryant &
Cvengros, 2004). According to this view people can be both optimistic and
pessimistic at the same time. The majority of research conducted, and all research
reviewed below, is based on scales that give a single score along the optimism-
pessimism continuum.
The key theories in optimism research are based upon either expectations or
explanatory style. While some researchers argue that the two are conceptually linked
(Carver & Scheier, 2003), others argue that they can be unrelated (Reivich &
Gillham, 2003). This review will first explain optimism from the view point of
expectations, before turning to the theory of optimism as based on explanatory style.
A key theory of optimism based upon expectancy is Scheier and Carver’s
(1985) theory of dispositional optimism. This theory stems from expectancy-value
models of motivation, which, similarly to theories for hope, conceptualise behaviour
as being directed by the pursuit of goals. Goals are the value component of
expectancy-value theories. They can be classified as desirable or undesirable, may
differ in their specificity and the extent to which they are valued by an individual (the
conceptualisation of goals in expectancy-value theories is very similar to the
description of goals in hope theory above). The greater the value of a goal, the
greater a person’s motivation to act with regards to that goal will be (Carver &
Scheier, 2001).
! 23!
The expectancy component relates to a person’s level of confidence (or
doubt) about whether the goal can be obtained. Expectancy-value theories posit that a
person will only embark on goal pursuit activities if they have sufficient confidence
that a goal can be obtained. Throughout the pursuit of the goal they will only
continue to exert effort if they retain sufficient confidence that the goal can be
achieved (Carver & Scheier, 2001). Expectancies that people hold with regards to
goal attainment can be influenced by many sources of information, with one
important source being information from memory of the outcomes of previous goal
pursuits.
According to theories based upon expectancy, when confronting a challenge
or threat, optimists would be expected to adopt a confident view, whereas pessimists
are likely to be more doubtful and hesitant. Therefore, optimists are likely to exert
energy towards goal attainment in situations where pessimists are likely to withdraw
effort and potentially abandon goal pursuit. In support of this, research has shown
that optimists are inclined to take a goal-engaged approach to coping with stress,
while the coping methods of pessimists are more related to disengagement (Carver et
al., 1993; Scheier et al., 1989).
A second class of theories of optimism is that based upon explanatory style.
The predominant theory is Seligman’s theory of learned optimism which is an
extension of his previous research on learned helplessness (Seligman, 2006).
Explanatory style refers to an individual’s habitual way of explaining the causes of
events. According to Seligman’s theory (Seligman, 2006), someone’s explanatory
style lies at the core of whether they believe themselves to be deserving and valuable
(the view of an optimist) or hopeless and worthless (the view of a pessimist). There
! 24!
are three key elements to explanatory style; permanence, pervasiveness and
personalisation.
The permanence aspect of explanatory style refers to whether people assume
events to have permanent or temporary causes. Optimists will tend to view positive
events as having permanent causes and negative events as having temporary causes,
whereas the opposite is true for pessimists. They tend to view negative events as
having a permanent cause and positive events as having a more temporary cause. For
example, after winning a raffle or lottery, an optimist may explain the event in terms
of them being a lucky person, whereas a pessimist may take the view that it was their
lucky day. Although the view of having a lucky day is not necessarily a negative one,
it does imply to the person that they are not likely to often win competitions, while
the optimist who sees themselves as being generally lucky, may assume that they
will win games of luck more often. The permanence aspect is thought to influence
whether people view that they will chronically succeed or fail in certain aspects of
their life.
Pervasiveness refers to whether individuals think that events have a specific
or a more general or universal cause. An optimist will interpret positive events as
having a universal cause, while negative events are seen to be caused by specific
factors. Pessimists take the opposite view and see positive events as having a specific
cause while negative events are caused by more general factors. For example, an
optimist may explain their good results in a maths test in terms of them being smart,
while the pessimist will take the view that they are smart at maths. This has the effect
of the optimist expecting good results in all goals or activities that require intellect,
while the pessimist is more likely to think that they may be able to achieve goals
related to maths ability but not other areas of intellect. The pervasiveness of an
! 25!
explanation is thought to influence the scope of someone’s life that is affected by
positive and negative events. For example, if someone is fired from their job but
makes a specific attribution about it, they may find that their work-life is affected but
they are able to remain positive and succeed in other aspects of their lives. By
contrast, if a global attribution is made after being fired, someone may feel
despondent and negative about all aspects of their life.
Personalisation refers to whether a person sees an event as being personally
caused by them or caused by external factors. Optimists tend to explain positive
events in terms of their actions causing the events, while seeing negative events as
being caused external factors. Pessimists by contrast are likely to see positive events
as being externally caused and negative events as being their own fault. For example,
after scoring a goal in a soccer game, an optimist is likely to credit their goal
shooting ability, while the pessimist may acknowledge their team’s skill in setting up
the goal as having caused the event. The extent to which people credit events with
having internal or external causes is thought to influence their self-esteem.
In summary, those who explain negative events in terms of temporary,
specific and external factors can be classified as optimists, while those who explain
them in terms of permanent, universal and internal factors are pessimists. The
opposite explanatory styles are true for the explanation of positive events
(permanent, universal and internal for optimists and temporary, specific and external
for pessimists). Someone who sees positive events as having permanent causes,
universal to all aspects of their lives and caused by their own personal actions or
talents have reason to act with confidence and expect positive events to occur in the
future. Additionally, explaining a negative event as being a temporary event, related
to a specific aspect of life or event and caused by external factors limits the person’s
! 26!
perception of failure to a specific situation and therefore means that they will only
feel helpless or like they are unable to succeed with regards to a specific event and
moment in time.
Seligman and colleagues have devised two techniques to measure explanatory
style; the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; C. Peterson et al., 1982), and the
content analysis of verbatim explanations (CAVE; C. Peterson, Luborsky, &
Seligman, 1983). Evidence for the impact of the explanatory styles can be drawn
from a number of studies discussed below, in which optimism as measured in terms
of explanatory style using the ASQ or CAVE, have been shown to impact upon work
performance and outcomes discussed below.
Optimism and positive organisational outcomes. Optimism has been
linked to many positive individual outcomes such as enhanced psychological well-
being, positive mood, good morale, perseverance, effective problem solving,
popularity, good physical health and positive health habits (C. Peterson, 2000;
Scheier & Carver, 1992; Seligman, 2006). Pessimism by contrast, has been linked to
depression, passivity, failure, social estrangement, morbidity and mortality (C.
Peterson, 2000; Seligman, 2006). Studies examining the effects of optimism on well-
being have consistently found that optimists routinely maintain higher levels of well-
being during times of stress than those who are less optimistic (Scheier & Carver,
1993). With regards to job-related well-being, studies have reported that optimism is
predictive of lower levels of perceived job stress, reduced work/non-work conflict
and reduced risk for job burnout (Chang, Rand, & Strunk, 2000; Tuten &
Neidermeyer, 2004). Some studies which link optimism to positive organisational
outcomes are described below.
! 27!
Initial evidence linking optimism to job performance can be drawn from
studies of academic performance. Studies of university students have shown that
students who are rated to be optimists based on an assessment of their explanatory
style had better grade point averages than pessimists, even when controlling for
ability. These studies have used measures of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores
(Seligman, 2006), or high school grade-point average (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia,
2001). The study of Chemers et al. additionally found that optimists as compared to
pessimists were better ‘adjusted’ to university. Their adjustment measure was a
composite measure which combined the participants’ self-rated satisfaction with their
academic progress and intention to continue at university.
Studies have also linked optimism to improved athletic performance in both
team (Gordon, 2008) and individual (Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton, &
Thornton, 1990) sports. In Gordon’s study of soccer players, the overall performance
score for soccer plays was significantly related to their optimism score (r= .77). The
study of individual sports used varsity swimmers as a sample and found that
swimmers with a more pessimistic explanatory style (measured at the start of a swim
season) showed more unexpected poor performances during competition than
optimistic swimmers. In an extension of the study the swimmers were induced to
experience failure through falsely reporting to them that their swim times were slow.
Regression analysis showed that the ratio of the swimmers’ times before and after the
negative feedback was predicted by their optimism score (t= 3.06, p < .005). This
and other analyses clearly showed that after the negative feedback swim times
deteriorated for the pessimistic swimmers while the optimistic swimmers
subsequently swam at the same or faster speeds. This suggests that the optimists had
! 28!
less disappointing swims than the pessimists because they were better able to
persevere after setbacks.
In more concrete work domains, a number of studies have found that
measures of optimism are able to predict performance. Many of these studies have
been conducted in employees working within the sales domain. For example,
Seligman and Schulman (1986) conducted a cross-sectional study using life
insurance sales agents and found that individuals scoring in the top (more optimistic)
half of their Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) sold 37% more insurance in
their first two years on the job than those that scored in the bottom (more pessimistic)
half. They additionally conducted a one-year longitudinal study of newly hired
agents and found that the agents who fell in the top half of the ASQ sold more
insurance and remained in the role at twice the rate of those in the bottom half. Thus,
this study shows not only higher performance levels, but also higher retention rates
for optimistic employees. These findings were reflected in a similar study which also
used insurance sales-people as study participants (Corr & Gray, 1995) and the ASQ
as a measure of optimism. In this study optimism was positively related to
performance both in terms of sales effort and total number of sales.
Other studies in contrast have not found support for the relationship between
optimism and performance and there is evidence to suggest that an optimistic
disposition may only be predictive of performance in particular domains. For
example, a study of law students found that pessimists outperformed optimists on
measures of grade point averages and law journal success (Satterfield, Monahan, &
Seligman, 1997). This suggests that optimism may be more important for job
performance in some professions than others. It has been argued that sales is a
profession in which failure is common and that success as a salesperson is dependant
! 29!
in part on the ability to cope well with failure (Dixon & Schertzer, 2005). The study
of swimmers has similarly shown that optimists respond better to failure than
pessimists. Thus, in jobs in which failure is frequently experienced optimism may be
an important factor in predicting job success. It has also been suggested that in
domains that require more caution and reality appreciation than initiative or
creativity, pessimism as opposed to optimism may be advantageous to job
performance (Satterfield et al., 1997).
The difference between hope and optimism. The constructs of hope and
optimism share many similarities. Indeed, scores on hope and optimism scales are
positively correlated. For example Bryant & Cvenngros (2004) report that hope and
optimism share approximately 64 percent of their variance. Other studies have
similarly reported a positive correlation between hope and optimism (see for example
Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007 (r= .61 and .42 in two seperate samples); Snyder,
Harris, et al., 1991 (who cite two unpublished manuscripts in which r= .60 and r=
.50)). Additionally, the review above clearly shows that the constructs are predictive
of many similar outcome variables. Some studies have even combined the two
constructs into one research variable including Rand (2009) who conducted a study
in that combined measures of hope and optimism to form a trait he labelled ‘goal
attitude’. The similarities and differences between the two constructs are explored
below.
The central idea that behaviour is directed towards or away from goals or
avoidance goals is shared by both theories. Additionally, the theories both presume
that sufficient motivation or confidence is necessary to elicit a behavioural response
to a goal. Snyder (2002) argued that optimism may be conceptualised as being
similar to the agency component of hope, but that it does not incorporate the
! 30!
pathways component. That is, optimists may be confident that they can achieve a
goal but if they are low in hope they may not be able to conceptualise the way in
which the goal may be accomplished. How can an optimist be confident that a goal
can be achieved if they cannot see a way to achieve it? One possibility is that hope
focuses upon an individual’s own actions resulting in goal achievement whereas
optimism allows for the possibility of confidence that a goal will be achieved through
external means.
Bryant and Cvengros (2004) conducted a study to investigate the relationship
between hope and optimism. They found that although hope and optimism share 64%
of their variance, factor analysis of data from participants who had completed the
Adult Hope Scale and a measure of optimism (Life Orientation Test, see below)
showed that a model with Hope and Optimism as separate factors provided superior
fit to the data than a model with a single combined factor for hope and optimism.
They also reported that the two constructs showed different patterns of association
with coping and self-efficacy. Specifically, optimism had a stronger influence on the
use of positive reappraisal as a coping mechanism than hope, whereas hope had a
greater influence on the overall level of general self-efficacy than optimism. Based
on this research the authors suggested that “hope focuses more directly on the
personal attainment of specific goals, whereas optimism focuses more broadly on the
expected quality of future outcomes in general” (p. 273).
The stability of optimism. Scheier and Carver (Scheier & Carver, 1985)
designed a measure of dispositional optimism called the Life Orientation Test (LOT).
The reported test-retest correlation for this scale was .79 over a four-week period.
This shows a high level of consistency between testing periods and supports the idea
that there is a relatively stable, trait component to optimism.
! 31!
The authors of this dispositional measure of optimism also state however that
“there is little doubt that even a serious pessimist varies somewhat in his or her
pessimism over changing circumstances, as does the optimist” (Carver & Scheier,
2003, p. 85) and point towards the need to develop a state measure of optimism. The
suggestion that there is a state component of optimism can also be drawn from
Seligman’s idea of “learned optimism” in which people may develop and change
their level of optimism by changing their cognitive thought processes (Seligman,
2006). This does not point towards a momentary or fluctuating state, but does show
that there is a developable component of optimism.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is a key element of Bandura’s (1977b) social learning theory. It
refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources,
and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood & Bandura,
1989, p. 408) and is concerned with people’s judgements or perceptions about their
capability to perform particular tasks, rather than their actual abilities to perform the
tasks. The basic premise behind the theory is that people’s efficacy beliefs determine
the behaviours that they choose to engage in and how much they persevere when
faced with challenges and setbacks (Maddux, 2009).
There are three dimensions upon which someone’s self-efficacy expectations
may vary; magnitude, generality and strength. Magnitude refers to the level of
difficulty of a task that a person feels they can complete. Some people may be
limited to feeling able to complete only simple tasks, while others feel that moderate
or even very difficult tasks are within their capabilities. Generality refers to whether
people expect success in specific or more general situations. Finally, strength refers
! 32!
to how susceptible one’s efficacy beliefs are to change. Weak expectations are easily
extinguished by disconfirming experiences whereas strong ones will not be easily
altered. Therefore, someone with strong expectations about their ability to perform a
task is likely to persevere despite facing difficulties or disconfirming experiences
(Bandura, 1977a).
Bandura (1997) posited that self-efficacy beliefs are constructed from four
principle sources of information. The first, and strongest, is enactive mastery
experiences. This refers to instances in which someone successfully completes a task
and the successful completion serves as an indicator of their capability. These are
thought to be the most influential source of information because they provide the
most authentic feedback of whether one can complete a task. Repeated successes
build a robust sense of self-efficacy, whereas failures undermine it. Failures are
thought to be particularly harmful to efficacy beliefs if they occur before a sense of
self-efficacy has been established. When people persevere through difficulties to
attain success, they develop confidence in their ability to overcome obstacles and are
subsequently more likely to recover quickly from setbacks and persevere through
obstacles. The second source of information which influences self-efficacy is
information drawn from vicarious experience. People may develop efficacy through
seeing others effectively perform behaviours. The effects of such modelling is
enhanced when there is similarity between the subject and model in terms of personal
characteristics such as age and gender (Bandura, 1977a). Thirdly, verbal or social
persuasion can influence someone’s efficacy. When someone is completing a new
task, and particularly challenging a one, self-efficacy can be enhanced through a
significant other expressing confidence in their abilities to complete the task. Finally,
an individual’s perceptions of their physiological state may influence their self-
! 33!
efficacy. For example, if an individual feels highly aroused or anxious while
completing a task, this may signal an inability to complete the task and therefore
reduce self-efficacy. According to the theory, an individual will weight and integrate
these four information sources together with other information about the task,
personal factors and situational factors to give rise to a final perception of self-
efficacy.
Self-efficacy as conceptualised by Bandura refers to an ability to perform a
specific task. Therefore, it has been emphasised that measures of self-efficacy should
be tailored to the domain being studied (Bandura & Adams, 1977; Gist, 1987).
Parker (1998) however argued that in today’s work environment where effective
performance requires employees who are sufficiently confident to take on broader
duties, a form of self-efficacy which she termed role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) is
particularly relevant. Rather than focusing upon a specific task, RBSE “concerns the
extent to which people feel confident that they are able to carry out a broader and
more proactive role, beyond traditional prescribed technical requirements” (Parker,
1998, p. 835). She argued that while the exact components that make up an expanded
role will vary between job roles and organisations, they are also likely to share some
generic competencies. She identified the ability to be proactive and use initiative,
strong interpersonal skills and the ability to integrate activities laterally across
departments and manage the interface between boundaries as generic components of
RBSE. RBSE is similar to Bandura’s conception of self-efficacy in that it is
concerned with the employee’s belief that they are able to perform these proactive,
interpersonal and integrative behaviours rather than whether they actually can, or are
allowed to perform these behaviours. Parker further argued that it differs from other
! 34!
measures of contextual performance such as organisational citizenship behaviour in
that it is concerned with what people feel they can do, not their actual behaviours.
Self-efficacy and positive organisational outcomes. High self-efficacy in a
task is argued to increase the effort and persistence towards challenging tasks,
therefore increasing the likelihood that they will be completed (Axtell & Parker,
2003). Research has consistently found a link between self-efficacy and work related
performance. This research has covered a broad spectrum of work domains including
insurance sales (Barling & Beattie, 1983), managerial performance (Wood, Bandura,
& Bailey, 1990), managerial idea generation (Gist, 1989), faculty research
productivity (Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984), coping with career related events
(Stumpf, Brief, & Hartman, 1987), adaptability to new technology (Hill, Smith, &
Mann, 1987) and learning and skill acquisition (Campbell & Hackett, 1986; Mitchell,
Hopper, Daniels, George-Falvy, & James, 1994; Wood & Locke, 1987). A meta-
analysis of 114 studies conducted by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998a) showed a
significant correlation (the weighted correlation, corrected for attenuation = .38)
between self-efficacy and work-related performance.
Aside from performance, a number of other positive organisational outcomes
have been found to be related to self-efficacy. For example, new employee’s self-
efficacy measured upon entering an organisation was found to predict the employee’s
self-rated ability to cope with the job and their turnover one year later (Saks, 1995).
Another study based upon employees required to work away from their office base
found that those with higher self-efficacy to work in this context reported more
positive levels of adjustment to the role (Raghuram, Wiesenfeld, & Garud, 2003).
Similarly, Lee and Ashforth (1990) reported a negative relationship between self-
efficacy and burnout. On the positive side of adjustment, studies have also shown
! 35!
that individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to derive a sense of
satisfaction from their jobs. One recent study reporting this finding involved the
longitudinal study of teachers (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006).
Studies focused upon RBSE have generally not included the same outcome
variables as those focused upon domain specific self-efficacy, making direct
comparison of the two types of self-efficacy difficult. However, the studies which
have focused upon RBSE rather than self-efficacy in a particular domain have found
this particular form of self-efficacy to be related to proactive behaviours in the
workplace. The types of behaviours that RBSE has been linked to include employee
innovation, proactive performance, personal initiative and taking charge (Axtell &
Parker, 2003).
The difference between self-efficacy and hope. Self-efficacy concerns an
individual’s belief about their ability to execute a particular behaviour. In contrast,
hope is concerned with two key components; being able to find pathways to a goal,
and mustering the motivation to follow them. Although these concepts all relate to
goal directed behaviour there are key differences. The pathways component of hope
is about being able to find a pathway to achieve a goal, whereas self-efficacy is more
concerned with belief in one’s ability to execute the behaviours required to follow
that pathway.
The difference between self-efficacy and optimism. Self-efficacy and
optimism are related in that they are both concerned with the expectation that desired
outcomes will be achieved. However, where they are crucially different is the extent
to which the positive outcomes rely on personal actions. Self-efficacy concerns an
individual’s belief in their own ability to execute the behaviours to create a response,
! 36!
whereas optimism is more concerned with whether a positive outcome can be
expected. People may be optimistic for a variety of reasons that do not relate to their
own abilities to execute skills, they be optimistic because they “believe they are
immensely talented, because they are hard working, because they are blessed,
because they are lucky, because they have friends in the right places, or any
combination of these or other factors that produce good outcomes” (Carver &
Scheier, 2003, p. 77).
The stability of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a dynamic construct and the
review above clearly shows that people’s efficacy judgements change over time as
new information and experience are acquired. In fact, an individual’s judgement
about their efficacy to perform a task can be altered even while they are performing
the actual task (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). In this respect there is clearly a malleable,
state component to self-efficacy. In support of this, Bandura stated that “efficacy
beliefs should be measured in terms of particularized judgements of capability that
may vary across realms of activity, and under different situational circumstances”
(Bandura, 1997, p. 42).
However, Parker’s RBSE construct refers to a broader conceptualisation of
efficacy, and removes the requirement for efficacy judgements to be made about
particular realms of activity and particular situational circumstances. While she does
show that RBSE can be increased through organisational changes such as increased
job enrichment and increased quality of communication (Parker, 1998), the same
study also showed that RBSE had a test-retest correlation of .79 over a period of 18
months, indicating that there is a stable component of RBSE. Gist (1987), states that
“because the selection of high-performing individuals is important to organizations,
self-efficacy, as a predictor of performance may be helpful” (p. 479). This argument
! 37!
acknowledges the possible selection use of the stable component of self-efficacy,
although Gist also acknowledges that more research is needed to determine the
extent to which self-efficacy can be generalised across job situations.
Resilience
Although resilience has attracted attention in research for many years, its
definition remains elusive and the processes that comprise resilience are not yet well
understood (Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough, 2007). It is broadly conceptualised as
an ability to withstand adversity or stress and, in accordance with this definition, it is
necessary for someone to encounter adversity in order for them to be able to
demonstrate resilience. Another conceptualisation of resilience is that it is
demonstrated by “flexible adaptation to the changing demands of stressful
experiences” (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004, p. 320). These definitions suggest that
resilience is demonstrated in the ‘act’ of bouncing back from or adapting to adverse
circumstances rather than in carrying the belief that one is likely to be able to do so.
Early studies of resilience have attempted to identify factors that assist
individuals to thrive during adversity. These studies have identified cognitive factors,
individual competencies, intrapersonal and environmental factors that contribute to
resilience. Cognitive factors identified include self-efficacy (Millear, Liossis,
Shochet, Biggs, & Donald, 2007), optimism, intelligence, creativity, humour and a
“belief system that provides existential meaning, a cohesive life narrative, and an
appreciation of the uniqueness of oneself” (Tusaie & Dyer, 2004, p. 4). Other
competencies linked to resilience include a range of coping strategies, social skills
and educational abilities (Tusaie & Dyer, 2004). A key environmental factor
influencing resilience is social support (Rutter, 1985).
! 38!
Resilience focused upon children growing up in conditions of adversity has
been extensively studied in literature. Ann Masten, a leading scholar of resilience
within this context has defined resilience as “a class of phenomena characterised by
good outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development” (Masten,
2001, p. 228). It is clear from this definition that it is necessary for an individual to
have experienced significant threat to their development in order to be classified as
resilient. These threats may be due to genetic, environmental or experiential factors.
Some examples include being the child of a parent with schizophrenia, coming from
a low socio-economic background or exposure to violence.
Threats to normal development are commonly referred to as risk factors, with
their polar opposite being assets. Assets are factors which can protect an individual
against threats to development or adaptation. For example, poor parenting may be a
risk factor, but strong parenting an asset. Similarly a low level of education may be a
risk factor and a high level an asset. According to the concept of compensatory
effects, enough positive assets could offset the risk factors in a child’s life, thus
resulting in their resilience (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984). In accordance
with this theory of resilience, an individual can increase their resilience through
removing risk factors or increasing assets. In comparison to the other constructs
previously discussed (hope, optimism and self-efficacy), resilience is based more
upon negative than positive psychology; resilience is indicated more by the absence
of negative symptoms rather than the presence of positive ones.
Resilience as a more positive and organisationally relevant construct has been
studied in the POB literature. Within this literature, resilience has been defined as
“the developable capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure
or even positive events, progress and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002a, p.
! 39!
702). Luthans and colleagues have extended Masten’s view of resilience to the
workplace and adopted her view of risk factors and assets as central to resilience.
They note some examples of work place risk factors to be “macro-level external
threats such as economic instability, or micro-level internal threats such as
harassment or missing a career threatening deadline on a project” (Luthans,
Vogelgesang, & Lester, 2006, p. 29). Examples of workplace assets include
promotions, bonuses, recognition, or mentorship programs (Luthans, Vogelgesang, et
al., 2006, p. 29). They further argue that assets can be increased and risks decreased
by increasing an employee’s access to knowledge, skills and/or abilities or by
strengthening their social network.
Resilience and positive organisational outcomes. Before resilience
research was applied to organisational settings, many studies linked resilience to
better adaptive behaviour, particularly in the areas of social functioning, morale and
somatic health (Wagnild & Young, 1993). In today’s workplace in which there are
increasing levels of stress and decreasing amounts of recovery time, resilience is
becoming increasingly important (Luthans, Vogelgesang, et al., 2006). In spite of
this, studies of resilience in an organisational context are fragmented, limited and
non-systematic (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). The majority of work covering resilience
in the workplace has been conducted by Luthans and colleagues when researching
the construct of PsyCap and this is discussed below.
The difference between resilience and hope, optimism and self-efficacy:
The key difference between resilience and three POB constructs reviewed above is
that whereas hope, optimism and self-efficacy can be classed as proactive constructs,
resilience is more reactive (Luthans, Vogelgesang, et al., 2006). That is, it is
necessary for a stressor or threat to be present in order for resilience to be displayed,
! 40!
whereas people can be hopeful, optimistic and self-confident without the presence of
a stressor or threat. Luthans and colleagues additionally proposed that the other
constructs may act as pathways to resilience, such that those who are hopeful,
optimistic and self-efficacious are more likely to exhibit resilience in times of
difficulty than those who are not. However, they also suggested that the inverse
relationship may occur, and that resiliency could serve to restore hope, optimism and
self-efficacy after a challenging experience.
The stability of resilience. Resilience has been measured using the resilience
scale published by Wagnild and Young (1993). This scale was constructed to
measure resilience as a personality trait and the authors of the scale cite data from an
unpublished study conducted by Killien and Jarret as evidence of the stability of the
construct. The study cited measured the resilience of pregnant and postpartum
women during pregnancy and at one, four, eight and 12 months post-partum. They
reported test-retest correlations ranging from .67 to .84 over this 18 month period (p
< .01), as evidence of the stability of resilience.
However, resilience has also been portrayed as a developable construct,
influenced by the balance of assets and risk factors present in an individual and their
environment. Schoon (2006), states that it is generally accepted that resilience is not
a static state, and this is supported by programs that enhance resilience in individuals
(Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008;
Luthans, Vogelgesang, et al., 2006).
Psychological Capital
Although the constructs of hope, optimism, resilience and self-efficacy
arguably have conceptual independence, Luthans and colleagues also propose that
! 41!
there may be a common, underlying link which ties them together (Luthans, Avolio,
et al., 2007). They propose the concept of Psychological Capital, or PsyCap, which is
a second-order construct, formed by a combination of an individual’s hope,
optimism, self-efficacy and resilience. PsyCap has been defined as “an individual’s
positive psychological state of development and as characterised by: (1) having
confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at
challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now
and in the future; (3) persevering towards goals and, when necessary, redirecting
paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and
adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain
success” (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 3). It can be thought of as a measure of
‘who you are’, in contrast to two other forms of capital known to be of importance in
predicting workplace performance. These are human capital or ‘what you know’, and
social capital, or ‘who you know’ (Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005).
According to the definition of PsyCap and the discussion of each of the
PsyCap constructs above, it has been proposed that “those with high PsyCap tend to
be more determined, expend more effort, expect success, manoeuvre obstacles more
effectively, and bounce back from setbacks more readily” (Avey et al., 2008, p. 706).
Although these claims have not been fully investigated, recent research has shown
PsyCap to be a significant predictor of organisational commitment, workplace
performance and job satisfaction in a range of work settings and cultures (Larson &
Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). For example, in
a recent study (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007) PsyCap scores correlated .39 with job
satisfaction and .36 with affective organisational commitment. Regression analyses
additionally showed that PsyCap was the strongest contributor to predicting job
! 42!
satisfaction and affective organisational commitment when the personality constructs
of conscientiousness, extraversion and core-self evaluations were taken into account.
In these analyses PsyCap was able to account for 4% of the unique variance in job
satisfaction and 13% of the variance in affective organisational commitment. Using
samples from two different workplaces (a high-tech manufacturing firm and an
insurance firm), this study found correlations of .33 and .22 between PsyCap and
organisational performance measures. In the manufacturing firm performance was
assessed using “a sum of ratings based on quality and objective quantity of their
work on electrical subsystem designs including error and rejection rates, meeting the
schedule, complexity of assignment, and ability to work with peers” (Luthans,
Avolio, et al., 2007, p. 555). Performance ratings in the insurance firm were based on
the last month of performance of the participants and included objective data such as
the number of claims processed as well as the participants’ managers’ evaluation of
their overall performance. In light of findings such as these, PsyCap appears to be an
important construct to investigate within an organisational context.
There are two important claims that are made about the PsyCap construct.
The first is that the four base constructs combine synergistically rather than
additively. That is, “the whole (PsyCap) may be greater than the sum of its parts
(self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resiliency)”(Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 19).
This is claimed to occur because the constructs may interact with each other in a self-
increasing manner. For example, hope and optimism are related to experiencing
positive emotions (Seligman, 2006; Snyder, 2002) and research has shown that
resilient people use positive emotions to rebound from stressful encounters (Tugade
& Fredrickson, 2004). Therefore, people higher in hope and optimism are more
likely to be resilient and are therefore more likely to experience success in stressful
! 43!
situations. Experiencing success in stressful situations may in turn build their self-
efficacy and resilience. High self-efficacy is linked with striving for higher goals,
which may be related back to higher hope levels. This is just one example of the
ways in which the constructs may be interrelated.
The second aspect of PsyCap, and a focal point of this research, is that
PsyCap is conceived to be a state-like rather than trait-like construct. That is, they are
argued to be “not as stable and are more open to change and development compared
with “trait-like” constructs such as the Big Five personality dimensions or core self-
evaluations, but importantly they also are not momentary states” (Luthans, Avolio, et
al., 2007, p. 544). This rather vague definition of the stability of PsyCap is the result
of continuum perspective of traits and states previously discussed.
The stability and measurement of PsyCap. In following the continuum
perspective, Luthans and colleagues define the PsyCap constructs as being ‘state-
like’, that is “relatively malleable and open to development” (Luthans, Avolio, et al.,
2007, p. 544), which they claim is more stable than positive states which they
describe as “momentary and very changeable; represents our feelings” (Luthans,
Avolio, et al., 2007, p. 544) but less stable that ‘trait-like’ constructs which they
describe as being “relatively stable and difficult to change; represents personality
factors and strengths” (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007, p. 544).
The PsyCap questionnaire (PCQ-24; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007) is
structured such that the first six items are adopted from Parker’s (1998) measure of
self-efficacy, items seven to twelve are adopted from Snyder et al.’s (1996) state
hope scale, items thirteen to eighteen from Wagnild and Young’s (1993) measure of
resilience and the final six items are from Sheier and Carver’s (1985) optimism scale.
Each of these scales have been validated and used extensively in research upon the
! 44!
constructs. The items used in the PCQ-24 have been adapted from the original scales
such that each item reflects the respondent’s thoughts or feelings about their work,
rather than their general approach to life. For example, the item from the optimism
scale (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985), “If something can go wrong for me, it will”,
was adapted to read “If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will.” This was
similar to a methodology previously successfully used to adapt the hope scale to
measure hope in specific areas such as family life, romantic relationships and leisure
(Sympson, 1993), and there does not appear to be any problems with these minor
wording changes to the items.
However, the items were also adapted in order to ensure that the PCQ-24
targets PsyCap as a ‘state-like’ construct. The primary adaptation taken to achieve
this was to include initial instructions asking the respondent to describe themselves
“right now”. In addition, the authors make claim to having adapted the wording of
some items to make them more state relevant (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Luthans,
Youssef, et al., 2007). However, this adaptation of the items appears to be
questionable. There are two forms of items within the PCQ-24 that are considered
problematic for the measurement of a state; constant tendency items and future
conditional items.
The term constant tendency is used to describe those items that contain terms
such as ‘usually’, ‘always’ and ‘never’. These terms refer to a constant tendency to
feel, think or act in a particular way and should therefore not vary with time. In a
number of previous scales which have been developed to include both a trait and
state scale of a construct, a key differentiation between the two versions of the scales
is that the trait scale includes constant tendency terms such as ‘in general’ whereas
the state scales refers to shorter term or moment specific tendencies such as ‘right
! 45!
now’ (see for example Cepeda-Benito, Gleaves, Williams, & Erath, 2000; Hong,
1998; Spielberger et al., 1970; Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983).
Although the PCQ-24 contains the initial instruction to rate how you are feeling
‘right now’, this does not make an item state appropriate if the item itself contains a
constant tendency term. Thus, the inclusion of constant tendency items in the PCQ-
24 is considered inappropriate for the measurement of a state.
The second form of items considered problematic for state measures are the
future conditional items. These are items that ask participants how they would feel if
they were confronted with a certain situation. For example, the item “when things are
uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best” does not concern how the
respondent feels “right now”, but rather how they would feel at another point in time.
Through asking respondents to project their mind to themselves at another point in
time, this necessarily asks them to consider their more generalised, rather than
moment-specific feelings. Hong (1998), constructed a state-trait test anxiety scale
using this same reasoning. In this scale, Hong used past tense to assess the state
component of test-anxiety (how participants had felt at the specific moment they
were sitting a test), and used future tense in the trait items. The future conditional
items in the PCQ-24 are therefore thought to be more appropriate for the
measurement of a trait, rather than a state.
Research conducted with the PCQ-24, has shown that the scale has a test-
retest reliability of .52 over a period of two weeks (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007).
There is no strong evidence available to differentiate between whether this test-retest
reliability indicates that an individual’s level of PsyCap changes over time or if the
scale is simply unreliable. While research showing that PsyCap can be increased with
training (Luthans, Avey, et al., 2006; Luthans, Avey, et al., 2008) shows that it is
! 46!
possible for an individual’s level of PsyCap to change over time, this does not clarify
whether an individual’s level of PsyCap remains constant or changes over time
without intervention. It is quite possible that the test-retest reliability of the PCQ-24
falls into the ‘state-like’ range of .52 because it includes both state and trait
appropriate items, rather than because it is best conceptualised as a ‘state-like’
construct.
Given that each of the PsyCap constructs have been successfully measured as
both state and trait constructs, there may also be both state and trait components to
PsyCap. However, the PCQ-24 does not adequately measure a state due to it being a
mix of both state and trait appropriate items. In addition, as far as it is possible to tell
from the published literature, there has been no attempt to construct a measure of
PsyCap reflecting its trait like qualities and no systematic examination of its stability
over time. This is in spite of the wealth of evidence reviewed above which
demonstrates that each of the individual PsyCap components have both stable or trait
components and variable or state components. The current research aims to fill this
gap in our understanding of PsyCap. Filling this gap is important to enable
organisations to make optimal decisions as to whether to select individuals already
possessing the desired level of PsyCap into an organisation, if resources are better
directed at developing PsyCap in existing employees, or whether a combination of
the two can lead to optimal outcomes.
The research was conducted in three phases. The first phase involved an
examination of the assertion that many items in the PCQ-24 were unsuitable for
measuring a state and the construction of separate state and trait based scales to
measure PsyCap. Phase two tested the stability of these two scales over time. Finally,
in phase three the ability of the stable PsyCap component to predict the future
! 47!
performance of new employees to an organisation was assessed. Chapter two will
discuss phase one of the research.
! 48!
CHAPTER TWO: ASSESSMENT OF THE PCQ-24 AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE GENERALISED AND MOMENT SPECIFIC PSYCAP SCALES
As discussed in the literature review, the PCQ-24 contains two forms of items
that appear to be problematic for the measurement of a state; the constant tendency
items that contain phrases such as ‘always’ and ‘usually’, and the future conditional
items that ask participants how they think they would feel if they were in a particular
situation. This chapter will describe the process undertaken to examine the above
assertion, and outline the development process used to develop two new scales
designed to separately measure both the state and trait components of PsyCap. The
scale designed to determine if there is a trait component to PsyCap has been termed
the Generalised PsyCap scale as its focus is upon general tendencies with respect to
PsyCap. The state based PsyCap scale, which assesses the way respondents feel at a
specific moment in time has been termed the Moment Specific PsyCap scale. States
have been measured using the reference period of how you are feeling ‘right now’ as
well as the reference period of ‘how you have been feeling over the last few weeks’.
In this research, the decision was made to use the Moment Specific reference of
‘right now’ in order to allow a clearer comparison to the PCQ-24 which uses the
‘right now’ reference period.
This chapter is divided into three phases. Phase one describes the item
generation phase for the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales. In phase
two, a rating process was conducted to assess whether the PCQ-24 items and the
items developed in phase one were more appropriate for measuring a state or a trait.
In phase three, the items, rating scale and instructions for inclusion in the Moment
Specific and Generalised PsyCap scale were selected.
! 49!
Phase One: Item development for the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap
scales
Phase one aimed to generate items for inclusion in the Moment Specific and
Generalised PsyCap scales which were worded in an appropriate manner to measure
states and traits. As the items in the PCQ-24 were drawn from well-validated studies,
and the measure itself has undergone a thorough validation process (Luthans, Avolio,
et al., 2007), the content of the items was not changed from the PCQ-24 items.
Rather, for the Moment Specific PsyCap scale the PCQ-24 items were adapted to
ensure that they were maximally suited for the measurement of a state and for the
Generalised PsyCap scale the PCQ-24 items were written so that they were
maximally suited for the measurement of a trait.
Method.
Item development for the Moment Specific PsyCap scale. There were three
key adaptations made to the PCQ-24 items to form the items for the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale. The constant tendency items were re-worded, the future
conditional items were reworded and the items not appropriate for the ‘right now’
reference period were changed as required. Additionally, in order to ensure that
respondents remained aware of the “right now” reference period as they completed
the survey, the words “Right now” were added to the beginning of each item.
The constant tendency items are those that refer to a constant tendency to
feel, think or act in a particular way and should therefore not vary with time. In order
to adapt these items the state-inappropriate terms usually, always and never were
removed from each item of the PCQ-24 that contained them. For example, the item
“I usually take stressful things at work in stride” was re-worded to read “Right now, I
am taking stressful things at work in stride”.
! 50!
Next the future conditional items, which ask participants how they would feel
if they were confronted with a certain situation, were re-written to reflect
respondents’ present feelings towards a past event. For example, the item “When I
have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on”, was re-
worded to read “Right now, I am having trouble recovering and moving on from a
previous setback at work.”
Finally, items that did not practically fit with the “right now or at this
moment” reference period for the scale were modified. This reference period refers
to what participants are doing at the exact moment that they are answering the
questionnaire. That is, they are answering the questionnaire. For many of the items
this reference period did not make sense. For example, in responding to the item “At
this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself” with an ‘at this
moment’ reference period, respondents must answer that they disagree unless their
work goal was to complete the survey. These items were re-phrased so that they
would fit with the reference period. For example the item “I am meeting the work
goals that I have set for myself” was re-phrased to read “Right now, I feel able to
meet the work goals that I have set for myself.”
Item development for the Generalised PsyCap scale. The PCQ-24 items
were also modified to form the Generalised PsyCap scale. These modifications
involved ensuring that each item reflected a constant feeling or behaviour. Thus,
items were modified such that each one contained a phrase such as “in general”,
“generally” or “usually” rather than “right now”, “at the present time”, or “at this
time”.
Results and Discussion.
! 51!
Following the methods described above two alternative items were written
for each item of the PCQ-24. One version of the item was written in a format
considered to be a better state item, and one a better trait item. Thus, there were three
alternative items for each of the original PCQ-24 items. These were the original item
and a re-worded Generalised and Moment Specific version of each item. These items
were rated in phase two to establish whether they were viewed as being appropriate
state or trait items.
Phase Two: Expert rating of the PCQ-24, Moment Specific and Generalised
PsyCap scale items.
In phase two a rating process was used to test the assertion that a number of
items in the PCQ-24 are more appropriate for measuring a trait rather than a state,
and to determine if the items written in phase one of this study were state or trait
appropriate items. It is common practice in survey development to use a rating
process to assess the content validity of items included in a scale. There are a number
of variations to the methods used in this process, but they generally involve
providing participants in a rating group with a definition of the construct to be
measured, and asking them to rate the extent to which each item is relevant to that
construct. This assessment aims to eliminate items that are not conceptually
consistent with the construct they are measuring (Hinkin, 1998).
In the current study the aim was not to assess the content validity of the
items (as they were drawn from previously validated scales), but to assess the
appropriateness of the wording of the items for measuring a state or a trait. However,
a similar methodology was applied, as it was considered to be an appropriate,
objective method through which the wording of the PCQ-24 items and the Moment
Specific and Generalised PsyCap items could be assessed.
! 52!
Method.
Participants. Hinkin (1998) suggests that in this early phase of scale
development “it may be appropriate to use a small sample of students as this is a
cognitive task not requiring an understanding of the phenomena under examination”
(p. 109). Recommendations for the number of raters required when selecting items
for a scale have varied, with estimates ranging from two to 20 (Grant & Davis,
1997). Therefore, being cautious, twenty post-graduate psychology students from the
University of Western Australia participated voluntarily in this rating process.
Procedure. The raters were given a definition of a state and a trait and then
asked to rate each item of the PCQ-24 and the two modified versions of each item
(from phase one) as to whether they should be considered a state or trait item. The
items were presented to the raters in a random order. The rating was a forced choice
decision, such that if the rater felt that the item could be appropriate for the
measurement of both a state and a trait, or, was appropriate for neither a state nor a
trait, they were required to indicate for which purpose they felt the item was more
suitable.
Results and Discussion.
Rating of the PCQ-24 items. The table below shows the percentage of raters
that classified each item of the PCQ-24 as a state or a trait appropriate item. It can be
seen that despite the PCQ-24 being constructed with the purpose of being a ‘state-
like’ measure, the majority of the items were classified as being more appropriate
trait than state items by the raters. For 21 of the 24 PCQ-24 items, over 50% of the
raters (60-100% of raters depending on item, see table 1 below) indicated that the
item was more suitable for measuring a trait than a state.
! 53!
Table 1.
The percentage of raters that rated each item of the PCQ-24 as being a better state or
trait item.
Item % State % Trait
I feel confident analysing a long term problem to find a solution. 15 85
I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management. 25 75
I feel confident contributing to discussions about the company’s strategy. 40 60
I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area. 10 90
I feel confident contacting people outside the company (e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems.
30 70
I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues. 30 70
If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it.
5 95
At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals. 100 0
There are lots of ways around any problem. 15 85
Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work. 100 0
I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals. 40 60
At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself. 95 5
When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on. 10 90
I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work. 0 100
I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to. 15 85
I usually take stressful things at work in stride. 0 100
I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before.
0 100
I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job. 40 60
When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best. 0 100
If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will. 10 90
I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job. 0 100
I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work. 40 60
In this job, things never work out the way I want them to. 30 70
I approach this job as if, “every cloud has a silver lining.” 20 80
! 54!
Rating of the modified Moment Specific PsyCap items. For the modified
Moment Specific items, there was 100% agreement on 22 out of 24 items that the
item reflected a state rather than trait. The item with the lowest percentage of ‘state’
ratings had 90% of respondents indicate that the item was appropriate to measure a
state. This was the item “Right now, I am able to think of many ways to reach my
current work goals.”
Rating of the modified Generalised PsyCap items. For the modified
Generalised PsyCap items, there was 100% agreement for 18 items that they
reflected trait like qualities. The item with the lowest agreement of ‘trait’ ratings had
80% of respondents indicate that the item reflected a trait. This was the item “In this
job I generally feel that I can handle many things at a time.”
Summary. The results from phase two support the assertion that many items
in the PCQ-24 are more appropriate for measuring a state than a trait. For three of the
four constant tendency items, all raters indicated that they thought the item was more
appropriate for measuring a trait than a state. For the final item, 70% of raters
indicated that they thought the item was more trait appropriate. There were two
future conditional items, for which 90% and 95% of raters indicated that they
thought the item was more trait appropriate. Interestingly, beyond these two
problematic forms of items, there were only three items for which over 50% of the
raters thought the item was more state than trait appropriate. Thus, overall the ratings
suggest that the items from the PCQ-24 may be more appropriate for measuring a
trait than a state. The high level of agreement amongst raters that the modified
Generalised PsyCap items were trait appropriate and that Moment Specific PsyCap
! 55!
items were state appropriate provides an initial indication that the modifications were
effective.
Phase Three: Selection of items, instructions and rating scales for the Moment
Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales.
The rating process carried out in phase two provided evidence that many of
the PCQ-24 items were more appropriate items for measuring a trait than a state, that
the Moment Specific PsyCap items could be considered appropriate state items and
that the Generalised PsyCap items could be considered appropriate trait items.
However, it did not provide comparative evidence about which version of each item
was considered to be the ‘best’ item for inclusion in the Moment Specific and
Generalised PsyCap scales. Thus a second rating process was used to select items to
be included in the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales which were to be
used for further validation research.
When selecting the items for inclusion in the scales it was also necessary to
consider the way that the items would fit with the scales’ instructions and rating
scales. Thus, the instructions and rating scale were selected before this rating process
was conducted. The instructions and response scales for the Generalised and Moment
Specific PsyCap scales were taken from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI;
Spielberger et al., 1970) because this is a well established measure which is able to
differentiate between the state and trait components of the construct it measures,
anxiety. A number of other scales which target the state and trait components of a
construct have also used the instructions and rating scale of the STAI. Following the
format used for the STAI, the Moment Specific PsyCap measure instructs
participants to indicate how much each item describes themselves ‘right now’ or ‘at
this moment’. The response format is a four point Likert type scale (not at all to very
! 56!
much so). The Generalised PsyCap scale instructs participants to respond to each
item with respect to how often they generally feel the way described in the statement.
The response scale for the Generalised scale was similarly a four point scale ranging
from almost never to almost always.
Method.
Participants. Twenty post-graduate psychology students from the University
of Western Australia who had not participated in the previous rating exercise
participated in this item selection phase.
Procedure. A rating system was employed to decide which items were to be
included in the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales. In this phase, the
term state and trait were explained to each rater to ensure a common understanding.
They were additionally shown the instructions and response scale that would be used
for the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales. The raters were then shown
the three alternative forms of item one of the PCQ-24 (the original PCQ-24 item, and
the two alternative versions for each item created in phase one of this study). Each
alternative version was written on a separate card, and raters were asked to order
them along a continuum from which item would be best to include in the state based
scale, to the item that would be the best item for inclusion in the trait scale. The
experimenter made a note of which alternative version of each item was rated as best
state item, the mid-item and the best trait item. This process was repeated for each of
the PCQ-24 items in turn.
Results and Discussion
Table two shows the version of each item rated most frequently as being most
appropriate for measuring a state, and the percentage of raters that rated it as being
! 57!
the best state item. Table three shows the corresponding information for the trait
scale. These were the final items included in the Moment Specific and Generalised
PsyCap scales.
! 58!
Table 2.
Items selected as the most appropriate item for measuring a state and the
percentage of raters that selected that item as being the most appropriate for a state.
Item % selected item as best state item
Right now, I am feeling confident about my ability to analyse a long-term problem to find a solution.
95
Right now, I am feeling confident about my ability to represent my work area in meetings with management.
100
Right now, I am feeling confident about my ability to contribute to discussions about the company’s strategy.
95
Right now, I am feeling confident about my ability to help set targets/goals in my work area. 95
Right now, I am feeling confident about my ability to contact people outside the company (eg. suppliers, customers) to discuss problems.
95
Right now, I am feeling confident about my ability to present information to a group of colleagues.
100
Right now, I can think of many ways to solve a problem I am experiencing at work. 95
Right now, I feel that I am able to energetically pursue my work goals. 85
Right now I am feeling like there are lots of ways around any problem. 100
Right now, I am seeing myself as being pretty successful at work. 100
Right now, I am able to think of many ways to reach my current work goals. 95
Right now, I am feeling willing and able to meet the work goals that I have set for myself. 95
Right now, I am having trouble recovering and moving on from a previous set back at work. 95
Right now, I am feeling able to manage difficulties at work. 95
Right now, I am comfortable being “on my own” so to speak at work. 100
Right now, I am taking stressful things at work in stride. 90
Right now, I am feeling able to get through difficulties at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before.
95
Right now, I feel like I can handle many things at a time in this job. 100
Right now, I am expecting the best about uncertain situations at work. 100
Right now, I feel like if something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will. 95
Right now, I am looking on the bright side of things regarding my job. 100
Right now, I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work. 100
Right now, I feel that things in this job work out the way I want them to. 90
Right now, I am approaching this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining.” 90
! 59!
Table 3.
Items selected as the most appropriate item for measuring a trait and the
percentage of raters that selected that item as being the most appropriate for a trait.
Item % selected item as best trait item
I generally feel confident analysing long-term problems to find solutions. 90
I generally feel confident representing my work area in meetings with management. 95
I generally feel confident contributing to discussions about the company’s strategy. 90
I generally feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area. 95
In general, I feel confident contacting people outside the company (eg. suppliers, customers) to discuss problems.
95
Generally, I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues. 95
I can generally think of many ways to solve problems that I experience at work. 90
I generally feel that I am energetically pursuing my work goals. 95
I generally feel that there are lots of ways around any problem. 85
I generally see myself as being pretty successful at work. 95
I can usually think of many ways to reach my work goals. 90
I usually feel that I am meeting the work goals I have set for myself. 95
I generally have trouble recovering from setbacks at work and moving on. 90
I generally manage difficulties one way or another at work. 85
I am generally comfortable being “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to be. 85
I generally take stressful things at work in stride. 90
I generally feel that I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before.
90
In this job I generally feel like I can handle many things at a time. 90
I usually expect the best when things are uncertain for me at work. 90
I generally feel that if something can go wrong for me work-wise it will. 95
I generally look on the bright side of things regarding my job. 90
I am generally optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work. 90
I generally feel as if things in this job work out the way I want them to. 90
I generally approach this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining.” 90
! 60!
There was a high level of inter-rater consistency with respect to which of the
three alternative forms of each item were the best state and trait items (the minimum
agreement level was 85%), thus no further analysis was required to select the items
for inclusion in the final Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales.
General Discussion
The ratings for the PCQ-24 items supported the initial argument that many of
the items are more appropriate for measuring a trait rather than a state. This is a
problematic finding for the PCQ-24 which is posited to be a ‘state-like’ measure and
warrants the development of modified versions of this scale. In order to examine the
stability of the full spectrum of the PsyCap construct, separate state and trait scales
are required. The items for a state based scale should refer only to moment specific
feelings whereas the items for a trait based scale should refer to generalised
tendencies.
In the rating process for selecting items for inclusion in the Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap scales there was a high level of inter-rater consistency.
Although this provides an initial indication that the scales may be successful state
and trait scales, the stability and validity of these scales needs to be investigated
empirically. Chapter three discusses the first study conducted to validate the
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales.
! 61!
CHAPTER THREE: PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF THE
GENERALISED AND MOMENT SPECIFIC PSYCAP SCALES
Having completed the item generation and selection phases of scale
development as discussed in chapter two, the second phase according to Hinkin’s
(1998) guide to the development of survey measures, is questionnaire administration.
Within this phase he recommends that “the items should now be presented to a
sample representative of the actual population of interest, such as managers or
employees, with the objective of examining how well those items confirmed
expectations regarding the psychometric properties of the new measure... The new
items should be administered along with other established measures to examine the
“nomological network”- the relationship between existing measures and the newly
developed scales.” (p. 110). This chapter will describe the study that aimed to
achieve this step in scale development.
In this study a sample of employees from a single organisation completed the
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales along with other relevant scales on
two testing occasions which were separated by approximately two months. The data
collected were used to assess the (i) stability, (ii) validity and (iii) factor structure of
the newly created Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales. The introduction
below explains the hypotheses regarding these three aspects of the scales.
Stability of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap
Previous research conducted using the PCQ-24 has reported a test-retest
correlation of .52 over a two week period (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). In the
current study it was hypothesised that the Moment Specific PsyCap measure would
! 62!
be more variable (ie. have a lower test-retest correlation) than the PCQ-24, whereas
the Generalised PsyCap scale would have a higher test-retest correlation than the
PCQ-24 over time. McRae and Costa (1994) report that most personality scales have
short-term test-retest correlations ranging from .70 to .90. Thus, in the current study
this was the expected range within which the test-retest correlation of the
Generalised PsyCap scale would fall. As the Moment Specific scale was expected to
vary over time more than the PCQ-24, it was anticipated that the test-retest
correlation of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale would fall below .50.
Wright (2007), argues that test-retest correlations are insufficient evidence to
classify a construct as being a state or a trait. He argues that because correlation-
based evidence of stability can confirm only that the relative positions of individuals
on a construct have remained unchanged and not whether there have been absolute
changes, using only test-retest correlations can result in a construct which has
undergone considerable change (although equally in all participants of a study),
being declared as stable. Wright suggests two supplementary analyses to assess the
stability of a construct. These are to test for changes in the mean scores of a variable
across a whole sample as well as changes in the variance of the variable in the
sample.
While no single test can prove the stability of a construct, convergence of
evidence that there is a high test-retest correlation, invariance of means and
invariance of variance overtime can be seen as strong evidence of a trait. Conversely,
while a state would be expected to have a lower test-retest correlation, it is still
possible for a construct to vary while the sample means and variances remain
unchanged. Thus, although these may be examined, the test-retest correlation is
considered most important for distinguishing a state measure from a trait measure.
! 63!
Given these considerations, the Generalised PsyCap scale was required to
meet the following criteria in order to conclude that it reflected trait-like qualities; (i)
the test-retest correlation was required to be higher than .70, (ii) the mean scale score
across the whole sample would not change between the two testing periods and (iii)
the variance of the scale score for the whole sample would not change between the
two testing periods. The only criteria for the Moment Specific PsyCap scale to be
considered a state scale was that the test-retest was required to be less than .50.
Additionally, it was hypothesised that if the Moment Specific and Generalised
PsyCap scales measured a state and trait respectively, then the test-retest correlation
of the Generalised scale would be significantly higher than that of the Moment
Specific scale.
Validity
Concurrent and Predictive Validity. Previous research has shown that the
PCQ-24 is related to work performance and attitudes (Larson & Luthans, 2006;
Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). In the current study it was hypothesised that
Generalised PsyCap during the first measurement period would be significantly
related to performance, satisfaction and commitment at both the first and second
testing periods. This hypothesis was formed because the Generalised PsyCap scale
was expected to be concurrently correlated with the same constructs as the PCQ-24,
and to have the ability to predict these attitudinal outcomes into the future as it was
expected to have a consistent influence on these attitudes over time. In contrast, it
was hypothesised that Moment Specific PsyCap would be significantly related to
each of the outcome measures collected at the same sampling point but, to be less
predictive of future measures than the tait measure due to its instability in individuals
over time.
! 64!
Previous research using hierarchical regression analyses has found that
PsyCap is able to account for unique variance in the dependent variables of job
satisfaction and affective organisational commitment when Conscientiousness,
Extraversion and Core self-evaluations are taken into account (Luthans, Avolio, et
al., 2007). In this study the data collected were used to replicate this finding. The
ability of Generalised PsyCap to predict unique variance in job satisfaction, affective
commitment and performance when Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core self-
evaluations were included in the regression model was examined. It was
hypothesised that Generalised PsyCap at time one would account for significant
variance in the prediction of each of the dependent variables.
Convergent and discriminant validity. In order to determine the convergent
and discriminant validity of the PCQ-24 Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) compared
scores on the PCQ-24 to age, education, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience,
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Core Self-Evaluations. In the
current study the relationships between the above listed variables and the Moment
Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales were examined. It was hypothesised that the
results for the current study would reflect those obtained by Luthans et al. as the
changes made to the wording and rating scales of the Generalised and Moment
Specific PsyCap scales was predicted to alter the variability over time but not the
fundamental nature of the constructs being measured. Luthans, Avolio et al. found no
significant correlation between PsyCap and age (r= .01), Agreeableness (r= .06) or
Openness to experience (r= -.10), a small but significant negative correlation
between PsyCap and Neuroticism (r= -.12), a moderate positive relationship between
PsyCap and Extraversion (r= .36) and Conscientiousness (r= .39) and a strong
positive relationship between PsyCap and Core Self-Evaluations (r= .60). Finding
! 65!
correlation coefficients of a similar magnitude in the current study will indicate that
the modifications made to the PCQ-24 to form the Generalised and Moment Specific
PsyCap scales has not affected the construct being measured by the scales. If the
correlation coefficients are significantly different, this provides an indication that the
construct being measured was affected by the modifications made to the scales. This
would mean that full validity studies should be conducted for the new scales, rather
than relying upon the studies conducted upon the PCQ-24.
Factor Structure of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. Previous
research, which has been conducted using a variety of samples, has found that of the
models tested, the best fitting factor structure for the PCQ-24 is one that consists of
one factor for each component of PsyCap (hope, optimism, resilience and self-
efficacy), with those four dimensions linked to form a higher-order factor, PsyCap
(Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). This same factor structure was expected to be found
to be the best fitting to both the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales in
the current study, indicating that the changes made to the PCQ-24 did not change the
factor structure of the scales.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from employees of a not-for-profit organisation in
Western Australia. Questionnaire items were sent to all employees of the
organisation (N= 479). One hundred and sixty three employees completed the
survey, representing a 33% response rate. This sample included 42 (25.76%) males
and 121 (74.23%) females. There was a much higher response rate from the female
(49.59%) than the male (17.87%) employees of this organisation. Participants in this
! 66!
sample ranged from 19 to 76 years of age (mean age= 41.96, S.D.= 12.34). Other
than the gender statistics, there were insufficient data available from the organisation
to determine if the respondents systematically differed from the non-respondents.
To collect the second time sample of data, the questionnaires were sent to all
employees of the organisation a second time. Eighty seven employees responded to
the second questionnaire, representing an 18.16% response rate from the entire
organisation. In this sample there were 19 (21.84%) males and 67 (77.01%) females;
one participant did not indicate their sex. This sample ranged from 19 to 64 years of
age (mean age = 42.14, S.D.= 11.86). In total, only 44 employees from the
organisation (or 26.99% of respondents from the first time sample) completed the
questionnaires on both occasions. This sub-set of the sample ranged from 19 to 64
years of age (mean= 39.84, S.D.= 11.94). There were 8 (18.2%) males and 36
(81.8%) females. Those that responded on two occasions were significantly less
extraverted than those that responded on only one occasion, but did not differ from
those that responded on one occasion only in terms of age, gender, Core Self-
Evaluations, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness to
Experience, Generalised or Moment Specific PsyCap (as measured at time one).
Measures
PsyCap measures. The Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales
were as described in chapter two. As discussed in more detail below, Cronbach’s
alpha was above .90 at each testing period.
Concurrent and predictive validity measures.
Job satisfaction. Satisfaction was measured using a five-item job satisfaction
scale which Judge, Bono and Locke (2000) adapted from a measure developed by
! 67!
Brayfield and Rothe (1951). Responses to the scale were indicated on a 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. The five item measure was selected rather than
Brayfield and Rothe’s 14 item measure as it has been shown to have a high level of
reliability (α= .89; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000), with the added advantage of shorter
length. Participants in the study were asked to complete a number of different
questionnaires on two separate occasions, so shorter scales were considered
advantageous. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was above .80 at each collection
period.
Affective Organisational Commitment. Affective organisational commitment
was measured using Allen and Meyer’s (1990) eight item scale. Example items from
this scale include “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this
organisation” and “I feel as if this organisation’s problems are my own.” The scale
uses a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) response scale. For this scale
Cronbach’s alpha was greater than .75 at both collection periods.
Performance. Performance was assessed using the individual task behaviour
items from Griffin, Neal and Parker’s (2007) measure of work performance. This
nine-item scale asked respondents to indicate how often they had carried out
behaviours which can be considered as key performance indicators during the last
week. The response scale was a five-point scale ranging from very little to a great
deal. This scale demonstrated a high level of internal consistency in the current study
(α≥ .85 for both collection periods).
Convergent and discriminant validity measures.
Core self-evaluations (CSES). Judge, Locke & Durham (1997) introduced the
concept of CSES, a higher order latent construct comprised of self esteem,
! 68!
generalised self-efficacy, neuroticism and locus of control. CSES was measured
using the 12-item scale constructed by Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoresen (2003). In
the current study α = .82.
Big Five Personality Domains. The ‘big five’ personality dimensions of
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to
Experience were measured using the brief, Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI;
Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann Jr., 2003). Each item of the scale consists of two
adjectives which describe one of the Big 5 personality domains. Participants indicate
on a 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) scale the extent to which they think
the pair of adjectives describe how they see themselves. There are two items for each
of the Big 5 constructs. The scale was selected in order to allow the comparison of
the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scores to the Big 5 personality
dimensions using the same scale that Luthans, Avolio et al., (2007) used to examine
the convergent and discriminant validity of the PCQ-24. However, as the scale uses
only two items to measure each personality dimension, the internal consistency for
each dimension was not always acceptable in the current study. Cronbach’s alpha
was equal to .65, .05, .62, .58 and .24 for the Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience scales respectively.
These low reliabilities indicate that any results based on this scale must be
interpreted with caution. In the current study the decision was made only to include
the variables with an internal reliability greater than .60; thus the Agreeableness,
Neuroticsm and Openness to Experience scales were excluded from analyses.
Procedure
! 69!
Participants were invited to participate in this study at two time periods.
During the first period, the questionnaires of interest to this study (listed above) were
included in a larger scale organisational survey being conducted by the researcher.
The surveys were sent to all employees’ home addresses. Participants were invited to
complete the survey within a three week period and return it by mail to the
researcher. During this three week period two reminder emails were sent to
employees and posters raising awareness of the survey were placed around the
workplace. In this survey participants provided some demographic information and a
unique codename of their choice to allow their data to be linked with future surveys.
The questionnaires of interest to this study were interspersed amongst other scales in
the large organisational survey, but the order in which they were presented was as
follows; satisfaction, performance, affective organisational commitment, CSES,
Generalised PsyCap, Moment Specific PsyCap, TIPI.
A second survey was sent to all employees’ home addresses eight weeks after
the first survey. This survey contained the following scales (listed in order of
inclusion); satisfaction, affective commitment, performance, Generalised PsyCap,
Moment Specific PsyCap and then some demographic information including the
codename provided in the first survey. Employees were again invited to return their
completed surveys by post within a three week period. A reminder email was sent to
all employees to remind them to complete the survey approximately half way
through this three week period.
Analytical Strategy
Analyses were conducted to evaluate the (i) factor structure, (ii) reliability
and (iii) validity of the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales.
! 70!
Factor Structure. Confirmatory factor analysis, conducted using SPSS
AMOS version 17, was used to compare four competing models of the underlying
structure of the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales. Similarly to
Luthans et al., (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007), this study used the procedures
recommended by Hinkin (Hinkin, 1995). The models tested were (i) a single factor
model, (ii) a four factor (self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism) model with the
six relevant items from the scale loading onto each of the uncorrelated factors, (iii) a
four factor (self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism) model with the six relevant
items loading onto each of the correlated factors and (iv) a model with the same four
factors linked by a higher order PsyCap factor. The error variances of the items were
not correlated with each other in any of the models. It was predicted that the four
factors of model three would be highly correlated, and that this high degree of inter-
correlation could be explained by a single higher order PsyCap factor. Thus, the
hypothesis was that the higher order model (model four) would be the best fit for the
data.
The maximum likelihood method of estimation was used for the analyses as
there was no evidence of significant skewness or kurtosis within the questionnaire
items. In order to allow comparison of the models the following statistics were
calculated (with acceptable levels for each statistic in parenthesis; chi-square (χ2, not
significant, Byrne, 2001) with corresponding degrees of freedom, standardised root
mean residual (SRMR; <.08, Hu & Bentler, 1999), Root-Mean-Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA; <.06, Hu & Bentler, 1999), Comparitive Fit Index
(CFI>.95, Hu & Bentler, 1999) and Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI; >.5;
Mulaik et al. (1989) reported that parsimony-based measures typically have lower
acceptable values than relative and absolute measures, with .50 or greater deemed
! 71!
acceptable). There is no common agreement about which measures of fit should be
reported (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006), but the statistics reported were selected
to cover absolute fit, relative fit and parsimony of fit and to allow a direct
comparison with the fit statistics for the PCQ-24 reported by Luthans, Avolio et al.
(2007).
Reliability. The two important assessments for reliability were the internal
consistency and the stability of the scales over time. Internal reliability was assessed
by calculating Cronbach’s alphas for each PsyCap component separately, as well as
for the whole scale combined. This was calculated separately for the Generalised
and Moment Specific PsyCap scales, for each of the two testing occasions that they
were completed.
The stability of the PsyCap scales was tested using three methods as
recommended by Wright and Quick (2009). Firstly, the test-retest reliabilities of the
measures were determined. Next, a paired samples t-test was used to test for
invariance of the means over time. The variance of variance was tested using
Levene’s test.
Finally, the Pearson-Filon test with the Steiger (1980) modification was used
to test the hypothesis that the Generalised PsyCap scale would have a higher test-
retest correlation than the Moment Specific PsyCap scale.
Analyses focused only upon the higher order PsyCap factor, rather than the
four subscales (hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resilience), as the primary aim of
this research was to determine whether this scale could be classified as a state or
trait.
! 72!
Validity. Analyses were conducted to assess the (i) concurrent, (ii) predictive
and (iii) convergent and discriminant validity of the Moment Specific and
Generalised PsyCap scales.
Concurrent validity was assessed in terms of the correlation between the
PsyCap scale and the proposed job related outcomes of PsyCap (job satisfaction,
affective commitment and performance) measured during the same testing session
(e.g. Moment Specific or Generalised PsyCap at time one and job satisfaction at time
one, or Moment Specific or Generalised PsyCap at time two and job satisfaction at
time two). Using the measures taken at the same point in time may cause an inflated
correlation coefficient due to common method variance, but was considered to be the
most appropriate measure to use as the Moment Specific PsyCap scale was expected
to fluctuate too much over time for the measures of PsyCap and the attitudinal
outcomes to be separated in time. This is because if a scale fluctuates frequently over
time, it should not have predictive validity (due to its changing nature) and would
therefore only be expected to demonstrate a relationship to constructs measured at
the same time period. It was hypothesised that the Moment Specific PsyCap scale
would be more highly correlated to concurrent measures of the outcomes
(satisfaction, commitment and performance) than the Generalised PsyCap scale. This
hypothesis was tested using the method proposed by Dunn and Clark (1969, 1971),
as outlined by Meng, Rosenthal and Rubin (1992) to compare the correlation
coefficients the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales had with the job
related outcomes.
The predictive validity of the PsyCap scales was assessed in two ways.
Firstly, the correlation coefficients between Generalised and Moment Specific
PsyCap at time one and each of the job related outcomes (job satisfaction, affective
! 73!
commitment and performance) at time two were calculated. Next, the unique
variance that PsyCap could account for in predicting job satisfaction, commitment
and self-rated performance when Core Self-Evaluations, Extraversion and
Conscientiousness were also included in the model was examined using hierarchical
regression analyses. In these analyses, Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core
Self-Evaluations were entered into block one of the analysis, and Generalised
PsyCap at time one was entered into block two. Moment Specific PsyCap was not
included in this analysis as when it was entered into the regression the Variance
Inflation Factor (VIF) was well above the recommended level of five, which is an
indicator of serious multicollinearity (Menard, 1995). A separate analysis was not
run for Moment Specific PsyCap as it was not hypothesised to exhibit predictive
validity.
This study aimed to assess convergent and discriminant validity by
correlating the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scores with the same set of
variables used to determine convergent and discriminant validity by Luthans et al.
(2007). These were age, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Core Self-Evaluations. However, in the current
study, Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience were omitted from
these analyses due to the low internal consistency of these TIPI subscales. The
convergent and discriminant validity analyses were conducted using the PsyCap data
collected during the first collection period. Although the TIPI components had low
internal reliability, the correlations between these scales and the PsyCap scales have
been reported without correcting for attenuation to allow a comparison of data from
the current study to the data of Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007). The authors of this
study similarly reported that the low reliability of the TIPI was a problem but did not
! 74!
correct for it. However, given the low internal reliability, it is appropriate to correct
for attenuation. Therefore, the correlations between the TIPI scales and the PsyCap
scales were also corrected for attenuation using the formula published by Spearman
(Spearman, 1904).
Results
Factor Structure.
Table 4 shows the fit statistics for the four alternative models of the Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap scales separately.
75##
Table 4.
Fit indexes for the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap models.
Model #
Model Description χ2 df p SRMR RMSEA CFI PNFI CAIC ECVI
Generalised PsyCap
1. 1 factor 736.64 252 <.001 .079 .101 .776 .638 1036.75 4.38
2. 4 uncorrelated factors 748.31 252 <.001 .296 .102 .771 .633 1048.42 4.44
3. 4 correlated factors 409.15 246 <.001 .059 .059 .925 .742 746.77 2.72
4. 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor
418.32 248 <.001 .062 .060 .921 .745 743.44 2.75
Moment Specific PsyCap
1. 1 factor 872.39 252 <.001 .081 .116 .758 .633 1170.71 5.29
2. 4 uncorrelated factors 964.36 252 <.001 .340 .124 .722 .603 1262.68 5.79
3 4 correlated factors 552.02 246 <.001 .063 .082 .881 .718 887.62 3.61
4. 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor
555.35 248 <.001 .064 .082 .880 .723 878.52 3.60
76##
The fit statistics reported above show that models three and four were the best
fitting to the data. These are the models comprised of the four correlated first order
factors of self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism (model three), or the
uncorrelated first-order factors linked by the second order factor, PsyCap (model
four). There was very little difference in the fit between these two models. In both of
these models, the SRMR fit statistics reached the targets of being below .08 for both
the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales and the PNFI also fell into the
acceptable range. The CFI fell marginally below .95 in both models of the
Generalised PsyCap scale, and further below the .95 criterion for the Moment
Specific scale. Similarly, the RMSEA statistic met the criteria of being below .06 for
the Generalised but not the Moment Specific PsyCap scale. For both scales, the
significant χ2 statistic indicates some problems with the fit of the models.
As the fit statistics reported above were insufficient to distinguish between
models three and four, Bozdogan’s (1987) consistent version of Akaike’s (1987)
Information Criterion (CAIC) and the Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) were
also calculated to attempt to distinguish between the two models. The CAIC
addresses the parsimony of fit (taking sample size into account) and the ECVI
addresses the likelihood that the model fit would be cross-validated across similar
sized samples from the same population (Byrne, 2001). When comparing models,
lower values for the CAIC and the ECVI indicate superior fit. The CAIC was lower
for model four than model three in both cases, which indicates that model four is the
superior fitting. The ECVI supported this suggestion for the Moment Specific Model
(as ECVI was lower for model four than three), but not for the Generalised PsyCap
model (in which the ECVI was lower for model three). However, the χ2 statistics
were marginally lower for model three than model four for both Generalised and
77##
Moment Specific scales. In balance, there is insufficient evidence to differentiate
between the model with four correlated factors and the model with the four factors
linked by a higher order PsyCap factor, but it can be concluded that neither model
provides a strong fit to the data. The modification indices were examined to
determine if there was a model that would better fit the data. However, the suggested
modifications did form a meaningful model so are not presented here.
Of note, the fit statistics for the higher order model reported in the current
study are quite similar to those reported for the same model fit to the PCQ-24 by
Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007). For their employee sample Luthans, Avolio et al.
reported a RMSEA = .048 (= .060 in the Generalised model and .082 in the Moment
Specific model in the current study), CFI = .924 (= .921 in the Generalised model
and .880 in the Moment Specific model in the current study) and SRMR = .056 (=
.062 in the Generalised model and .064 in the Moment Specific model in the current
study). The lack of difference in the fit of the Generalised and Moment Specific
PsyCap scales and the PCQ-24 to the higher order PsyCap mode indicate that it can
be concluded that the current adaptations to the PCQ-24 to make it a pure state and
pure trait scale have not affected its factor structure. Further analyses in this study
have been conducted with the higher order factor, to allow comparison with previous
studies using the PCQ-24 which have reported the relationships between the higher
order PsyCap factor and other variables.
Reliability
Internal consistency of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap.
Cronbach’s alphas for each PsyCap component separately, as well as for the measure
combined for each testing occasion are reported in Table 5. All scales demonstrated
78##
acceptable reliability (α > .70) on both test occasions. This allows for the conclusion
that the changes to the wording of the items in the PCQ-24 to create the two scales
did not detrimentally affect their reliability.
Table 5.
Cronbach’s alpha for each PsyCap component and the full Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap scales at each testing time.
Self-efficacy
Hope Resilience Optimism PsyCap
Generalised PsyCap
Time 1 .835 .894 .801 .811 .933
Time 2 .868 .884 .781 .760 .925
Moment Specific PsyCap
Time 1 .872 .882 .819 .832 .940
Time 2 .846 .907 .808 .835 .942
Stability of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap.
The test-retest reliability of the Generalised PsyCap scale was .711. The
paired samples t-test (two tailed) showed a trend towards difference but no
significant differences in the means of the Generalised PsyCap scale over the two
assessment periods, t(41)= 1.755, p= .087. Additionally, Levene’s test indicated that
there was homogeneity of variance. Thus, the Generalised PsyCap scale met all three
criteria set to conclude that the scale measured a trait; (i) the test-retest correlation
was above .70, (ii) the mean scale scores across the whole sample would not change
between testing periods and (iii) the variance of the scale scores for the whole sample
79##
would not change between the two testing periods, providing strong evidence that the
Generalised PsyCap scale measures a trait component of PsyCap.
For the Moment Specific scale the test-retest reliability across the two time
periods was .571. The paired samples t-test showed no significant differences in the
means of the scale at the two time points, t(40)= .761, p= .451. Levene’s test
indicated that there was homogeneity of variance. The criterion for the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale to be classified as a state was that the test-retest reliability was
below .50. Therefore the current results suggest that the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale does not measure a state component of PsyCap.
Relative Stability of Generalised vs Moment Specific PsyCap. The Pearson-
Filon test with the Steiger (1980) modification showed that there was no significant
difference between the test-retest correlation of the Generalised PsyCap scale
compared to that of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale (Z= 1.10, p= .272). This
finding provides additional evidence that the Moment Specific PsyCap scale
exhibited trait like qualities.
Validity
Concurrent Validity. The correlations between the two PsyCap scales and job
satisfaction, affective commitment and self-rated performance at the time matched
periods (e.g. PsyCap at time one and satisfaction at time one or PsyCap at time two
and satisfaction at time two) are shown in table six below. The PsyCap scores for
each scale were calculated by averaging the scores of all items included in that scale.
The hypothesis that the PsyCap scales would be related to concurrent measures of
job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and performance were only
partially supported. Interpreting the effect sizes according to Cohen (1992), the
80##
correlations between the PsyCap scales and job satisfaction and self-rated
performance at the corresponding time periods generally suggest that PsyCap (both
Generalised and Moment Specific) is moderately to strongly related to immediate job
satisfaction and self-rated performance. However, there were only weak (and non-
significant) relationships between the PsyCap scales and affective organisational
commitment.
Comparison of the correlations between the two PsyCap scales and the
outcome measure at the time matched period (i.e. comparing the .279 correlation
between Generalised PsyCap at time one and job satisfaction at time one with the
.224 correlation between Moment Specific PsyCap at time one and job satisfaction at
time one) showed that there were no significant differences between the correlations
of the Moment Specific and Generalised scales with any of the outcome measures.
Table 6.
Correlation coefficients for Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap with
Job Satisfaction, Affective Organisational Commitment and Self-rated Performance
at time matched periods.
Job Satisfaction (at time matched period)
Affective Commitment (at time matched period)
Self-rated Performance (at time matched period)
Generalised PsyCap
Time 1 .279** .046 .389**
Time 2 .586** .219* .565**
Moment Specific PsyCap
Time 1 .224** .104 .339**
81##Time 2 .507** .242* .577**
* p < .05
** p < .01
Predictive validity of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. The
correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap measured at time
one, with the outcome measures of job satisfaction, affective commitment and self-
rated performance are shown in tables seven, eight and nine. These tables show that
both the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales were significantly
correlated with future reported levels of job satisfaction (r= .452 for Generalised
PsyCap and r= .307 for Moment Specific PsyCap), and self-rated performance (r=
.332 for Generalised PsyCap and r= .364 for Moment Specific PsyCap). The PsyCap
scales were not significantly correlated with affective organisational commitment (r=
.260 for Generalised PsyCap and r= .182 for Moment Specific PsyCap).
The results for the regression analyses conducted to determine the unique
variance that Generalised PsyCap could account for in predicting job satisfaction,
affective commitment and self-rated performance when Conscientiousness,
Extraversion and Core Self-Evaluations were also included in the model are shown
in tables 10 and 11. It was found that Generalised PsyCap did not significantly
predict the dependent variables when the personality variables were already taken
into account. However, as can be seen in Table 11, it was also generally found that
the other personality dimensions did not significantly predict the dependent variables
either. Of note however, Generalised PsyCap was the strongest predictor of self-rated
performance and the second strongest predictor of job satisfaction in the regression
models including extraversion, conscientiousness, core self-evaluations and PsyCap.
82##
Table 7.
Correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) and
job satisfaction.
1 2 3 4
1. Generalised PsyCap –Time 1 1.0
2. Moment Specific PsyCap-Time 1
.850** 1.0
3. Satisfaction- Time 1 .279** .224** 1.0
4. Satisfaction- Time 2 .452** .307 .706** 1.0
* p < .05
** p < .01
Table 8.
Correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) and
affective organisational commitment.
1 2 3 4
1. Generalised PsyCap –Time 1 1.0
2. Moment Specific PsyCap-Time 1
.850** 1.0
3. Commitment- Time 1 .046 .104 1.0
4. Commitment- Time 2 .260 .182 .260 1.0
* p < .05
** p < .01
83##
Table 9.
Correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) and
performance.
1 2 3 4
1. Generalised PsyCap –Time 1 1.0
2. Moment Specific PsyCap-Time 1
.850** 1.0
3. Self-rated Performance- Time 1
.389** .339** 1.0
4. Self-rated Performance- Time 2
.332* .364* .433** 1.0
* p < .05
** p < .01
84##
Table 10.
Coefficient of determination and change in coefficient of determination for Block One (includes Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core self-evaluations), and Block Two (addition of Generalised PsyCap at time 1) regressed onto job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and self-rated performance (at time two).
Job Satisfaction Affective Commitment Self-rated Performance
R² ∆R² R² ∆R² R² ∆R²
Block 1 .288 .151 .100
Block 2 .310 .022 .152 .058 .168 .068
* p < .05
** p < .01
Table 11.
Beta weights for Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Core Self-evaluations and Generalised PsyCap at time 1 regressed onto job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and self-rated performance (at time two).
Job Satisfaction
Β
Affective Commitment
β
Self-rated Performance
β
Conscientiousness .115 -.176 .204
Extraversion .402* .090 -.187
Core self-evaluations -.093 .374 -.104
Generalised PsyCap- Time 1 .251 -.047 .447
* p < .05
** p < .0
85##
Convergent and discriminant validity. The convergent and discriminant
validity assessments are shown in Table 12. There was a small but significant
relationship between PsyCap and age, medium correlations between PsyCap and
extraversion and conscientiousness and large correlations between PsyCap and core
self-evaluations. When corrected for attenuation, the correlations between PsyCap
and extraversion were .461 for the Generalised PsyCap scale and .324 for the
Moment Specific Scale. The correlations between conscientiousness and PsyCap
when corrected for attenuation were .496 for the Generalised and .494 for the
Moment Specific PsyCap scales.
These results are mixed in their support for the hypotheses concerning
PsyCap’s relationships with other variables. The correlations between PsyCap and
extraversion, conscientiousness and core self-evaluations were as hypothesised,
while the correlations between PsyCap and age, although not large in magnitude (r=
.268 and .289) appear to be higher than those reported by Luthans, Avolio et al
(2007). Taken together these findings suggest that varying the phrasing and reference
period of the PCQ-24 has not significantly changed the construct that it assesses.
However, replication of these findings is required due to the unexpected correlation
with age and the unreliability of the TIPI scales in the current study.
86##
Table 12.
Correlations of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) with other
variables. The internal reliability of each scale is shown on the diagonal.
1 2 3 6 7 8 Mean (SD)
1. PsyCap Generalised (.93) 3.151 (.458)
2. Moment Specific PsyCap
.850** (.94) 2.095 (.320)
3. Age .289** .268** 41.985 (12.339)
6. Extraversion .359** .253** .019 (.65) 4.945 (1.424)
7. Conscientiousness .377** .377** .330** .112 (.62) 6.298 (.759)
8. Core Self-Evaluations .651** .548** .196* .275** .280** (.82) 3.803 (.507)
* p < .05
** p < .01
Discussion.
Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007) have argued that PsyCap is a ‘state-like’
construct, but to date, they have not attempted to construct a scale to measure
PsyCap as either a pure state or pure trait. Thus, this study has provided evidence that
if the items of a PsyCap scale are phrased to measure a stable construct, it is possible
to obtain a stable measurement. This, coupled with the scales’ relationships with job
satisfaction and self-rated performance, indicate that it may be an appropriate
employee selection tool. The study has also extended upon initial research of the
PCQ-24, as in initial research the stability of the scale has been assessed using only
test-retest reliabilities (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). Wright and Quick (2009)
discuss that as a test-retest reliability only assesses the relative rather than absolute
87##
positions of individuals in a group, test-retest analyses should always be
supplemented by an assessment of changes in mean and variance over time. These
aspects were assessed in the current study, and all converged upon the conclusion
that the Generalised PsyCap scale measures a trait construct.
In terms of predictive validity, it must be noted that although Generalised PsyCap
was the strongest and second strongest predictor of self-rated performance and job
satisfaction respectively, the beta weights did not reach significance in the regression
analyses. The non-significance in these analyses may reflect a power issue. Power
analysis conducted using G*Power, indicated that in order to detect a medium effect
size with a power of .80, a sample size of 85 was required. In order to detect a large
effect size a sample of 40 was required. As only 44 participants completed the
surveys at both times one and two, the study was only sufficiently powered to detect
large effect sizes. Thus, it is necessary to conduct further research with a larger
number of participants before more conclusive findings concerning the predictive
validity of the Generalised PsyCap scale may be drawn.
An additional finding of the current study was that affective commitment was not
related to Generalised PsyCap as hypothesised. A possible explanation for this
finding involves the nature of the workplace from which the sample was drawn. The
employees were drawn from a not-for-profit organisation concerned with helping
people living with a permanent disability. Therefore, affective commitment may
have been heavily influenced by the nature of the work they performed, and the
employees’ relationships with their clients. This may have overshadowed some of
the individual psychological factors that influence affective commitment. Further
research is required to determine if PsyCap is related to affective commitment in
other groups of employees.
88##
The unexpected finding of the study was the stability of the Moment Specific
PsyCap scale. This scale demonstrated a test-retest reliability higher than .50,
invariance of means and homogeneity of variance in the current research and was
more stable than the PCQ-24 has been reported to be by Luthans, Avolio et al (2007).
Given that the items of the PCQ-24 were adapted to be more state-like for the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale, it was expected that the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale would demonstrate less stability than the PCQ-24. Moreover, the study was
conducted over a longer period of time than the two week period for which the .52
test-retest correlation for the PCQ-24 has been reported previously (Luthans, Avolio,
et al., 2007). In addition, the Pearson-Filon tests which revealed no significant
differences in the test-retest correlations for the Generalised and Moment Specific
PsyCap scales.
Likely coupled with the unexpected stability of the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale, was the finding that Moment Specific PsyCap at time one was moderately
correlated with future job satisfaction and self-rated performance. Moment Specific
PsyCap was not expected to demonstrate predictive validity as it was expected to
demonstrate a high degree of variability in individuals over time. Since the degree of
variability was not as large as anticipated, it is unsurprising that the scale
demonstrated some predictive validity.
Two possible explanations for the stability of the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale are investigated further in the next chapter. The first is that priming effects
occurred. In the current studies, participants always completed the Generalised
PsyCap scale directly before the Moment Specific PsyCap scale and this may have
affected their responding. Two possible mechanisms, through which this may have
occurred, the consistency motif and context-induced mood, are discussed in chapter
89##
four. Additionally, in following the State-Trait anxiety scale, the Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap scales had four-point response scales whereas the PCQ-24
had a six-point response scale. This modification may have also increased the
stability of the measures and is discussed further and investigated in chapter four.
90##
CHAPTER FOUR: ASSESSMENT OF ORDER AND RATING SCALE
EFFECTS OF GENERALISED AND MOMENT SPECIFIC PSYCAP
SCALES
Due to the unexpected stability of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale
reported in the previous experiment, this experiment aimed to examine the possibility
that the stability was the result of the particular methodology used. There were two
key aspects of the method which were considered relevant. These were the order in
which the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales were presented and the
rating scales used. This chapter will describe how each of these factors may have
influenced the stability of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale, before describing the
experiment designed to investigate these factors.
Order Effects
Cognitive psychologists studying survey response have found extensive
evidence that the context in which survey items are answered can dramatically
change participants’ responses to those items (see for example Rogelberg, Church,
Waclawski, & Stanton, 2004; Schwarz & Sudman, 1992). The context of an item
could refer to a wide variety of factors including the purposes of the survey, who is
present at the time the survey is completed, the characteristics of the interviewer for
aurally administered surveys and even remote factors such as the weather at the time
the survey is completed (Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000). As an example of a
context effect, one study asked respondents to report either three positive or three
negative life events that had recently occurred for them. When participants were
subsequently asked to rate their overall happiness and life satisfaction, participants
91##
who had been asked to recall positive events reported higher happiness and
satisfaction than those asked to recall negative events (Strack, Schwarz, &
Gschneidinger, 1985). This study provides an example of how a previous task can
affect subsequent survey responses, and highlights the need to consider the impact
that completing the Generalised PsyCap scale may have had upon responses to the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale in the study presented in chapter three.
The most common context effect examined in survey research is the effect
that earlier items can have upon responding to later items. This is often referred to as
an order effect. In the previous scale validation experiment described in chapter three
participants always completed the Generalised PsyCap scale immediately prior to
completing the Moment Specific PsyCap scale. Thus, it is possible that responding to
the Generalised PsyCap scale affected responses to the Moment Specific scale. There
are a number of possible mechanisms by which item order effects can arise, but two
are considered particularly relevant for the current study. These are the consistency
motif and context-induced mood.
Consistency motif. A substantial amount of theory and research generated by
both social psychologists and cognitive psychologists studying survey response has
shown that people generally want to be, or want to appear to be, both consistent and
rational in their beliefs and survey responses (N. P. Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; P. M.
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Tourangeau & Rasinski, 1988).
Thus, the ‘consistency motif’ has been termed to refer to “the propensity for
respondents to try to maintain consistency in their responses to questions” (P. M.
Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 882). One of the simplest forms of this effect stems from
questionnaire items that share common wording (Johns, 1994).
92##
In accordance with the consistency motif, participants in the previous
experiment may have been reluctant to indicate that their current feelings (indicated
on the Moment Specific PsyCap scale) were significantly different from their general
feelings (indicated by the Generalised PsyCap scale). Thus, completing the stable
Generalised PsyCap scale first may have artificially increased the stability of the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale, simply because participants gave similar responses
to both scales. This effect was likely to be exacerbated in the current study due to the
similarity of the wording of the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales. A
second mechanism through which context effects are likely to have occurred in the
previous study is through context-induced mood.
Context-induced mood. Schwarz and Clore (1983) showed that items can
alter a respondents mood by bringing positive or negative material to mind and that
this altered mood may affect responding to subsequent items. This effect was
demonstrated in the previously discussed study by Strack, Schwarz, & Gschneidinger
(1985), in which recalling positive or negative events affected later ratings of
happiness and life satisfaction. Podsakoff and colleagues have used the term
‘context-induced mood’ to refer to instances in which “the first question (or set of
questions) encountered on the questionnaire induces a mood for responding to the
remainder of the questionnaire” (P. M. Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 882). It has
additionally been argued that the less respondents are aware that their current
feelings were caused by the previous questions asked, the more likely the mood is to
have an influence upon later judgements (Sudman, Bradburn, & Schwarz, 1996).
In the previous study, asking participants to indicate their Generalised
PsyCap before their Moment Specific PsyCap, asked them to consider how they
usually feel or act before indicating their feelings at that specific moment in time. It
93##
is possible that this consideration of general feelings may have altered their current
mood. For example, if a respondent was feeling uncharacteristically up or down (ie.
optimistic or pessimistic, hopeful or hopeless, confident or non-confident or resilient
or not resilient) in their mood state before completing any questionnaire items,
recalling how they usually feel (when completing the Generalised PsyCap Scale), is
likely to have shifted their mood back towards their mean level of feelings. This may
have shifted the Moment Specific PsyCap responses towards the Generalised PsyCap
responses and may have therefore created more stability in the Moment Specific
PsyCap measure than if it had been completed before the respondents completed the
Generalised PsyCap scale.
Rating Scale
Another possible methodological reason for the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale being more stable than expected in the previous experiment is the difference in
response scales used for the scale compared to the PCQ-24. Whereas the PCQ-24
uses a six point response scale, the Moment Specific PsyCap scale, in taking the
response scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory used only a four-point
response scale. Studies have shown that as the number of response catgories
increase, both the test-retest and internal reliability of the scale improves (Lissitz &
Green, 1975; Lozano, Garcia-Cueto, & Muniz, 2008). This finding may point
towards the hypothesis that the shorter response scale in the previous scale validation
study may have resulted in increased rather than decreased variability of the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale in comparison to the PCQ-24. However, these studies have
assessed the reliability of scales measuring a stable construct, rather than scales
designed to measure a variable construct. When measuring a scale designed to be
variable, it is possible that creating more response options may increase the
94##
sensitivity of a scale to detect small changes. Therefore, increasing the number of
response options may decrease the test-retest reliability of a state scale.
The Present Study
This study aimed to assess the effect of the order of presentation of the
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales (relative to each other) and the
effect of the number of response options of the rating scales upon the consistency of
the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales. There were two key hypotheses
regarding the Moment Specific PsyCap scale. Firstly it was hypothesised that the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale would have a lower test-retest reliability when it was
presented before, rather than after the Generalised PsyCap scale. Secondly, it was
hypothesised that the Moment Specific PsyCap scale would have a lower test-retest
reliability when measured using a six rather than a four point response scale.
For the Generalised PsyCap scale it was hypothesised that if responses to the
scales were affected by order effects, then the test-retest reliability of the Generalised
PsyCap scale would be lower when it was presented after (rather than before) the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale. It was also hypothesised that the Generalised
PsyCap scale would have a higher test-retest reliability when presented with a six,
rather than a four point response scale.
In addition to the hypotheses concerning order effects and rating scale, the
internal consistency, validity (concurrent, predictive, convergent and discriminant)
and factor structure of the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales were
assessed. The hypotheses concerning these aspects of the scales remained unchanged
from the previous study described in chapter three.
95##
Method
Design
Participants in this study were invited to complete a series of questionnaires
at three points in time. In the first testing session participants completed the PsyCap
scales, in addition to the scales required to determine concurrent, predictive,
convergent and discriminant validity. In the second and third testing sessions the
PsyCap scales, as well as the scales required to determine concurrent and predictive
validity were completed.
Participants were divided into four conditions. The conditions differed with
respect to the order in which the two PsyCap scales were completed, and the
response format for the PsyCap scales. The conditions have been labelled in
accordance with the order of the PsyCap scales and the number of response options.
In the MS-G-6 condition participants completed the Moment Specific PsyCap scale
with a six point response scale, followed by the Generalised PsyCap scale with a six
point response scale. In the G-MS-6 condition participants completed the
Generalised and then the Moment Specific PsyCap scales, both with a six point
response scale. Participants in the MS-G-4 condition completed the Moment
Specific, followed by the Generalised PsyCap scales, both with four point response
scales. Finally, in the MS-G-4 condition participants completed the Moment Specific
PsyCap scale with a four point response scale followed by the Generalised PsyCap
scale with a four point response scale.
Participants
Participants for this study were drawn from two separate samples. The first
sample consisted of one hundred and eighty three third year undergraduate
96##
psychology students from the University of Western Australia (UWA). They were
invited to participate as part of a statistics unit in which they were enrolled.
Participants in this sample ranged from 18 to 62 years of age (mean age = 21.33,
S.D.= 4.01). The sample consisted of 50 (27.32%) males and 128 (69.94%) females;
five participants did not indicate their sex. Participants were informed of the purpose
of the study and although required to participate as a part of their unit, were given the
option of withdrawing his or her data. All participants consented for their data to be
used. All participants from this sample were assigned to the G-MS-4 condition.
The second sample consisted of four hundred and forty three third year
undergraduate psychology students from the University of Western Australia (UWA)
who were enrolled in an Industrial and Organisational Psychology unit. Participants
in this sample ranged from 17 to 50 years of age (mean age = 20.89, S.D.= 3.71).
The sample consisted of 110 (24.80%) males and 313 (70.70%) females; twenty
participants did not indicate their gender. Participants were assigned to small tutorial
classes for the unit in which they were enrolled. The tutorial classes were then
randomly selected to be assigned to one of the remaining three conditions (MS-G-4,
G-MS-6 and MS-G-6).
There were 178 participants in the MS-G-4 condition, 129 participants in the
MS-G-6 condition and 136 in the G-MS-6 condition. There were a greater number of
participants allocated to the MS-G-4 condition in the second sample in order to allow
comparisons to be made between the MS-G-4 data collected in the first sample
(which had 183 participants).
97##
Measures
PsyCap measures. The PsyCap scales for those in the four point response
scale conditions were as described in chapter two. For the six point rating scale
conditions the survey items remained unchanged from those reported in chapter two,
but the participants indicated their responses on a six, rather than four point response
scale. For the Moment Specific PsyCap scale response options ranged from ‘not at
all’ to ‘extremely so’. For the Generalised PsyCap scale the six response options
ranged from ‘almost never’ to ‘almost always’. Reliability statistics for the
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales are reported in the results section
below. When completing the scales (and all scales described below), students were
asked to interpret the words ‘job’ or ‘work’ to refer to their role as a university
student.
Concurrent and Predictive Validity measures.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the five-item job
satisfaction scale described in chapter three. To adapt the scale to suit university
students, participants were instructed to respond to the items with respect to their
university studies and to interpret the words “job” or “work” as relating to their role
as a university student. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was above .78 at each
collection period.
Affective Educational Commitment. Similar to the affective organisational
commitment used in chapter three, Hellman (2002) developed a measure of
educational commitment containing three sub-scales; continuance, affective and
normative commitment. The affective commitment sub-scale was used to measure
affective educational commitment in the current study. The scale contains five items
98##
which assess affective educational commitment using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree) response scale. An example item from the scale is “Being a college
student has a great deal of personal meaning for me.” To translate the survey to the
current study’s Australian context the word college was replaced with the word
university in all items. The scale demonstrated high reliability at all testing periods (α
> .82).
Performance. University performance was measured using self-report
measures. The self-report measure was an adaptation of the individual task behaviour
items from Griffin, Neal and Parker’s (2007) measure of work performance
described in chapter three. This scale was changed such that it asked participants to
rate their performance on their university studies rather than their “core tasks” as in
the original scale. The scale asked respondents to indicate how often they had carried
out behaviours which can be considered as key performance indicators during the
last week. Example items included (How often have you... ) “Completed your
university work well” and “Initiated better ways of completing your university
work.” This scale demonstrated a high level of internal consistency in the current
study (α≥ .90 for all three collection times).
Convergent and discriminant validity measures.
Core self-evaluations (CSES). Participants completed the 12 item CSES scale
(Judge et al., 2003) as described in chapter three. In the current study Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale was equal to .86.
Big Five Personality Domains. The ‘big five’ personality dimensions were
measured using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003), also
described in chapter three. Similarly to the previous study however, Cronbach’s
99##
alpha did not reach acceptable reliability for the subscales. In the current study α was
equal to .72, .37, .61, .66 and .43 for the Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience scales respectively.
These low internal reliabilities are likely the result of only two items measuring each
construct. Similarly, to the previous study, any scales for which Cronbach’s alpha
was below .60 (in this case Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) were
excluded from further analyses.
Procedure
Participants were asked to complete the surveys on three occasions
throughout the university semester. For both samples there was a three week gap
between the first and second testing session. The two samples differed in the time
difference between their second and third testing session. For the sample which
completed the G-MS-4 condition, there was a two week gap between the second and
third testing sessions. This gap was five weeks for the second sample. It was not
possible to distribute the testing periods identically in both samples due to the timing
of the classes in which testing took place.
Participants completed the questionnaires at the beginning of class on each
testing occasion. Participants in the G-MS-4 condition completed the surveys online,
whereas the second sample completed them in a paper and pencil format. The online
surveys were structured such that each survey in the series only became visible when
the previous one had been answered. This ensured that they were completed in the
order intended. Participants in the paper and pencil sample were instructed to work
through the booklet of surveys in order (from beginning to end). Each survey was
printed onto a separate page so that once participants turned the booklet over to
100##
complete the next survey their responses from the previous one were not visible. This
mimicked the online procedure in which only one scale was visible at a time.
Participants completed the scales in the same order on each testing occasion.
The PsyCap scales were completed first, with the order and response scale for these
scales varying according to condition as described above. The remaining scales were
completed in the following order for all conditions: job satisfaction, self-rated
performance and then affective educational commitment. In the first testing session
participants additionally completed the CSES and TIPI questionnaires after
completing the above listed scales.
Analytical Strategy
Factor Structure
As in the study reported in chapter three, confirmatory factor analysis,
conducted using SPSS AMOS version 17, was used to compare the four competing
models of the underlying structure of the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap
scales. The models tested were (i) a single factor model, (ii) a four factor (self-
efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism) model with the six relevant items loading
onto each of the uncorrelated factors, (iii) a four factor (self-efficacy, hope, resilience
and optimism) model with the six relevant items loading onto each of the correlated
factors and (iv) a model with the same four factors linked by a higher order PsyCap
factor.
The maximum likelihood method of estimation was used for the analyses as
there was no evidence of significant skewness or kurtosis in the items. In all of the
analyses the error variances were constrained to be uncorrelated.
101##
The following fit statistics were calculated (with acceptable levels for each
statistic in parenthesis; chi-square (χ2) with corresponding degrees of freedom,
standardised root mean residual (SRMR; <.08), Root-Mean-Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA; <.08), Goodness of Fit Index adjusted for degrees of
freedom (GFI; > .95), Comparitive Fit Index (CFI>.90) and Parsimonious Normed
Fit Index (PNFI; >.5), Consistent Information Criterion (CAIC) and the Expected
Cross Validation Index (ECVI). No criteria were set for the CAIC and ECVI, but as
discussed in the previous chapter, lower values for these fit statistics were taken to
indicate superior fit.
Internal consistency of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. Research
has shown that increasing the number of response options for a scale also tends to
increase the reliability of that scale, with the optimal number of response options
thought to be between four and seven (Lozano et al., 2008). The PsyCap scales with
a four point response format had demonstrated acceptable reliability the previous
study, so it was thought that all versions of the PsyCap scales in the current study (in
which the response scale had remained at four or increased to six) would also
demonstrate acceptable reliability. This was tested by calculating Cronbach’s alphas
for each PsyCap component separately, as well as for the total scale for each
occasion that the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales were completed
for each condition separately. A criterion of α > .70 was set as adequate reliability.
Stability of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. As in the previous
experiments, the stability of the PsyCap scales was tested using the three methods
recommended by Wright and Quick (2009); these are the test-retest reliability, a test
for invariance of the means over time, and a test of invariance of variance. In this
study a repeated measures ANOVA was used to test for invariance of the means over
102##
time and the variance of variance was tested using Mauchly’s test of sphericity.
Following the same criteria set in chapter three, the criteria for a scale to be
considered a trait were (i) the test-retest correlations higher than .70, (ii) no changes
in the mean sample scores across assessment periods and (iii) homogeneity of
variance across assessment periods. For a scale to be considered a state scale, the
criterion was that the test-retest correlation fall below .50.
Effect of rating scale and order of presentation upon the test-retest
reliabilities of the scales. To determine whether the test-retest reliabilities of the
PsyCap scales were affected by their order of presentation the mean test-retest
reliabilities for each scale were calculated for each condition separately. The mean
test-retest reliability was calculated by using the r to Fisher’s z transformation for
each test-retest coefficient, taking the average of these z scores and then transforming
this average back to an r score. The mean test-retest reliability for each scale when it
was presented first was compared to its mean test-retest reliability when it was
presented second.
Next, to assess whether having a four or six point rating scale affected the
test-retest reliability of the scales, the test-retest reliability for each scale with a four
versus six point rating scale was compared. Given that the test-retest reliability of the
PsyCap scales was affected by their order of presentation, this comparison was made
only for when the scales were presented first (ie. the test re-test reliability of the
Generalised PsyCap scale in the G-MS-6 condition was compared to that of the
Generalised PsyCap scale in the G-MS-4 condition and the test-retest reliability of
the Moment Specific PsyCap scale in the MS-G-6 condition was compared to the
test-retest reliability of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale in the MS-G-4 condition).
103##
Relative stability of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap.
Within conditions. The Pearson-Filon test with the Steiger (1980)
modification was used to test assess the hypothesis that within each condition the
Generalised PsyCap scale would be more stable than the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale. This was achieved by assessing whether the test-retest correlations of the
Generalised PsyCap scale were significantly higher than those of the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale (for an example of this analysis see (Kashy & Snyder, 1995).
This analysis was conducted for each of the possible test-retest couples (time 1 and 2,
time 1 and 3 and time 2 and 3). There were therefore three comparisons of the
relative stability of the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales for each
condition.
Between conditions. Next, to control for order effects, the stability of the
Generalised PsyCap scale when presented first (and therefore unaffected by order
effects) was then compared with the stability of the Moment Specific scale when
presented first (and therefore unaffected by order effects) in order to give an estimate
of the relative stability of the two scales when they were not influenced by order
effects. To assess this, the three test-retest reliabilities for the Moment Specific scale
in the MS-G-6 condition (between times one and two, between times one and three
and between times two and three) were compared with the corresponding test-retest
correlations of the Generalised PsyCap scale in the G-MS-6 condition using the
Fisher’s z test. The same analyses were not conducted for the conditions using a four
point response scale as the time intervals between testing phases for the two
conditions were not the same.
Validity
104##
Concurrent validity. As discussed in chapter three, it was hypothesised that
the Moment-Specific PsyCap scale would be strongly correlated to the outcome
variables of job satisfaction, affective educational commitment and self-rated
performance collected in the same assessment period.
It was additionally hypothesised that the correlation between Moment
Specific PsyCap and the outcome variable at each time matched period would be
higher than the correlation between Generalised PsyCap and the time matched
outcomes. For example, the correlation between Moment Specific PsyCap at time
three and self-rated performance and time three was hypothesised to be higher than
the correlation between Generalised PsyCap at time three and self-rated performance
at time three. This hypothesis was tested by comparing the correlation coefficients
using the equation outlined by Meng and colleagues (Meng et al., 1992).
Predictive validity of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. As
described in chapter three, it was hypothesised in the current study that Generalised
PsyCap at time one would be a strong predictor of outcome measures of job
satisfaction, affective educational commitment and performance at subsequent
testing periods. This hypothesis was based upon the findings of Luthans et al. (2007)
who found that the PCQ-24 was able to predict these outcomes in spite of it only
having a test-retest reliability of .52 in their study. It was predicted that a scale which
was more stable over time would be a stronger predictor than a scale which changes
over time. For this reason it was hypothesised that the correlations between the
Generalised PsyCap scale at time one and the outcome measures in subsequent
testing sessions would be larger than the correlations between the Moment Specific
PsyCap scale at time one and the same outcome variables. This hypothesis was tested
105##
by comparing the correlations using the method proposed by Dunn and Clark (1969,
1971), as outlined by Meng, Rosenthal and Rubin (1992).
Luthans and colleagues (2007) also found that scores on the PCQ-24 were
able to predict the unique variance in the outcome measures when
Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core Self-Evaluations were also included in the
prediction model. Regression analyses were used to test whether the Generalised
PsyCap score was similarly able to predict unique variance in the outcome variables.
In these analyses Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core Self-Evaluations were
entered into block one of the analysis, and Generalised PsyCap at time one was
entered into block two. As described in chapter three, Moment Specific PsyCap was
not included in these models as the two PsyCap scales were too highly correlated.
Convergent and discriminant validity. Analyses were conducted to assess
whether the order and rating scale changes in the current study affected the scales’
relationships with variables shown to relate to the PCQ-24 or to the Moment Specific
and Generalised PsyCap scales in chapter three. Luthans et al. found no significant
correlation between PsyCap and age (r= .01), whereas this correlation was small but
significant in the study described in chapter three. Luthans et al., and the study in
chapter three both reported moderate positive relationships between PsyCap and
Extraversion (r= .36) and Conscientiousness (r= .39) and a strong positive
relationship between PsyCap and Core Self-Evaluations (r= .60). These correlations
were observed for the PsyCap scales in each condition separately to determine if any
of the correlations systematically differed in the present study. As the Neuroticism
scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in the current study, this provided
to first opportunity to compare the relationship between this scale and Generalised
and Moment Specific PsyCap. Luthans et al. reported a small significant relationship
106##
between PsyCap and Neuroticism (r= -.12), and a similar correlation between the
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales and Neuroticism was expected in
the current study. Similarly to in chapter three, these correlations were observed
using the PsyCap data collected at time one only. This was considered appropriate as
the Moment Specific PsyCap scale was expected to change over time.
The low internal reliabilities of the TIPI scales in the current study denoted
that it would be appropriate to correct the correlations involving these scales for
attenuation. However, the purpose of the convergent and discriminant analyses
reported here was to compare the correlations between the Generalised and Moment
Specific PsyCap scales and the personality traits with the correlations between the
PCQ-24 and the same personality traits reported by Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007).
These authors also used the TIPI and did not correct the correlations for attenuation,
despite similarly reported low reliability of the TIPI subscales. Therefore, the
correlations between the Generalised and Moment Specific scales in the current
study have been reported without correction to allow for a direct comparison with the
Luthans, Avolio et al. study. However, the correlations were also corrected for
attenuation using the formula published by Spearman (Spearman, 1904), and these
are reported separately.
Results
Participation numbers
As participants did not attend all classes the number of participants included
in the study at each testing period is different. The number of participants from each
condition that responded at each time period of the study is shown in table 13 below.
The table below shows the number of participants that participated in the study at
107##
each testing time and the number that participated at each time pair. The table can be
read in a similar manner to a correlation table.
Table 13. The number of participants from each condition that completed the
surveys at each time period and at each time pair.
G-MS-4 MS-G-4 G-MS-6 MS-G-6
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. Time 1 177 173 130 118
2. Time 2 136 141 141 146 108 114 88 97
3. Time 3 104 70 107 104 97 105 76 74 80 66 60 71
Factor structure. Tables 14 and 15 show the fit statistics for the four alternative
models for Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap in each condition separately.
108$$
Table 14.
Generalised Specific PsyCap Scale: Fit indexes for each model and comparisons between models.
Model χ2 Df p SRMR RMSEA GFI CFI PNFI CAIC ECVI G-MS-4 1 factor 556.03 252 <.001 .073 .093 .777 .813 .646 854.094 3.583 4 uncorrelated factors 727.44 252 <.001 .269 .119 .740 .707 .563 1025.496 4.524 4 correlated factors 399.71 246 <.001 .062 .077 .841 .905 .704 735.022 2.790 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 402.23 248 <.001 .063 .077 .840 .905 .708 725.120 2.781 MS-G-4 1 factor 635.20 252 <.001 .071 .093 .754 .800 .648 931.109 4.202 4 uncorrelated factors 868.58 252 <.001 .308 .119 .698 .678 .551 1164.494 5.544 4 correlated factors 502.15 246 <.001 .069 .077 .803 .866 .687 835.049 3.507 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 506.03 248 <.001 .070 .077 .803 .865 .691 826.600 3.506 G-MS-6 1 factor 575.50 252 <.001 .077 .100 .709 .784 .617 856.773 5.246 4 uncorrelated factors 643.75 252 <.001 .313 .110 .696 .738 .581 925.020 5.779 4 correlated factors 388.43 246 <.001 .068 .067 .801 .905 .696 704.865 3.878 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 392.08 248 <.001 .068 .067 .799 .904 .700 696.789 3.876 MS-G-6 1 factor 601.49 252 <.001 .073 .105 .696 .812 .656 882.016 5.536 4 uncorrelated factors 782.32 252 <.001 .367 .129 .651 .715 .578 1062.845 6.971 4 correlated factors 458.29 246 <.001 .067 .083 .751 .886 .700 773.879 4.494 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 458.90 248 <.001 .067 .082 .752 .887 .705 762.803 4.468
109$$
Table 15.
Moment Specific PsyCap Scale: Fit indexes for each model and comparisons between models.
Model χ2 Df p SRMR RMSEA GFI CFI PNFI CAIC ECVI G-MS-4 1 factor 680.125 252 <.001 .067 .097 .732 .828 .689 977.917 4.288 4 uncorrelated factors 940.242 252 <.001 .361 .123 .696 .724 .603 1238.034 5.725 4 correlated factors 459.135 246 <.001 .058 .069 .826 .915 .744 794.151 3.133 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 460.714 248 <.001 .059 .069 .825 .915 .749 783.322 3.120 MS-G-4 1 factor 558.937 252 <.001 .067 .084 .776 .839 .680 854.847 3.764 4 uncorrelated factors 908.209 252 <.001 .322 .122 .695 .657 .534 1204.119 5.771 4 correlated factors 458.864 246 <.001 .063 .071 .821 .889 .704 791.762 3.258 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 467.100 248 <.001 .064 .071 .818 .885 .707 787.678 3.282 G-MS-6 1 factor 529.370 252 <.001 .071 .101 .691 .824 .666 864.161 5.304 4 uncorrelated factors 696.674 252 <.001 .338 .120 .684 .753 .610 996.510 6.338 4 correlated factors 398.336 246 <.001 .066 .066 .799 .927 .732 699.978 3.840 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 398.845 248 <.001 .066 .066 .798 .927 .738 690.069 3.823 MS-G-6 1 factor 529.370 246 <.001 .071 .093 .734 .824 .652 809.891 4.963 4 uncorrelated factors 696.674 248 <.001 .338 .118 .682 .718 .570 977.195 6.291 4 correlated factors 398.336 252 <.001 .066 .070 .797 .903 .700 713.922 4.019 4 first order factors, 1 second order factor 398.845 252 <.001 .066 .069 .797 .904 .705 702.742 3.991
110##
The fit statistics reported above show little difference in the fit of the Generalised
and Moment Specific scales. For both scales the fit statistics do not clearly
differentiate between models three and four. In both models the SRMR and RMSEA
fall below the .08 criteria (except for the Generalised PsyCap scale in the MS-G-6
condition). The CFI and PNFI also generally fall within the acceptable range.
However, the GFI failed to reach the .95 criteria in all assessments of the models,
and the significant χ2 in all cases indicates some problems with the fit.
In terms of differentiating between the model with four correlated factors and
the model in which these factors are linked by a higher order factor, the χ2 statistic is
consistently lower for the correlated factors model in all cases, suggesting this is a
better fit. However, this is contradicted by the CAIC and ECVI with are generally
lower for the higher order factor model, indicating that this is a better fit. In sum, it is
not possible to conclude that one model is a significantly better fit than the other, and
neither model can be considered a strong fit to the data. Consistent with the previous
study, subsequent analyses have been conducted using the higher order factor model.
Reliability
Internal consistency of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. Table 16
shows that the Generalised PsyCap resilience scale failed to reach the criterion (α >
.70) in the MS-G-4 condition on two occasions. Given the number of analyses this is
not considered problematic as you would expect some to fail to reach appropriate
levels by chance. All other scales reached acceptable levels of reliability on all
occasions.
111##
Table 16.
Cronbach’s alpha for each PsyCap component and the full Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap scales at each testing point, for each condition separately.
Self-efficacy Hope Resilience Optimism PsyCap G-MS-4 Generalised Time 1 .814 .825 .732 .798 .918 Time 2 .872 .907 .771 .875 .948 Time 3 .883 .880 .663 .809 .939 Moment Specific Time 1 .870 .872 .796 .869 .919 Time 2 .922 .922 .799 .868 .957 Time 3 .923 .929 .818 .850 .961 MS-G-4 Generalised Time 1 .865 .847 .710 .779 .931 Time 2 .853 .870 .675 .780 .928 Time 3 .856 .881 .696 .810 .936 Moment Specific Time 1 .839 .869 .739 .775 .934 Time 2 .808 .877 .779 .808 .936 Time 3 .846 .891 .716 .837 .944 G-MS-6 Generalised Time 1 .841 .861 .738 .881 .934 Time 2 .880 .921 .821 .875 .952 Time 3 .909 .927 .789 .877 .958 Moment Specific Time 1 .892 .918 .788 .864 .950 Time 2 .916 .934 .775 .896 .958 Time 3 .935 .944 .834 .874 .966 MS-G-6 Generalised Time 1 .870 .905 .785 .855 .947 Time 2 .863 .916 .743 .829 .934 Time 3 .882 .912 .811 .805 .939 Moment Specific Time 1 .861 .897 .776 .818 .942 Time 2 .851 .912 .807 .832 .949 Time 3 .886 .926 .723 .828 .947
Stability of Generalised PsyCap. The test-retest reliabilities of the
Generalised PsyCap scale for each condition are shown in table 17. The table shows
112##
that the Generalised PsyCap scores all reached the criteria of being above .70 in the
conditions where it was presented before the Moment Specific PsyCap scale. In the
conditions where it was presented after the Moment Specific Scale, the test-retest
reliabilities fell below .70 in half of the test-retest reliabilities reported.
The repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant differences in the
means of the Generalised PsyCap scales over the three assessment periods in all four
conditions. For the G-MS-4 condition, F(2, 134) = 2.45, p= .090, for the MS-G-4
condition, F(2, 184) = .864, p= .423, for the G-MS-6 condition, F(2, 142) = .333, p=
.717 and for the MS-G-6 condition, F(2, 110) = .890, p= .414. Mauchly’s test
showed that there was also homogeneity of variance in all conditions.
Stability of Moment Specific PsyCap. The test-retest reliabilities for the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale are reported in Table 18. This table shows that all
test-retest reliabilities were above .50 and therefore did not meet the criteria for being
considered a state scale. However by visual inspection, the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale fell closer to the criteria when it was administered before, rather than after the
Generalised PsyCap scale. When it was presented before the Generalised scale, the
range of test-retest reliabilities was from .557- .816. The test-retest reliabilities
ranged from .672- .756 when it was presented after the Generalised scale.
The repeated measures ANOVAs were then conducted to examine whether
changes in the mean levels of the Moment Specific PsyCap scales had occurred over
time. Mauchly’s test revealed that the sphericity assumption had been violated in the
MS-G-4 and MS-G-6 condition, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used for
these conditions. Results showed that there were no significant changes in mean
Moment Specific PsyCap scores for the G-MS-4 (F(2, 118)= .587, p = .558),#MS-G-
113##
4 (F(1.59, 151.08)= 1.319, p= .270), or MS-G-6 (F(1.531, 85.76)= 1.005, p = .352)
conditions. There was however a significant mean change in the G-MS-6 condition,
F(2, 138)= 4.937, p= .008. Post-hoc comparisons with LSD correction revealed that
there were significant differences between Moment Specific PsyCap measured at
time one compared to at times two and three. As previously indicated, Mauchly’s test
indicated that there was differences in the variances of the Moment Specific PsyCap
scales in the MS-G-4 and MS-G-6 conditions. There was homogeneity of variance
for this scale in the G-MS-4 and G-MS-6 conditions.
114##
Table 17.
Test-retest reliabilities of the Generalised PsyCap scale for each condition.
G-MS-4 MS-G-4 G-MS-6 MS-G-6
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. Generalised PsyCap Time 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2. Generalised PsyCap Time 2 .772** 1.0 .741** 1.0 .812** 1.0 .753** 1.0
3. Generalised PsyCap Time 3 .723** .844** 1.0 .691** .762** 1.0 .823** .857** 1.0 .654** .653** 1.0
* p < .05, ** p < .01
Table 18.
Test-retest reliabilities of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale for each condition.
G-MS-4 MS-G-4 G-MS-6 MS-G-6
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. Moment Specific PsyCap Time 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2. Moment Specific PsyCap Time 2 .703** 1.0 .812** 1.0 .756** 1.0 .816** 1.0
3. Moment Specific PsyCap Time 3 .677** .714** 1.0 .574** .568** 1.0 .729** .672** 1.0 .557** .591** 1.0
* p < .05, ** p < .01
115##
Effect of rating scale and order of presentation upon the test-retest
reliabilities of the scales. The mean test re-test reliabilities for each condition are
shown in table 19.
Table 19.
Mean test-retest reliabilities of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale for each
condition.
Generalised PsyCap Moment Specific PsyCap
G-MS-4 .785 .864
MS-G-4 .733 .669
G-MS-6 .832 .721
MS-G-6 .690 .674
Comparison of the test-retest reliability estimates revealed a consistent
pattern of presentation order for each of the two scales, irrespective of the number of
response options. Specifically, when the Generalised PsyCap scale was presented
first, its test-retest reliability was higher than when it was presented after the Moment
Specific scale (mean r= .785 vs .733 for the four point response scale and mean r=
.832 vs .690 for the six point scale). Conversely, when the Moment Specific scale
was presented first, its test-retest reliability was lower than when it was presented
after the Generalised scale (mean r= .669 vs .864 for the four point response scale
and mean r= .674 vs .721 for the six point scale).
As the above comparison indicated that the order of the presentation of the
scales effects their test-retest reliability, the test-retest reliability of the four versus
six point response scale was compared using only the times when the scale was
116##
presented first and therefore unaffected by the previous scale. The test-retest
reliability of the Generalised PsyCap scale was higher with a six rather than four
point response scale (r= .832 vs .785). The test-retest reliability of the Moment
Specific scale was marginally higher with a six rather than four point response scale
(r= .674 vs .669).
Relative stability of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap.
Within conditions. To assess whether the test-retest reliabilities of the
Generalised PsyCap scale were significantly higher than those of the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale the test-retest reliabilities for each scale within the same
condition were compared. There were three comparisons of the test-retest reliabilities
of the two scales for each condition, resulting in a total of twelve comparisons being
made. The Pearson-Filon test with the Steiger (1980) modification showed that there
were no significant differences in the test-retest reliabilities of the scales on nine of
the 12 comparisons. There were no differences in the test-retest reliabilities of the
scales between times one and two or one and three. However, the test-retest
reliability of the Generalised PsyCap scale between times two and three was
significantly higher than the test-retest reliability of the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale between times two and three in the MS-G-4 (z= 3.47, p < .01), G-MS-6 (z=
4.64, p < .01) and G-MS-4 conditions (z= 2.97, p < .01).
Between conditions. As previous analyses showed that the order of
presentation of the Generalised versus Moment Specific PsyCap scales affected their
test-retest reliability, a between conditions analysis was conducted to allow
comparison of the test-retest reliabilities of the two scales when they were the first
presented scale and therefore not affected by the previous scale. This was conducted
117##
for the conditions with a six point rating scale only as the time intervals between
testing periods were not the same in the two conditions with a four point rating scale.
Therefore the test-retest reliabilities of the Generalised PsyCap scale in the G-MS-6
condition were compared to the test-retest reliabilities of the Moment Specific
PsyCap scale in the MS-G-6 condition. The results showed that the test-retest
reliabilities between times one and two did not significantly differ but the test-retest
reliabilities of the Generalised PsyCap scale between times one and three and times
two and three were significantly higher than those of the Moment Specific scale.
Summary of reliability results. An important finding of the stability analyses
is that the stability of the scales is affected by its order of presentation. The test-retest
reliability of the Generalised scale is higher when it is presented before the Moment
Specific scale and the test-retest reliability of the Moment Specific scale is lower
when it is presented after the Generalised scale. This finding indicates that there are
strong order effects which cause responses to the second scale completed to be
consistent with those of the first. As such, it is most appropriate to examine the
reliability of each scale when it is the first presented and therefore not influenced by
responses to the previous scale.
Taking the two conditions in which the Generalised scale was presented first,
results show that the scale meets the criteria for being classified as a trait scale. The
test-retest reliabilities were all above .70, there was no significant differences in the
means across testing periods and there was homogeneity of variance. In addition, the
test-retest reliability of the Generalised scale was higher than that of the Moment
Specific scale when the interval between testing was greater than two weeks.
118##
When the Moment Specific scale was presented first, the scale still exhibited
more stability over time than expected. The scales did not meet the criteria of its test-
retest reliability falling below .50. In addition, there was no significant difference in
the means across testing periods. However, the test-retest reliabilities were
significantly lower than the comparable test-retest reliabilities of the Generalised
scale when the testing interval was greater than two weeks and there was
heterogeneity of variance in the scale. These factors point towards responses to the
Moment Specific scale varying somewhat over time, but varying less than they were
hypothesised to.
Validity
Concurrent validity. As hypothesised, both the Generalised and Moment
Specific PsyCap scales showed strong relationships with the outcome variables of
job satisfaction, affective educational commitment and self-rated performance when
measured at time matched periods. Table 20 shows the correlations between the two
PsyCap scales and the outcomes variables at time matched periods.
119##
Table 20.
Correlation coefficients for Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap with Job
Satisfaction, Affective Educational Commitment and Performance measured at
corresponding time points (ie. across the top row the first cell shows the correlation
between satisfaction and Generalised PsyCap both measured at time one, the second
cell shows the correlation between satisfaction and Generalised PsyCap both
measured at time two etc).
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 G-MS-4 Generalised PsyCap Satisfaction .485** .608** .573** Commitment .346** .358** .359** Performance .534** .596** .380** Moment Specific PsyCap Satisfaction .571** .606** .566** Commitment .399** .353** .317** Performance .584** .564** .443** MS-G-4 Generalised PsyCap Satisfaction .519** .552** .561** Commitment .317** .387** .333** Performance .428** .451** .452** Moment Specific PsyCap Satisfaction .492** .514** .593** Commitment .328** .312** .358** Performance .519** .601** .577** MS-G-6 Generalised PsyCap Satisfaction .531** .639** .504** Commitment .433** .470** .453** Performance .547** .480** .546** Moment Specific PsyCap Satisfaction .450** .611** .463** Commitment .415** .407** .268* Performance .521** .585** .594** G-MS-6 Generalised PsyCap Satisfaction .464** .606** .659** Commitment .382** .381** .451** Performance .351** .539** .655** Moment Specific PsyCap Satisfaction .465** .595** .600** Commitment .427** .413** .449** Performance .465** .664** .681**
120##
However, the hypothesis that the Moment Specific PsyCap scale would be
more strongly correlated to these outcomes measures was not strongly supported.
This hypothesis was tested by comparing the relevant correlation coefficients (eg.
comparing the correlation between Generalised PsyCap at time two and satisfaction
at time two with the correlation between Moment Specific PsyCap at time two and
satisfaction at time two) using the method outlined by Meng and colleagues (Meng et
al., 1992).
In terms of the two PsyCap scales’ relationships with time matched
satisfaction, results showed one time in which the Moment Specific PsyCap scale
was more highly correlated with satisfaction than the Generalised scale. This was at
time one in the G-MS-4 condition where the correlation between Moment Specific
PsyCap and satisfaction (r= .571) was higher than the correlation between
Generalised PsyCap and satisfaction (r= .485, z= 2.64, p< .01).
Results were similar for the time matched correlations between the PsyCap
scales and commitment. There were no significant differences in the correlations
between Moment Specific or Generalised PsyCap and time matched commitment
with the exception of one instance in the MS-G-6 condition. This was at time three,
where the correlation between Generalised PsyCap at time three and commitment at
time three (r= .453) was higher (rather than lower as hypothesised) than the
correlation between Moment Specific PsyCap at time three and commitment at time
three (r= .268, z= 2.53, p < .05).
The correlations between Moment Specific PsyCap and time matched
performance were generally higher than the correlations between Generalised
PsyCap and time matched performance. This correlation was compared a total of 12
121##
times (three times in each condition), with the finding that Moment Specific PsyCap
was more highly correlated with time matched performance than Generalised PsyCap
was in six of the 12 analyses. These 12 analyses are presented in table 21.
122##
Table 21.
Correlation coefficients for Moment Specific PsyCap with time matched
performance, Generalised PsyCap with time matched performance, and a test of the
differences between the two correlations.
Correlation between Generalised PsyCap and performance at time matched periods.
Correlation between Moment Specific PsyCap and performance at time matched periods.
Difference between the correlation coefficients
G-MS-4
Time 1 .534 .584 z =1.57, p > .05
Time 2 .596 .564 z =0.91, p > .05
Time 3 .380 .443 z =1.51, p > .05
MS-G-4
Time 1 .428 .519 z = 2.34, p < .05
Time 2 .451 .601 z = 3.30, p < .01
Time 3 .452 .577 z = 2.26, p < .05
MS-G-6
Time 1 .547 .521 z =0.593, p > .05
Time 2 .480 .585 z = 2.17, p < .05
Time 3 .546 .594 z =0.759, p > .05
G-MS-6
Time 1 .351 .465 z = 2.69, p < .01
Time 2 .539 .664 z = 2.92, p < .01
Time 3 .655 .681 z = 0.820, p > .05
123##
Predictive validity of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. The
correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap measured at time
one, with the outcome measures of job satisfaction, affective educational
commitment and self-rated performance at each testing period are shown in tables
22, 23 and 24. These tables show that both the Generalised and Moment Specific
PsyCap scales were moderately to strongly correlated with each of the outcome
measures.
The hypothesis that Generalised PsyCap at time one would be more strongly
correlated with the future outcome measures than Moment Specific PsyCap at time
one was correlated with the same outcome measures was tested using the method
proposed by Dunn and Clark (1969, 1971), as outlined by Meng, Rosenthal and
Rubin (1992). Six pairs of correlation coefficients were compared for each condition
(Generalised vs Moment Specific PsyCap at time 1 correlated with job satisfaction at
time 2, Generalised vs Moment Specific PsyCap at time 1 correlated with job
satisfaction at time 3, Generalised vs Moment Specific PsyCap at time 1 correlated
with affective commitment at time 2, Generalised vs Moment Specific PsyCap at
time 1 correlated with affective commitment at time 3, Generalised vs Moment
Specific PsyCap at time 1 correlated with performance at time 2 and Generalised vs
Moment Specific PsyCap at time 1 correlated with performance at time 3), resulting
in a total of 24 comparisons being made. Across these analyses there was only one
difference found; in the MS-G-4 condition the correlation between Generalised
PsyCap at time one and performance at time two (r= .386) was significantly lower
than the correlation between Moment Specific PsyCap at time one and performance
at time two (r= .492, z= 2.39, p< .01). Given the large number of correlations, this
effect can perhaps be ignored and attributed to chance and it can be concluded that
124##
Generalised PsyCap at time one was not more highly correlated with the outcome
measures at times two and three than Moment Specific PsyCap at time one was
correlated with the same outcome measures.
The unique variance that Generalised PsyCap could account for in predicting
job satisfaction, affective commitment and self-rated performance when
Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core Self-Evaluations were also included in the
model was examined using hierarchical regression analyses. A total of six analyses
were run for each of the study conditions. These were with job satisfaction at times
two and three, affective educational commitment at times two and three and self-
rated university performance at times two and three as the dependent variables. The
results for these analyses are shown in tables 25 and 26. Results show that
Generalised PsyCap was able to add significantly to the prediction of Job
Satisfaction in three of the four comparisons in which it was completed before the
Moment Specific scale (in the G-MS-4 and G-MS-6 conditions), but only in one of
the four comparisons in which it was completed after the Moment Specific scale (in
the MS-G-4 and MS-G-6 conditions). The regression analyses with affective
educational commitment as the dependent variable show that Generalised PsyCap
was generally not a strong predictor of commitment, only adding significant variance
to the prediction once across all conditions. This was at time three, in the G-MS-4
condition. Finally, the Generalised PsyCap scale added to the prediction of
performance in three of the four comparisons in which it was completed first, but
none of the comparisons in which it was completed second.
As a summary, these results tend to support the hypothesis that Generalised
PsyCap would be able to account for unique variance in job satisfaction and
performance when the Big Five personality dimensions and core-self evaluations
125##
were taken into account, but, with the caveat that the hypothesis was only supported
in instances in which the Generalised scale was completed before the Moment
Specific scale and therefore unaffected by order effects. However, the hypothesis that
Generalised PsyCap would account for unique variance in affective commitment was
not supported. In addition, it must be noted that the strength of these findings in
limited by low internal reliability of the scales used to measure the Big Five
personality dimensions.
126##
Table 22.
Correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) and
job satisfaction. For each cell of the table correlation coefficients for the G-MS-4
condition (bold), MS-G-4 condition (plain text) G-MS-6 condition (bold), and then
the MS-G-6 condition (plain text) are shown when read from top to bottom.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Generalised PsyCap –Time 1 1.0
2. Moment Specific PsyCap-Time 1 .870** .837** .853** .841**
1.0
3. Satisfaction- Time 1 .485** .519** .464** .531**
.571**
.492**
.465**
.450**
1.0
4. Satisfaction- Time 2 .519** .445** .441** .532**
.496**
.447**
.405**
.494**
.662**
.769**
.746**
.773**
1.0
5. Satisfaction- Time 3 .554** .465** .508** .499**
.548**
.451**
.477**
.500**
.633**
.672**
.680**
.632**
.741**
.619**
.690**
.658**
1.0
* p < .05
** p < .01
127##
Table 23.
Correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) and
affective educational commitment. For each cell of the table correlation coefficients
for the G-MS-4 condition (bold), MS-G-4 condition (plain text) G-MS-6 condition
(bold), and then the MS-G-6 condition (plain text) are shown when read from top to
bottom.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Generalised PsyCap –Time 1 1.0
2. Moment Specific PsyCap-Time 1 .870** .837** .853** .841**
1.0
3. Commitment- Time 1 .346** .317** .382** .433**
.399**
.328**
.427**
.415**
1.0
4. Commitment- Time 2 .294** .280** .317** .352**
.359**
.315**
.384**
.384**
.793**
.828**
.837**
.866**
1.0
5. Commitment- Time 3 .247 .218** .345** .357**
.333*
.259**
.429**
.416**
.779**
.820**
.749**
.853**
.832**
.865**
.821**
.808**
1.0
* p < .05
** p < .01
128##
Table 24.
Correlations between Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) and
self-rated performance. For each cell of the table correlation coefficients for the G-
MS-4 condition (bold), MS-G-4 condition (plain text) G-MS-6 condition (bold), and
then the MS-G-6 condition (plain text) are shown when read from top to bottom.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Generalised PsyCap –Time 1 1.0
2. Moment Specific PsyCap-Time 1 .870** .837** .853** .841**
1.0
3. Performance- Time 1 .534** .428** .351** .547**
.584**
.519**
.465**
.521**
1.0
4. Performance- Time 2 .483** .386** .431** .357**
.517**
.492**
.446**
.425**
.572**
.657**
.542**
.488**
1.0
5. Performance- Time 3 .297** .227** .578** .305**
.309**
.262**
.517**
.345**
.409**
.448**
.554**
.496**
.604**
.536**
.627**
.429**
1.0
* p < .05
** p < .01
129##
Table 25.
Coefficient of determination and change in coefficient of determination for Block
One (Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core Self-Evaluations), and Block Two
(addition of Generalised PsyCap at time 1) regressed onto job satisfaction, affective
commitment and performance.
Job Satisfaction Affective Commitment Performance
Time 2 Time 3 Time 2 Time 3 Time 2 Time 3
R² ∆R² R² ∆R² R² ∆R² R² ∆R² R² ∆R² R² ∆R²
G-MS-4
Block 1 .258 .261 .130 .037 .294 .075
Block 2 .314 .056** .352 .091** .143 .013 .131 .093** .324 .031* .122 .047*
MS-G-4
Block 1 .216 .261 .076 .135 .197 .117
Block 2 .253 .037* .271 .010 .088 .012 .138 .002 .216 .019 .117 .000
G-MS-6
Block 1 .299 .380 .160 .259 .230 .287
Block 2 .304 .005 .421 .041* .177 .017 .289 .030 .251 .021 .387 .009*
MS-G-6
Block 1 .367 .289 .201 .224 .242 .164
Block 2 .387 .020 .310 .020 .213 .013 .226 .002 .243 .002 .165 .001
* p < .05
** p < .01
130##
Table 26.
Beta weights for Big Five Personality Traits, Core Self-evaluations and Generalised
PsyCap at time 1 regressed onto job satisfaction, affective commitment and
performance.
G-MS-4 MS-G-4 G-MS-6 MS-G-6
Time 2 β
Time 3 Β
Time 2 β
Time 3 β
Time 2 Β
Time 3 β
Time 2 β
Time 3 β
Job Satisfaction Conscientiousness .095 .110 .196* .070 .076 .291** .162 .129 Extraversion .093 .101 .130 -.008 .116 .041 -.022 -.117 Core self-evaluations .183 .159 .091 .383** .399** .272* .381** .360* Generalised PsyCap- Time 1
.333** .395** .263* .146 .101 .274* .200 .206
Affective Commitment Conscientiousness .008 -.100 .019 .104 .259* .408** .202 .208 Extraversion .232* .117 .089 .280* .205* .057 .241* .073 Core self-evaluations .093 -.122 .113 .051 -.028 .034 .038 .263 Generalised PsyCap- Time 1
.159 .401** .148 .069 .188 .234 .161 .071
Performance Conscientiousness .202* .086 .252** .258* .180 .110 .277* .144 Extraversion .157 .185 -.012 .086 .081 .020 .075 -.104 Core self-evaluations .172 -.079 .160 .135 .200 .217 .229 .348 Generalised PsyCap- Time 1
.246* .284* .186 -.020 .206 .421** .057 .019
* p < .05, ** p < .01
131##
Convergent and discriminant validity. Having found that order of
presentation affected test reliabilities, it was also necessary to address whether the
validities were affected. The correlations between the PsyCap scales at time one, and
age, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Core-Self Evaluations are
shown in Table 27. There were small relationships between PsyCap and age, medium
correlations between PsyCap and Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientiousness
and large correlations between PsyCap and Core Self-Evaluations. Correlation
coefficients between variables did not vary greatly between conditions. These
correlation coefficients in Table 27 are generally within the ranges reported by
Luthans et al. and in chapter three, indicating that the convergent and discriminant
validity of the scales was not impacted by their order of presentation or their
response scale.
The correlations corrected for attenuation reported in Table 28 are somewhat
higher. These correlations coefficients must also be interpreted with caution
however, as low reliability of scales (as in the current study) can result in inflated
correlations (Sechrest, 1984).
132##
Table 27.
Correlations of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) with other
variables (correlations are not corrected for attenuation). For each cell of the table
correlation coefficients for the G-MS-4 condition (bold), MS-G-4 condition (plain
text) G-MS-6 condition (bold), and then the MS-G-6 condition (plain text) are shown
when read from top to bottom.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean (SD)
1. Generalised PsyCap
1.0 2.80 (0.45) 2.88 (0.46) 4.24 (0.64) 4.09 (0.70)
2. Moment Specific PsyCap
.870**
.837**
.853**
.841**
1.0 2.89 (0.53) 2.87 (0.46) 4.21 (0.72) 3.98 (0.70)
3. Age .223 .209 .043 .304**
.161
.147
.072
.164
1.0 21.33 (4.01) 20.43 (2.43) 21.07 (4.19) 21.36 (4.53)
4. Extraversion .293** .406** .340** .292**
.259**
.346**
.253**
.239**
-.040 .016 .044 -.015
1.0
4.34 (1.37) 4.44 (1.44) 4.59 (1.40) 4.30 (1.40)
5. Conscientious .329** .204** .248** .451**
.375**
.236**
.330**
.455**
.050
.115
.155
.154
-.006 .120 -.064 .157
1.0 4.95 (1.39) 4.99 (1.26) 4.91 (1.33) 5.08 (1.23)
6. Neuroticism -.384** -.412** -.448** -.399**
-.346** -.417** -.339** -.325**
-.088 -.028 -.144 -.116
-.166* -.208** -.246** -.265**
-.255 -.146 -.231** -.222*
1.0 8.78 (2.80) 9.03 (2.79) 9.12 (2.57) 9.57 (2.82)
7..Core self-evaluations
.661**
.654**
.658**
.663**
.682**
.631**
.595**
.629**
.015
.090
.067
.293**
.268**
.405**
.258**
.387**
.417**
.246**
.375**
.397**
.533
.489**
.562**
.530**
1.0 3.46 (0.57) 3.54 (0.53) 3.59 (0.59) 3.51 (0.60)
* p < .05
** p < .01
133##
Table 28.
Correlations of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap (at time one) with other
variables. Correlations are corrected for attenuation. For each cell of the table
correlation coefficients for the G-MS-4 condition (bold), MS-G-4 condition (plain
text) G-MS-6 condition (bold), and then the MS-G-6 condition (plain text) are shown
when read from top to bottom.
Generalised PsyCap
Moment Specific PsyCap
Extraversion .363
.502
.410
.354
.316
.429
.302
.289
Conscientiousness .440
.253
.322
.645
.494
.293
.425
.650
Neuroticism -.493
-.526
-.571
-.505
-.444
-.531
-.428
-.412
Core Self-evaluations
.744
.718
.735
.754
.757
.695
.659
.714
Discussion
Order effects. The key finding of this study is the stability assessments of the
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales which show that the order in which
134##
the scales are presented (relative to each other) influences their stability. A
comparison of the mean test-retest correlations of the scales for each condition
separately reveals that the Generalised PsyCap scale is more stable when presented
before rather than after the Moment Specific PsyCap scale. By contrast, the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale is more variable when presented before, rather than after the
Generalised PsyCap scale. This difference arose with both the four and six point
response scales. This finding suggests that responses to the second of the two scales
to be presented are likely affected by the consistency motif. That is, participants
simply respond to the two scales in a similar manner, thus the stability of the second
scale to be presented is similar to the stability of the first. The result is that the
Generalised PsyCap scales varies more when presented after the Moment Specific
scale and the Moment Specific scale is more stable when presented after the
Generalised Scale.
There were two mechanisms by which order effects were posited to arise.
These were the consistency motif and context induced mood. Context induced mood
effects would occur when answering items presented earlier in a survey changed the
participants’ moods, and therefore changed their responses to later items in a scale.
Context induced mood is likely to have a stronger effect when the Generalised
PsyCap scale was presented first rather than when the Moment Specific scale was
presented first, due to moment specific states being more variable and open to
manipulation than generalised traits. If a respondent was in an unusual PsyCap state
(ie. unlike their usual PsyCap trait level) when starting a survey, recalling how they
usually feel could easily alter how they feel at that specific moment in time. By
contrast, highlighting the participant’s current mood state to them should not change
the way that they ‘generally feel’. The results of the current experiment, in which
135##
presenting the Moment Specific PsyCap scale first resulted in more variability in the
Generalised PsyCap scale therefore points towards the order effects being caused by
the consistency motif rather than context induced mood.
Additional evidence for the consistency motif affecting responses to the scale
presented secondly can be drawn from the high correlations between the Generalised
and Moment Specific PsyCap scales at each testing period. The correlations between
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap measured at the same point in time ranged
from .778 to .929, indicating a high level of consistency in responding to the two
scales.
Given these findings it is recommended that if the two scales are used in a
single study, only one of the scales should be completed in a single testing session,
or minimally other scales or filler tasks should be completed between the two scales.
Internal Consistency of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales.
In the current study the resilience scale did not always meet acceptable levels of
reliability when administered with a four point scale, but all component scales and
the full PsyCap scales reached acceptable levels of reliability when administered
with a six point scale. This finding is in line with previous research which has shown
that the internal reliability of a scale improves with an increased response scale
(Lissitz & Green, 1975; Lozano et al., 2008). It therefore appears advisable to use the
six rather than four point response scale for the Generalised and Moment Specific
PsyCap scales in order to consistently achieve acceptable levels of internal
reliability.
Stability of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap. In the conditions in
which it was presented first, the Generalised PsyCap scale met all the criteria for
136##
being classified as a trait. This indicates that contrary to the previous research which
has conceptualised PsyCap as being a ‘state-like’ construct, it is possible to measure
a trait component to PsyCap when the scale items and response scale are constructed
in a manner appropriate for doing so.
Surprisingly, the Moment Specific PsyCap scale had higher test-retest
reliabilities than that reported for the PCQ-24 by Luthans, Avolio et al. (Luthans,
Avolio, et al., 2007), even in the conditions in which it was presented before the
Generalised PsyCap scale. The authors reported that the PCQ-24 had a test-retest
reliability of .52 over a two week period. In the current study, the interval between
testing periods one and two was two weeks. In the two conditions in which the
Moment Specific scale was presented first its test-retest reliabilities were .812 and
.816 for the conditions with a four and six point rating scale respectively. However,
over longer testing intervals the test-retest correlations (which ranged from .557-
.591) were relatively similar to the .52 of the PCQ-24. Thus, although the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale did not meet the current study’s criteria for a state scale,
participant’s responses to the scale did exhibit more change over time than responses
to the Generalised PsyCap scale.
Further support for the responses to the Generalised PsyCap scale showing
more stability over time than the responses to the Moment Specific scale can be
drawn from the comparisons of the test-retest reliability of the scales when they were
the first presented. This comparison was made only for the conditions with a six
point rating scale, as the four point rating scale conditions were not run with identical
test intervals. These results showed that when the testing interval was greater than
two weeks, the test-retest reliability of the Generalised scale was significantly higher
than that of the Moment Specific scale.
137##
Concurrent validity of Moment Specific PsyCap. The PCQ-24 has been
shown to relate to job satisfaction, performance and affective organisational
commitment (Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Luthans et al.,
2005). Thus, the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales were also
predicted to be related to these outcomes. Correlation analyses supported this
hypothesis, showing strong to moderate correlations between both PsyCap scales and
satisfaction, affective commitment and self-rated performance measured at the same
time period.
The correlations between PsyCap and performance and satisfaction appear to
be a little higher than the correlations between Moment Specific PsyCap and
affective educational commitment. This finding reflects the higher stability of
affective organisational commitment compared to satisfaction and performance. The
mean test-retest correlation for affective educational commitment in the current study
was .833, compared to the .694 mean test-retest correlation of job satisfaction and
.541 for the self-rated performance scale. The more variable outcome measures are
more likely to be altered by changes in PsyCap states, which is reflected in their
higher correlations with the Moment Specific scale.
Predictive validity of Generalised PsyCap. Given its predicted stability over
time, it was hypothesised that Generalised PsyCap would be able to predict future
levels of job satisfaction, affective commitment and performance. Results supported
this hypothesis, showing moderate to strong relationships between Generalised
PsyCap at time one and future measures of job satisfaction and self-rated
performance. The correlations between Generalised PsyCap at time one and future
measures of affective educational commitment were moderate in magnitude.
138##
Next, to examine the strength of Generalised PsyCap as a predictor of the
outcomes of job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and self-rated
performance when the Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Core Self-Evaluations
were also taken into account, regression analyses were conducted. Results when the
Generalised PsyCap scale was presented first and responses therefore not effected by
previous responses to the Moment Specific scale are the most relevant to consider.
These analyses with job satisfaction as the dependent variable showed that the
addition of Generalised PsyCap to the model already including Conscientiousness,
Extraversion and Core Self-Evaluations significantly improved the model in three of
the four analyses. Generalised PsyCap was the strongest predictor of job satisfaction
in two of the analyses, but only the second or third strongest predictor in the other
two analyses.
Similarly, three of the four analyses with performance as the dependent variable
showed that the addition of Generalised PsyCap significantly improved the model.
These analyses additionally showed PsyCap to be the strongest predictor of
performance in all four analyses.
The addition of Generalised PsyCap only improved the predictive power of the
model in one of the four analyses run with affective educational commitment as the
dependent variable. Findings regarding the strongest predictors of commitment were
inconsistent, with results showing Conscientiousness to be the strongest predictor in
two of the analyses. Extraversion and Generalised PsyCap were the strongest
predictor in one of the remaining two analyses each.
Together these findings show some positive evidence that Generalised PsyCap
can predict future positive organisational outcomes, although the findings are a little
inconsistent. These inconsistent findings may reflect the unreliability of the TIPI
139##
scales, rather than a true indication of the relative ability of the two scales to predict
future affective commitment. In order to gain a stronger understanding of the ability
of Generalised PsyCap to predict job satisfaction, affective commitment and
performance, the final study reported in this thesis used a more reliable measure of
the Big Five personality domains, the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
In addition, thus far the studies reported have included only self-rated
performance as a performance indicator. This is likely to inflate the correlation
between the PsyCap scales and performance as it stands to reason that someone
higher in PsyCap, and particularly the constructs of self-efficacy and optimism are
more likely to rate their performance as being higher than someone lower in these
personality traits. Therefore, the final study included a supervisor rating of
performance rather than relying on self-ratings.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Generalised and Moment
Specific PsyCap. Convergent and discriminant validity of the scales was determined
by examining their relationships with age, the Big-Five personality dimensions
measured by the TIPI and with Core Self-Evaluations. These were the same scales
for which Luthans, Avolio et al. (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007) tested the validity of
the PCQ-24. It was hypothesised in the current study that the relationships of the
Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales with these variables would be
unchanged from those reported for the PCQ-24 and the variables. This hypothesis
was supported, indicating that the changes to the PCQ-24 which were made to create
the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales did not change the construct
being measured by the scales. While the previous study found a small, positive
correlation between age and PsyCap, the results of this study (in which no significant
140##
relationships were found) support the assertion in the previous study that this may
have been by chance.
In both the current study and the study conducted by Luthans, Avolio et al.,
the internal reliability of the Big-Five personality dimensions was low, indicating
that these findings must be interpreted with caution. In the current study the
correlations between the Big-Five personality dimensions and the PsyCap scales
were corrected for attenuation. The corrected correlations were not used in the
comparison of the current study’s reported correlations with Luthans, Avolio et al.’s
study, because Luthans, Avolio et al. also reported low internal reliability but did not
correct for it. However, the corrected correlations revealed that the correlation
between Neuroticism and PsyCap was somewhat higher than that reported by
Luthans, Avolio et al.. They found only a small between PsyCap and Neuroticism (r=
-.12), wheras the results of the current study indicate that a moderate to strong
relationship exists (-.253 ≤ r ≤ -.650). Although in conflict with the research reported
by Luthans et al. using the PCQ-24, this relationship is not surprising, as it makes
theoretical sense that someone high in PsyCap may experience greater emotional
stability (the opposite of Neuroticism). In addition previous research has shown
moderate relationships between the PsyCap components of optimism (r= -.50,
(Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994)), resilience (r= -.71, (Furnham, Crump, &
Whelan, 1997)) and generalised self-efficacy (r= -.54, (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998)).
This research suggests that the relationship between PsyCap and Neuroticism may be
higher than that reported by Luthans et al., however, further research using more
reliable personality scales must be conducted before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Factor structure of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales.
Similarly to the previous study reported in chapter three, the confirmatory factor
141##
analyses in the current study found little differentiation between the model with four
correlated factors model and the higher order factor model, but did find that these
two models provided a superior fit than the single factor model, and four
uncorrelated factors models. The GFI and chi square fit statistics indicate neither the
higher order PsyCap model or the four correlated factors model is not a perfect fit for
the data. However, the analysis did show that the fit of the Moment Specific and
Generalised PsyCap scales to the higher order PsyCap model are similar to that
reported to be the best fitting model to the PCQ-24 by Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007),
and that found in chapter three. Thus, similarly to chapter three, these results show
that the changes that were made to the PCQ-24 to create the Generalised and
Moment Specific PsyCap scales did not significantly alter its factor structure.
Additionally, fit statistics in the current study were similar for all four
conditions in the present study, indicating that altering the order of presentation of
the Generalised relative to the Moment Specific PsyCap scales, or the rating scales
(from a four to six point scale) does not significantly alter its factor structure.
Conclusions. A key finding of this study is that strong order effects arise when
the Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap scales are presented one after the
other. Respondents in this study have demonstrated a tendency to respond to the two
scales in a consistent manner, resulting in increased stability of the Moment Specific
PsyCap scale when it is presented after the Generalised scale, and increased
variability in the Generalised PsyCap scale when presented after the Moment
Specific scale. When the scales are assessed with the absence of order effects (ie.
when presented first), the Generalised PsyCap scale met the criteria for a trait scale.
These were test-retest reliability > .70, invariance of means across testing periods,
and homogeneity of variance across testing periods. The criteria set for a scale to be
142##
defined as a pure state was a test-retest reliability less than .50. The Moment Specific
PsyCap scale did not meet this criteria, but fell close to in when the testing intervals
were greater than two weeks.
Another consideration in the current study was the use of a four or a six point
rating scale. Results showed little differentiation in the test-retest reliability or other
stability assessments of the two PsyCap scales, but, in line with previous research,
the six-point response format showed increased internal reliability.
The Generalised PsyCap scale demonstrated some abilities to predict the future
positive outcomes of job satisfaction, affective commitment and self-rated
performance. However, it is difficult to make strong conclusions about the ability of
Generalised PsyCap to predict these outcomes due to two limitations already
discussed; the reliability problems in the TIPI, and the use of self-rated performance
measures. The final study in this thesis addresses these key issues, through the use of
a more reliable measure of the personality traits measure and supervisor performance
ratings.
143##
CHAPTER FIVE: VALIDITY OF GENERALISED PSYCAP AS AN
EMPLOYEE SELECTION TOOL
This study aimed to assess the utility of the Generalised PsyCap scale as an
employee selection tool. The previous studies reported in this thesis have examined
the predictive validity of the scale, but have each had different limitations which
mean that clear conclusions about the selection validity of the scale cannot be made.
The limitations of the study described in chapter three which a sample of employees
from a not-for-profit organisation were;
• It was conducted over a relatively short period of time (2 months).
• The participants in the study were existing employees of the organisation
rather than new recruits. This means that the study did not cover the
period in which new employees are required to adjust to their new job
roles and/or organisation. As the PsyCap scale is predicted to predict job
satisfaction and affective organisational commitment, it is plausible that
any study using existing employees in an organisation may be limited as
those with the lower PsyCap scores (and therefore experiencing lower
satisfaction and commitment), may have already left their jobs.
• It used a four point response scale (whereas chapter four has
demonstrated that the 6-point resulted in increased internal reliability and
test-retest correlations).
144##
• The low reliability of the TIPI scales meant that the study was unable to
satisfactorily assess the ability of PsyCap to predict relevant outcomes
above and beyond existing personality measures.
• Performance was only assessed using a self-report measure.
The study in the previous chapter included a six point response scale but was
similarly limited by the use of self-report measures of performance, the low
reliability of the TIPI scales, the use of participants not starting a new job and the
short time period. In addition, the study used students rating their university
performance rather than a sample of employees.
The current study aimed to address these limitations and assess the extent to
which the Generalised PsyCap scale can be considered a valid employee selection
tool. The study was conducted using a sample of Prison Officers who were newly
commencing the role. All participants completed the Generalised PsyCap scale with
a six-point response scale on their first day of employment. The study was conducted
over a period of 9 months, which included the participants’ job training and full
probation period. At the end of training and at the end of probation, the participants’
supervisors rated their performance rather than using self-ratings of performance.
Additionally, the results of the personality and ability tests used by the organisation
to select employees were made available to the experimenter (these were provided in
a numerically coded, de-identified manner, with the permission of the participants).
This included the NEO-PI-R scale, which provided a more reliable measure of the
Big Five personality constructs. With the inclusion of the ability tests, this study was
able to assess whether inclusion of the Generalised PsyCap scale was able to
145##
improve the prediction of any key outcomes for employees above the selection scales
already used by the organisation.
Stability. In order to be considered a valid selection tool, the Generalised PsyCap
scale was required to exhibit stability over time. This was assessed using the criteria
set out for a trait in previous chapters (test-retest > .70, invariance of means and
invariance of variance). It was hypothesised that similarly to the previous studies
reported, the Generalised PsyCap scale would meet the criteria for classification as a
trait.
Predictive Validity. The study focused on the ability of Generalised PsyCap to
predict the key outcomes included in the studies reported previously in this thesis
and in studies reported by Luthans and collegaues; job satisfaction, affective
organisational commitment and job performance with the hypotheses that
Generalised PsyCap would correlate with concurrent and future levels of these
variables. In addition, it was hypothesised that Generalised PsyCap would be able to
improve prediction of these variables beyond the organisation’s existing selection
assessments. The current study also included some additional measures that were
hypothesised to be predicted by an individual’s PsyCap levels; intention to resign,
engagement and need for recovery.
PsyCap and intention to resign. Intention to resign has been defined as an
“individual’s own estimated probability (subjective) that they are permanently
leaving the organisation at some point in the near future” (Vandenberg & Nelson,
1999, p. 1315). Studies have consistently shown that there are negative relationships
between both job satisfaction and organisational commitment and intention to resign,
and that intention to resign is an important precursor of employee turnover (Tett &
146##
Meyer, 1993). Thus, the relationship that exists between PsyCap and satisfaction and
commitment suggests that an individual’s PsyCap may also be related to their
intention to turnover. Supporting this, a meta-analysis conducted by Avey, Richard,
Luthans and Mhatre (2011), has shown that a significant negative correlation exists
between PsyCap and turnover intentions (k= 5, corrected r= -.32, sd= .11). The
authors propose that the relationship between the two variables may form for the
following reason, “higher levels of optimism regarding the future and confidence in
their ability to succeed in the current job will motivate them to take charge of their
own destinies (Seligman, 1998), self-select into challenging endeavours (Bandura,
1997), engage the necessary efforts and resources, and persevere in the face of
obstacles (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b), rather than become “quitters.” ” (Avey et
al., 2011, p. 132). This relationship was tested in the current study by assessing
whether Generalised PsyCap scale scores were related to intention to resign when the
two variables were measured at the same time as each other, and by assessing the
ability of Generalised PsyCap measured on the Prison Officers’ first day of training
to predict their intention to resign three and nine months later. It was hypothesised
that Generalised PsyCap would significantly correlate with intention to resign
measured when the two measures were taken at the same time. Additionally it was
hypothesised that Generalised PsyCap taken on the first day of training would be
significantly correlated with future measures of intention to resign, and that it would
improve prediction of intention to resign beyond the organisation’s existing selection
measures.
PsyCap and need for recovery. The resource expenditure required of individuals
to fulfil their daily work requirements can be noticed through both physiological
responses and disturbances in mood. When this occurs individuals experience a
147##
‘need for recovery’, which can be defined as “a conscious emotional state
characterized by a temporal reluctance to continue with the present demands or to
accept new demands” (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006, p. 331). The higher the demands
of the work day on an individual, the higher the individual’s need for recovery will
be at the end of a working day. When need for recovery is higher, individuals need
more time for recovery to be complete. Continuous depletion of resources in the
absence of sufficient recovery will lead to negative consequences such as fatigue,
exhaustion, losses of function, and physical and mental impairment (Sonnentag &
Zijlstra, 2006).
Individual’s higher in PsyCap, who by definition are more resilient and better
able to ‘bounce back’ from adversity, are more likely to quickly recover from work
stress, therefore experiencing a lower need for recovery at the end of the working
day. This has been supported by studies that have suggested that individuals with
higher personal resources (such as PsyCap) are able to deal more effectively with
demanding conditions which may prevent negative outcomes such as exhaustion
(Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). In relation to PsyCap
specifically, a number of studies (Cheung, Tang, & Tang, 2011; Wang, Chang, Fu, &
Wang, 2012; Wang, Liu, Wang, & Wang, 2012; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007) have
shown a relationship between PsyCap (or constructs similar to PsyCap) and the long-
term strain outcome of burnout, which can be defined as a syndrome of emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment (inefficacy)
(Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). In the current study need for recovery was
assessed rather than burnout, to increase the sensitivity of the study to predict early
signs of strain. This was considered appropriate as the study was being conducted
over a relatively short time period. It was hypothesised that Generalised PsyCap
148##
would significantly correlate with need for recovery when the two constructs were
measured at the same point in time. Additionally it was hypothesised that
Generalised PsyCap taken on the first day of training would be significantly
correlated with future measures of need for recovery, and that it could improve
prediction of need for recovery beyond the selection scales already used by the
organisation.
PsyCap and engagement. Work engagement can be defined as “a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigor, dedication, and
absorption” (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011, p. 5). The vigor component refers to
whether an employee is energetic towards and stimulated by their work, dedication
refers to whether the employee finds their work meaningful or significant and
absorption refers to whether an employee is fully concentrated on or involved in their
work. High levels of work engagement have been linked to a number of positive
outcomes including increased job performance, job satisfaction, organisational
commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour and reduced intention to resign
(Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010; Saks, 2006).
Both cross sectional and longitudinal studies have found a relationship between a
construct similar to PsyCap (i.e. a higher order factor comprised of self-efficacy,
organisational-based self-esteem and optimism), and engagement (Xanthopoulou et
al., 2007; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). Xanthopoulou and
colleagues have proposed a reciprocal relationship whereby personal resources such
as PsyCap may build engagement, but also by which being engaged in work can also
build personal resources. They propose that higher personal resources mean that
individuals feel capable of controlling their work environment, and as a result are
more confident and proud of the work that they do, find meaning in it and therefore
149##
stay engaged (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Additionally, they propose, and have
found evidence to support the theory, that employees who are engaged, are also best
able to mobilise the support from colleagues, receive feedback and create
opportunities at work, which increases their personal (PsyCap) resources
(Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).
As the current study was focused upon the validity of the Generalised PsyCap
scale as an employee selection tool, the relationship investigated was whether
Generalised PsyCap was able to predict future levels of employee engagement. It
was hypothesised that Generalised PsyCap would be correlated to engagement levels
measured at corresponding time periods, and that Generalised PsyCap would be
significantly positively correlated with future levels of engagement. It was
additionally hypothesised that Generalised PsyCap at time one could improve the
prediction of engagement beyond the personality and ability tests already used for
employee selection by the organisation.
Convergent and discriminant validity. In chapters three and four the analyses
planned to assess the PsyCap scales’ relationships with variables shown to relate to
the PCQ-24 were compromised due to the low internal reliability of the Big Five
personality dimensions as measured using the TIPI. In this study, these relationships
were tested using the NEO-PI-R rather than the TIPI to measure the Big Five
personality dimensions. It was hypothesised that the correlations between
Generalised PsyCap and each of the variables would be of a similar magnitude to the
correlations reported by Luthans et al. with the PCQ-24. They found no significant
correlation between PsyCap and age (r= .01), Agreeableness (r= .06) or Openness to
experience (r= -.10), and a moderate positive relationship between PsyCap and
Extraversion (r= .36) and Conscientiousness (r= .39). The correlation between
150##
Generalised PsyCap and Neuroticism was also assessed, to determine if this
relationship was small in magnitude as reported by Luthans et al., or moderate in size
as indicated in the previous chapter. Given the research based on the individual
PsyCap construct reported in the previous chapter, and the results of that study, it
was hypothesised that the correlation between Generalised PsyCap and Neuroticism
would be moderate in magnitude.
Factor Structure
The factor structure of the Generalised PsyCap scale was not assessed in the
current study as the sample size was insufficient to conduct meaningful analysis.
Method
Design
The participants in this study were Prison Officers newly commencing the
role. As part of the selection process for the role, applicants complete a number of
aptitude and personality assessments. These were made available to the experimenter
and form a part of the data reported in this study.
When commencing the role, the Prison Officers first completed a three month
training program, followed by six months working as a probationary Prison Officer.
In the current study participants completed self-report questionnaires on their first
day of training, in one session within the final two days of their training and in the
final two weeks of their probation period. In addition, the participants’ supervisors
completed an assessment of their performance at the end of training and at the end of
the probation period. Participants had a different supervisor in training to the
supervisor that rated their end of probation performance.
151##
Participants
All Prison Officers and Juvenile Custodial Officers commencing their
employment with the Department of Corrective Services in Western Australia within
a six month period were invited to participate in this study. All but one consented to
participate, resulting in a total sample size of 80. In this sample were 31 (38.75%)
females and 49 (61.25%) males. Participants ranged from 21 to 59 years of age
(mean age= 37.77, S.D.= 9.11).
Measures
Scales completed as part of the job application process.
NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R is a 240 item self-report questionnaire which
measures the five personality domains; Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to
Experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Previous research has indicated
that the internal consistency of these sub-scales show acceptable levels of internal
consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha reported to be .92, .89, .87, .86 and .90 for the
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness scales respectively (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Responses to the
NEO-PI-R are indicated on a five point scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree.
Ability Tests. Participants additionally completed tests to assess their reading
comprehension, verbal reasoning and abstract reasoning abilities. These tests were
previously validated commercially available tests, but will not be described further to
protect the integrity of the employee selection process.
152##
Scales completed at the start of training.
Generalised PsyCap. Participants completed the Generalised PsyCap scale
with a six-point response scale on their first day of training.
Scales completed at the end of training and end of probation.
Generalised PsyCap. Participants completed the Generalised PsyCap scale
with six point response format at the end of training.
Job satisfaction. As in the study reported in chapter three, job satisfaction
was measured using the five-item scale which Judge, Bono and Locke (2000)
adapted from a measure developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951). Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was .72 at the end of training and .87 at the end of probation.
Affective Organisational Commitment. Affective organisational commitment
was measured using Allen and Meyer’s (1990) eight item scale. Cronbach’s alpha for
this scale was .71 at the end of training and .77 at the end of probation.
Intention to resign. Participants were asked to indicate their intention for
staying with their organisation using a single item measure. In this item they were
asked to indicate which of four options best described their intention to stay with the
organisation. The scale was taken from Angle and Perry (1981).
Engagement. Engagement was measured using the nine item version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement scale developed by Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova
(2006). For this scale participants respond to items such as ‘At work, I feel bursting
with energy’, ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’, and ‘I am immersed in my work’
using a 7 point scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘everyday’. Although the scale is
comprised of three subscales, only a total engagement score was used for this study
153##
as it has been argued that the overall score is sometimes more useful for empirical
research than the scores on the three separate dimensions (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2010). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .79 at the end of training and .80 at the
end of probation.
Need for recovery. Need for recovery was measured using the 11 items from
Veldhoven and Broersen’s (2003) Need for Recovery scale, with a five point rating
scale ranging from ‘very inaccurate’ to ‘very accurate’. Cronbach’s alpha for this
scale was .88 at the end of training and .91 at the end of probation.
Performance. The performance of each participant was assessed by their
supervisor using a rating scale which was developed specifically for this study in
conjunction with the organisation in which it was run. The scale asked supervisors to
rate the participants’ performance on 27 items using a five point scale ranging from
‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The scale was developed based upon
behaviours included in the organisation’s internal performance assessment tool. The
scale was divided into five subscales; learning ability, interpersonal skills and
teamwork, communication skills, professionalism and work ethic and personal
coping/stress resilience. An example item from each subscale respectively was
“Readily learns new skills and knowledge”, “Is cooperative with peers”,
“demonstrates effective listening skills”, “shows a high degree of attention to
security”, and “remains calm and patient when placed under pressure”. As factor
analysis of this scale did not support the existence of the five subscales, a global
performance score has been used in this study. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was
.96 at the end of training and .98 at the end of probation.
154##
Procedure
When Prison Officers are accepted to the role in the organisation in which
this study took place, they are grouped into training schools which are comprised of
up to 25 new recruits. This group complete three months of training together, before
being dispersed into prisons across the state where they complete a 6 month
probationary period.
In total four training schools were run during the period of this study, and all
but one member of these schools voluntarily participated in the study. Participants
were addressed by the experimenter in a group meeting on their first day of training.
The purpose of the study was explained to them, and, after giving their informed
consent to participate in the study, they completed the Generalised PsyCap scale in a
paper and pencil format.
The experimenter re-visited the participants during a group meeting on the
last or second last day of their three month training. In this session, participants
completed all of the scales listed in the ‘scales completed at the end of training and
end of probation period’ section above in a paper and pencil format. In addition, the
two primary instructors for each training school were asked to rate the participants’
performance during the training using the performance rating scale described above.
The two instructors met together to complete the scales for each member of the
school. Each school had different primary instructors.
At the end of the participants’ six month probation period they were
contacted via email and invited to complete the scales listed above a final time. In
this instance the surveys were completed online. Participants were sent a reminder
email two weeks after the initial email if they had not responded. If they had still not
155##
completed the scale two weeks later, they were sent a paper and pencil version of the
survey which they could complete.
Analytical Strategy
Internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each PsyCap
component separately, as well as for the total scale for each occasion that the scale
was completed. Similarly to the previous studies reported, a criterion of α > .70 was
set as adequate reliability.
Stability. The three methods recommended by Wright and Quick (2009); test-
retest reliability, a test for invariance of the means over time (repeated measures
ANOVA), and a test of invariance of variance (Mauchly’s test of sphericity) were
used to assess the stability of PsyCap. Following the same criteria set in chapter
three, the criteria for a scale to be considered a trait were (i) the test-retest
correlations higher than .70, (ii) no changes in the mean sample scores across
assessment periods and (iii) homogeneity of variance across assessment periods.
Validity
Concurrent validity. The correlation between scores on the Generalised
PsyCap scale and the outcome variables of job satisfaction, affective organisational
commitment, intention to resign, engagement and need for recovery were evaluated
within each assessment phase.
Predictive validity. The correlation coefficient between Generalised PsyCap
at the start of training and each of the variables it was hypothesised to predict
variance in (job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment, intention to
resign, engagement and need for recovery) were observed.
156##
Next, for the variables that demonstrated a significant correlation with
Generalised PsyCap, regression analyses were used to assess whether Generalised
PsyCap was a significant predictor of theses variables when the organisation’s
existing selection measures (extraversion, conscientiousness, and ability tests) were
taken into account. In these analyses conscientiousness, extraversion and the ability
tests were entered into block one of the regressions, and Generalised PsyCap at time
one was entered into block two.
Convergent and discriminant validity. The correlations between Generalised
PsyCap and age, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, Extraversion,
Conscientiousness and Neuroticism were calculated using Generalised PsyCap taken
at the start of training, and the NEO-PI-R scores which were completed as part of the
job application process.
Results
Participation numbers
Given some drop out of participants through the study, the number of
participants at each collection period varied. Pre-selection data were available for all
80 participants, and all participants completed the Generalised PsyCap scale at the
beginning of training. Three participants did not complete the survey at the end of
training assessment, resulting in a 96.25% response rate. By the end of probation,
three participants had resigned from the role and one had been dismissed, leaving a
total of 76 participants in the study. Of these, 56 participants completed the survey,
representing a 73.68% response rate. The lower response rate for the final assessment
period is likely due to the fact that participants were contacted via email to complete
the survey online, whereas the participants completed the assessments in a class
157##
room environment during their working hours in the assessment periods during
training.
Internal consistency of Generalised and Moment Specific PsyCap.
Table 29 shows that the Generalised PsyCap scale reached an acceptable
level of reliability on all occasions. The resilience and optimism subscales did not
reach acceptable levels on the first testing occasion (α= .650 and .682 respectively),
but for all other testing periods Cronbach’s alpha was greater than .70.
Table 29.
Cronbach’s alpha for each PsyCap component and the full Generalised
PsyCap scale at each testing period.
Testing period Self-efficacy Hope Resilience Optimism PsyCap
Start of training .826 .853 .650 .682 .902
End of training .881 .904 .780 .797 .946
End of probation .904 .921 .754 .748 .935
Stability of Generalised PsyCap. The test-retest reliabilities of the
Generalised PsyCap scale are shown in table 30 below. The table shows that
although the test-retest reliability of the scale reached the criteria for being
considered a trait set in chapter three (>.70) between the start and end of training, the
scale did not meet the criteria across the full period of the study. The test-retest
reliabilities between the end of training and end of probation and start of training and
end of probation were below .70.
The repeated measures ANOVA showed significant differences in the means
of the Generalised PsyCap scales over the three assessment periods F(2, 100) = 4.29,
158##
p= .02. Mauchly’s test showed that there was homogeneity of variance across testing
periods.
Table 30.
Test-retest reliabilities of the Generalised PsyCap scale.
1 2 3
1. Start of training 1.0
2. End of training .711** 1.0
3. End of probation .536** .649** 1.0
* p < .05
** p < .01
Validity
Concurrent validity. The correlations between Generalised PsyCap and the
outcome variables taken at the same period of time (e.g. end of training job
satisfaction and end of training PsyCap) are shown in table 31. As hypothesised the
Generalised PsyCap scale showed significant relationships with the outcome
variables of job satisfaction, affective commitment and engagement when measured
at time matched periods for both assessment phases. The correlations between time-
matched PsyCap and intention to resign, and need for recovery were significant in
one of the two testing periods each. There were no significant correlations between
Generalised PsyCap and supervisor rated performance.
Table 31.
Correlation coefficients for Generalised PsyCap with outcome variables measured at
corresponding time points.
159## End of
training
End of
probation
Job satisfaction .414** .464**
Affective commitment .398** .291*
Intention to resign -.308** -.144
Engagement .486** .317*
Need for recovery -.211 -.380**
Supervisor rated performance -.080 -.248
* p < .05
** p < .01
Predictive validity. The correlations between Generalised PsyCap measured
at the start of training, with each of the outcome measures at the end of training and
end of probation are shown in table 32. This table shows that Generalised PsyCap
scores at the beginning of training were significantly correlated with job satisfaction,
affective commitment and engagement at the end of training. No other correlations
were significant.
160##
Table 32.
Correlation coefficients for Generalised PsyCap measured at the start of training with
outcome variables measured at the end of training and end of probation.
End of training End of probation
Job satisfaction .295* .113
Affective commitment .245* -.057
Intention to resign -.153 -.115
Engagement .346** .136
Need for recovery -.207 -.088
Supervisor rated performance -.147 -.117
* p < .05
** p < .01
The unique variance that Generalised PsyCap could account for in predicting
job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and engagement at the end of
training (the significant correlations from the table above) when Extraversion,
Conscientiousness and the ability tests were also included in the model was
examined using hierarchical regression analyses. The results of these analyses (with
Generalised PsyCap measured at the start of training added into block two of the
regression) are shown in tables 33 and 34. Table 33 shows that Generalised PsyCap
was not able to significantly improve the prediction of any of the outcome variables.
An inspection of table 34 reveals that other than the relationship between
Conscientiousness and job satisfaction, none of the pre-selection variables were
significant predictors of the outcome variables either.
161##
Table 33.
Coefficient of determination and change in coefficient of determination for Block One (includes Conscientiousness, Extraversion and ability scores), and Block Two (addition of Start of Training Generalised PsyCap) regressed onto outcome variables.
R² ∆R²
Job Satisfaction Block 1 .183
Block 2 .191 .008
Affective Commitment Block 1 .156
Block 2 .172 .016
Engagement Block 1 .145
Block 2 .179 .035
* p < .05, ** p < .01
Table 34.
Beta weights for Reading Comprehension, Verbal Reasoning, Abstract Reasoning, Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Generalised PsyCap at the Start of Training regressed onto job satisfaction, affective commitment and engagement.
Job Satisfaction Affective
Commitment
Engagement
Reading Comprehension -.119 .008 -.051
Verbal Reasoning .048 -.175 -.106
Abstract Reasoning .043 .000 -.073
Extraversion .184 .232 .068
Conscientiousness .252* .144 .212
Start of Training PsyCap .105 .152 .222
* p < .05, ** p < .01
162##
Convergent and discriminant validity. The correlations between the PsyCap scales
at time one, and age, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, Extraversion,
Conscientiousness and Neuroticism are shown in Table 35. The relationships
between Generalised PsyCap and age and Agreeableness were non-significant, while
the correlations between Generalised PsyCap and Openness to Experience,
Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Extraversion were all significant, and medium
in effect size.
163$$
Table 35.
Correlations of Generalised PsyCap (at time one) with other variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Mean (SD)
1. Generalised PsyCap 1.0 18.96 (2.02)
2. Age .014 1.0 37.78 (9.11)
3. Agreeableness .139 -.10 1.0 127.44 (14.53)
4. Openness to Experience
.389** -.121 -.144 1.0 112.47 (14.52)
5. Conscientiousness .436** -.079 .266* .166 1.0 130.43 (14.30)
6. Extraversion .368** -.152 -.103 .604** .276* 1.0 121.73 (12.38)
7. Neuroticism -.387** .053 -.382** .008 -.644** -.147 1.0 64.15 (16.81)
* p < .05
** p < .01
164$$
Discussion
Overall, results of this study indicate that the Generalised PsyCap scale can
not be considered to be a reliable and valid employee selection tool. While the scale
showed adequate internal consistency, the analyses of the scales stability over time
and predictive validity indicates that it should not be used as a selection tool.
Although the scale showed homogeneity of variance across all three measurement
periods, the repeated measures ANOVA showing significant differences in the
means of the scale over time and the test-retest correlation below the criteria of .70
indicate that the scale did not meet the criteria to be considered a trait.
A question unanswered by this study, is whether the changes in in the
Generalised PsyCap occurred as a result of changing circumstances, or merely as a
consequence of time. This study was conducted in a sample of participants
undergoing significant life changes. Their first assessment was on the first day of a
new job, which represents a transition period for any individual. The three months of
training undergone by the prison officers incorporates a number of confronting
situations. A few of these include role-playing dealing with difficult prisoners,
practicing physical restraint techniques for out of control prisoners and having
pepper spray sprayed into their eyes before being required to restrain a prisoner. The
experimenter was invited to view some of these training activities, which were
visibly stressful for trainees. After completion of the training, the participants then
began working as Prison Officers for the first time. Interviews conducted with
experienced Prison Officers revealed that this is often a more confronting experience
than the training. Officers reported that when confronted with the realities of the
prison environment, many officers that passed their training find it too difficult and
leave the job. This was the case for 3 of the 80 participants in the current study. Of
165$$
note, was a significant drop in the participant’s PsyCap scores between the end of
training and end of probation periods (t(52)= 3.106, p= .003). This drop may be the
result of the stressful experience of being in the prison for the first time, although
more research is required to determine specific factors that may have contributed to
this drop. Some research which supports this assertion is a study conducted by
Luthans and colleagues (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008) who reported a
study which showed that employees who perceived themselves to be in a supportive
organizational climate, defined as “the overall amount of perceived support
employees receive from their immediate peers, other departments, and their
supervisor that they view as helping them to successfully perform their work duties”
(p. 225), were more likely to experience higher levels of PsyCap. Similar findings
concerning organisational resources leading to increased personal resources have
been reported by Xanthopoulou and colleagues (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). It
appears that in the current study, although it was attempted to measure a possible
trait component of PsyCap, the Generalised PsyCap variable may have been
similarly influenced by environmental factors.
While the results of the current study do indicate that the Generalised PsyCap
scale is not sufficiently stable to be used as an employee selection tool, it remains
unanswered whether an individual’s scores would remain stable when not
undergoing such substantial life changes. In addition, the study brings to light the
importance of considering which factors in the transition to new working
environments may cause a decrease in PsyCap, so that the on-boarding of new
employees can be conducted in a more successful manner.
As a stable trait measure is required for a scale to have predictive validity, it
is unsurprising that scores on the Generalised PsyCap scale taken on the first day of
166$$
training were unable to predict any of the outcome variables measured at the end of
probation. However, in spite of the lack of predictive validity, the current study did
demonstrate consistent significant relationships between Generalised PsyCap scores
and job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and engagement when the
scores are completed concurrently. This result is consistent with earlier studies in this
thesis and shows support for previous studies that have demonstrated a relationship
between these variables (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007;
Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).
The intention to resign and need for recovery variables each showed a
significant relationship with Generalised PsyCap at one of the two testing periods.
The correlation between intention to resign and Generalised PsyCap was significant
(r=.308) when the measures were completed at the end of training, but not at the end
of probation (r= -.144). As the previously discussed meta-analysis showing that a
relationship exists between PsyCap and intention to resign (Avey et al., 2011) only
included 5 independent samples, this study highlights the need for more research to
be conducted in this area before conclusions about this relationship can be made. The
correlation between need for recovery and Generalised PsyCap was significant when
the measures were completed at the end of probation (r= -.380), but was non-
significant at the end of training (r=-.211). As need for recovery is proposed to build
up progressively when there is insufficient time for recovery each day (Sonnentag &
Zijlstra, 2006), it is plausible that the reason that this relationship only came to light
when the participant’s need for recovery had had sufficient time to develop.
Supporting this supposition is the finding that need for recovery scores were
significantly higher at the end of probation than they were at the end of training
(t(51)= -2.59, p= .013).
167$$
In contrast to the previous studies in this thesis, the analyses in this study
showed no significant relationships between Generalised PsyCap and performance.
In fact, although not significant, it is noteworthy that all correlation coefficients were
negative, indicating that the higher a participant’s self-rated PsyCap, the lower their
supervisors rated their performance. This finding is in contrast to studies reported by
Luthans et al (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007) which have shown positive relationships
between self-rated PsyCap and supervisor rated performance. There are a number of
possibilities for this finding. The first, is that the performance measure used in this
study was inadequate. Rather than using a previously validated scale, a purpose built
measure was designed to measure specific performance of a Prison Officer.
However, the scale was based upon the performance measures already used within
the organisation so it should be considered an indication of what is viewed as
positive performance within the organisation.
A more likely explanation as to why PsyCap scores were not related to
performance ratings is that the relationship between PsyCap and performance is
dependant upon the nature of the job. This assertion would align to evidence
discussed in the literature review of this thesis, that optimism is only predictive of
job performance in certain job types. The study conducted by Satterfield, Monahan
and Seligman (1997) using law students led to the suggestion that in domains that
require more caution and reality appreciation than initiative or creativity, pessimism
as opposed to optimism may be advantageous to job performance. The results of the
current study suggest that the same may be true for PsyCap. Interestingly, the
correlations between each of the individual PsyCap components (self-efficacy, hope,
optimism and resilience) taken on the first day of training and performance measured
at both the end of training and end of probation were all non-significant but in the
168$$
negative direction. Thus, this research highlights that a more thorough examination
of the relationship between PsyCap and performance in different job types is
required to fully understand the scale’s relationship with job performance.
The convergent and discriminant validity analyses show for the most part that
the correlations between Generalised PsyCap and age, Agreeableness, Openness to
Experience, Conscientiousness and Extraversion, were of similar magnitude to those
reported by Luthans and colleagues (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007) for their original
PsyCap scale (PCQ-24) and the same variables. Their study reported no significant
correlation between age (r= .01) or Agreeableness (r= .06). The correlations in the
current study between these variables and Generalised PsyCap were also non-
significant and similar in magnitude (r= .01 and r= .14 for age and Agreeableness
respectively. The moderate positive correlations between PsyCap and
Conscientiousness and Extraversion (r= .39 and r= .36 respectively) reported by
Luthans et al. were also found in the current study using the Generalised PsyCap
scale (r= .44 and .37 respectively). The similarity of these correlations indicate that
attempts to change the wording of the PCQ-24 to tap into a trait construct rather than
the state-like construct have not significantly changed the dimension being
measured.
The relationship between Generalised PsyCap and Openness to Experience
(r= .39, p < .01) however was significantly different to the relationship between the
PCQ-24 score and Openness to Experience (r= -.10, p> .05). Similarly, the
relationship between Generalised PsyCap and Neuroticism (r= -.387) was larger than
that reported for the PCQ-24 and Neuroticism (r= -.12). As there has been a lack of
studies reporting the correlation between PCQ-24 scores and the Big Five personality
domains, it is difficult to determine if the result in the current study represents a
169$$
change in the Generalised PsyCap variable compared to the PCQ-24, or whether the
result in either this study or the study conducted by Luthans et al. (2007) were
abnormal. Theoretically however, it appears logical that individuals who were more
confident that they would succeed in new situations (ie. higher self-efficacy and
optimism) would be more likely to be open to new experiences. In support of this,
some studies have shown positive correlations between optimism and Openness to
Experience (Lounsbury, Saudargas, & Gibson, 2004; Sharpe, Martin, & Roth, 2011),
although these findings have not been consistent shown in the literature (Sharpe et
al., 2011). Similarly Parker (2000), reported a significant moderate positive
relationship (r= .42) between Role Breadth Self-Efficacy (the way self-efficacy is
also conceptualised in the PCQ-24 and Generalised PsyCap scales) and a construct
termed change receptiveness, which contained items such as “I am most comfortable
with a stable work environment in which things tend to stay the same” and “I like
being in a work environment where there is a lot of change occurring”. Thus it
appears that there are both theoretical reasons, and some research to support the
theory that PsyCap may be expected to correlate positively with Openness to
Experience as found in this study.
In terms of the relationship between PsyCap and Neuroticism, it is noted that
the results of the current study are in line with those reported in the previous chapter,
adding weight to the possibility that the relationship between PsyCap and
Neuroticism is greater than that reported by Luthans et al. (Luthans, Avolio, et al.,
2007).
Limitations. A key limitation to this study is that while attempting to
validate the Generalised PsyCap scale as a selection tool, it was only possible to
complete the study using Prison Officers selected to the role using the organisation’s
170$$
pre-existing selection criteria. This involves not only psychometric assessment as
discussed above, but also psychological interview assessment with potential
candidates. It is plausible that this may have distorted the relationship between
Generalised PsyCap and the outcome variables as only employees already deemed
psychologically fit for the role were included as part of this study.
In addition, conducting this study within employees from a very specific
occupation limits the extent to which findings can be generalised to a wider range of
occupations. Similar research in other occupations and organisations would be
required to allow findings to be generalised.
171$$
CHAPTER SIX: GENERAL DISCUSSION
PsyCap, conceptualised as a ‘state-like’ construct measured by the PCQ-24
has received a degree of attention in recent years of research. This research has
shown that PsyCap is related to a number of positive outcomes for both individuals
and their workplaces alike. For example individual’s higher in PsyCap have been
reported to have more positive attitudes towards their work, increased well-being and
higher performance levels (Avey et al., 2011). However, the review of the literature
in chapter one showed that each of the PsyCap components has been successfully
conceptualised and measured as a trait, opening the possibility that there may also a
trait component to PsyCap. This research was therefore concerned with determining
if PsyCap could be measured as a pure state and a stable trait, and whether the trait
version of the scale could be used as an employee selection tool.
The review of the PCQ-24 reported in chapter two revealed that the survey
was composed of some items considered appropriate for measuring a trait, and some
items considered appropriate for measuring a state. Thus, to obtain a more clear
picture as to whether PsyCap should be conceptualised as a state, a trait, or both, two
new scales, the Moment-Specific and the Generalised PsyCap scales were created.
Throughout the research conducted, these scales have demonstrated adequate internal
reliability (indicated by Cronbach’s alpha). The research then sought to examine a
number of key questions regarding the stability of these scales over time and their
validity. The key questions were;
• Should be Moment Specific PsyCap scale be considered a state or a
trait measure?
172$$
• Should the Generalised PsyCap scale be considered a state or a trait
measure?
• Does the Moment Specific PsyCap scale demonstrate the predicted
relationships with other key variables?
• Does the Generalised PsyCap scale demonstrate the predicted
relationships with the other key variables?
• Can be Generalised PsyCap scale be utilised as a valid employee
selection tool?
Should the Moment Specific PsyCap scale be considered a state or trait
measure?
To determine if the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales should
be considered to be measures of state or trait constructs, the assessments
recommended by Wright and Quick (2009) were conducted. The criteria set out in
chapter three outlined that for a construct to be considered a state, a test-retest
reliability of less than .50 was considered sufficient.
The first assessment of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale presented in this
research is not considered a valid examination of the scale’s stability over time, as
evidence presented in chapter four has shown that responses to the state scale in
chapter three were highly influenced by order effects. Therefore, the only study by
which to assess the stability of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale is the study
presented in chapter four. In this study, only the two conditions in which the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale was presented before the Generalised PsyCap scale and
therefore not influenced by order effects will be considered here.
The test-retest reliabilities for the Moment Specific PsyCap scale reported in
those conditions was .82 when there was a 3 week gap between testing sessions,
173$$
indicating a construct more stable than a state. The test-retest reliabilities dropped to
ranging from between .56-.59 when this gap was extended to five or eight weeks.
These fell closer to the .50 criteria set for a state, but still does not meet the criteria
set for classification as a state.
An interesting finding in these studies is that the test-retest reliability of the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale was significantly higher than that of the PCQ-24
(which has been reported to be .52 over a two week period (Luthans, Avolio, et al.,
2007)), despite the modifications made to the PCQ-24 to form the Moment Specific
PsyCap scale. These changes involved the re-wording of many items because the
review and rating process described in chapter two indicated that many PCQ-24
items were considered more appropriate trait than state items. Thus, results of this
thesis align with Luthans et. al’s conclusion for the PCQ-24, that the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale should be considered a ‘state-like’ construct, which has been
described as “they are not as stable and are more open to change and development
compared with “trait-like” constructs such as Big Five personality dimensions or
core self-evaluations, but importantly that they also are not momentary states
(Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007, p. 544).” This appears to be the case even when the
wording of the items is framed to capture a momentary state. The finding that the
Moment Specific PsyCap scale was more stable than the PCQ-24, does point towards
the need for more longitudinal research to be conducted to allow greater
understanding of both the PCQ-24 and the Moment Specific PsyCap scale.
Should the Generalised PsyCap scale be considered a state or trait measure?
Following the argument presented by Wright and Quick (2009) the
Generalised PsyCap scale was required to meet the following criteria in order to
conclude that it reflected trait-like qualities; (i) the test-retest correlation was
174$$
required to be higher than .70, (ii) the mean score for the scale across a whole sample
would not change between testing periods and (iii) there would be homogeneity of
variance of the scale score across testing periods.
In the current research the stability of the Generalised PsyCap scale was
assessed in four different samples in which the scale was presented either before, or
in the absence of the Moment Specific PsyCap scale and therefore not influenced by
order effects. The summary of the findings from these studies presented in the table
below shows that the Generalised PsyCap scale met the criteria for being considered
a trait in all samples except for the final study involving Prison Officers.
Table 36.
Summary of the findings for the Generalised PsyCap scale meeting the
criteria for classification as a trait.
Sample Time frame for study
Test re-test reliability
range
Invariance of means?
Homogeneity of variance?
1. Not for profit employees (chapter 3)
8 weeks .711 Yes Yes
2. Student sample 1 (G-MS-4 condition, chapter 4)
5 weeks .722- .844 Yes Yes
3. Student sample 2 (G-MS-6 condition, chapter 4)
8 weeks .812- .857 Yes Yes
4. Prison Officer sample (chapter 5)
9 months .711- .536 No Yes
The results of the current study therefore show that when the items of the
PCQ-24 are framed to tap into a general tendency to think or fell a particular way, it
is possible to measure a much more stable construct than when the questions are
framed in a moment specific or state manner. However, the Generalised PsyCap
175$$
scale still did not meet the criteria for a trait in all testing conditions, perhaps
indicating that it is also best described as ‘state-like’. Results show that the
Generalised PsyCap scale is not sufficiently stable to be considered a valid employee
selection tool, and point towards the need to understand what factors may influence
an individual’s PsyCap to change. This will be discussed further in the ‘limitations
and further research’ section of this chapter.
Does the Moment Specific PsyCap scale demonstrate the predicted relationships
with other key variables?
The Moment Specific PsyCap scale was hypothesised to correlate with a
number of variables in a similar manner to the correlations reported by Luthans and
colleagues (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). They reported no significant correlation
between PsyCap and age, Agreeableness or Openness to Experience, a small
negative correlation between PsyCap and Neuroticism, moderate positive
relationships with Extraversion and Conscientiousness and a strong positive
relationship with Core Self-Evaluations. In considering the answer to this question,
only the two samples of participants who completed the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale in conditions where it was not influenced by the Generalised PsyCap scale will
be considered. The correlations reported in the current study for these conditions are
all of the same magnitude and direction as those reported by Luthans et al. with the
exception of Neuroticism, for which moderate rather than small correlations were
reported. The finding of similar correlation sizes for the majority of variables
indicates that the changes made to the PCQ-24 to form the Moment Specific PsyCap
scale did not significantly change the construct measured by the scale. The moderate
correlation between PsyCap and Neuroticism makes theoretical sense and has been
176$$
supported by previous literature based upon the individual PsyCap components (as
discussed in chapter four), and has been found consistently throughout this research.
The Moment Specific PsyCap measure was also hypothesised to correlate
with job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and self-rated
performance when the participants completed self-report measures of these
constructs at the same point in time. In the conditions considered accurate
representations of the scale, moderate to strong positive correlations were reported in
all cases. This finding shows the importance of ensuring that an individual can
experience high levels of PsyCap while at work, as it has important implications for
their job attitudes and behaviours.
Although hypothesised to be related to concurrent measures of job
satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and performance, the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale was not hypothesised to be able to predict future levels of
these variables because levels of Moment Specific PsyCap were hypothesised to
fluctuate too much over time to be able to predict future outcomes. Examination of
the relevant conditions show that this hypothesis was mostly not supported. For both
conditions Moment Specific PsyCap at time one had moderate positive correlations
with job satisfaction, affective commitment and performance at times two and three.
This finding is reflective of the fact that the Moment Specific PsyCap scale was more
stable over time than hypothesised.
Does the Generalised PsyCap scale demonstrate the predicted relationships with
the other key variables?
Similarly to the Moment Specific PsyCap scale, the Generalised PsyCap
scale was also hypothesised to correlate with age, Core Self-Evaluations and the
relevant Big Five personality dimensions in a similar manner to those reported by
177$$
Luthans, Avolio et al. (2007). The correlations between the Generalised PsyCap
scale and these variables are shown below for all samples in which the Generalised
PsyCap scale was presented prior to the Moment Specific scale.
Table 37.
Correlation coefficients for the Generalised PsyCap scale correlated with age,
core self-evaluations and Big Five personality dimensions in all relevant samples in
this thesis.
Not for profit employees (chapter 3)
Student sample 1 (G-MS-4 condition, chapter 4)
Student sample 2 (G-MS-6 condition, chapter 4)
Prison Officer sample (chapter 5)
Age .289** .223 .043 .014
Agreeableness - - - .139
Openness to Experience
- - - .389**
Extraversion .359** .293** .340** .368**
Conscientiousness .377** .329** .248** .436**
Neuroticism - -.348** -.448** -.387**
Core self-evaluations
.651** .661** .658** -
*p < .05
**p < .01
The table above shows that there were small and mostly non-significant
correlations between Generalised PsyCap and age and Agreeableness, moderate
positive correlations between Generalised PsyCap and Extraversion and
Conscientiousness and large positive correlations between Generalised PsyCap and
Core Self-Evaluations. These correlations are as hypothesised and reflective of those
reported by Luthans and colleagues.
178$$
However, in contrast to the findings of Luthans et al. (Luthans, Avolio, et al.,
2007) a moderate relationship was found between Generalised PsyCap and Openness
to Experience. As discussed in the previous chapter, this result makes theoretical
sense (as an individual who was more confident that they would succeed in new
situations (higher self-efficacy and optimism) would be more likely to be open to
new experiences) and is in line with some previous research showing correlations
between optimism and self-efficacy and openness to experience (Lounsbury et al.,
2004; Parker, 2000; Sharpe et al., 2011). Similarly, a moderate relationship between
Generalised PsyCap and Neuroticism has been consistently reported in this thesis.
The finding also makes theoretical sense, and supports previously reported literature
based on the PsyCap constructs. Therefore results of this study suggest that contrary
to the findings of Luthans, Avolio et al. (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007) a moderate
relationships exists between the PsyCap construct and Openness to Experience and
the PsyCap construct and Neuroticism.
The Generalised PsyCap scale was also hypothesised to correlate with both
concurrent and future reported levels of job satisfaction, affective organisational
commitment, performance, intention to resign, engagement and need for recovery.
The summary of the findings across all studies (shown in table 38 below) shows that
Generalised PsyCap was consistently correlated with concurrent measures of job
satisfaction, affective commitment and engagement. The correlations between
PsyCap and intention to resign and need for recovery were only found in half of the
observations, indicating a need for more research to fully understand these
relationships.
Of note is the significant difference in the relationship between performance
and Generalised PsyCap in the first three samples reported compared to the Prison
179$$
Officer sample. There are a number of possibilities as to why this relationship
difference occurred. Firstly, a key difference between the studies that may have
contributed to the difference is that the final study is the only one in which the
performance measure was not a self-report measure. It is plausible that for two
people performing at the same level, the one with high PsyCap may interpret their
performance as being superior. However, previous studies have shown that PsyCap
is predictive of performance when measured via self-report, supervisor ratings or
through objective organisational ratings. In fact, a recent meta-analysis conducted by
Avey et al. (2011) concluded that there was no meaningful difference in the
relationship between PsyCap and performance when performance was measured
through the three different sources (self-report, supervisor rated or objective data).
A more likely reason that the relationship between Generalised PsyCap and
performance was different in the final study compared to other studies is the nature
of the work conducted by the Prison Officers who participated in the final study. As
discussed in the previous chapter and literature review, research has shown that there
are some job types for which higher levels of optimism are beneficial to performance
and some types for which it is not. This appears to be the case in the current study,
where the relationships between Generalised PsyCap and performance were all non-
significant, but trending in the negative direction. This makes sense when
considering that items such as “I usually expect the best when things are uncertain
for me at work”, from the optimism component of the PsyCap scale. In a job where a
high degree of vigilance is required (such as being a Prison Officer), this attitude
towards the unknown is unlikely to result in increased job performance. Interestingly
however, the negative trend in the relationship between PsyCap and performance
was consistent for all four PsyCap components individually (Hope, Self-efficacy,
180$$
Resilience as well as Optimism), as well as the composite measure. In light of this,
further research is recommended to determine for which job types PsyCap is
beneficial to performance and for which job types it may have no benefit or be
detrimental to performance.
Table 38 shows that, as hypothesised, PsyCap was positively correlated with
future measures of job satisfaction, affective commitment and performance for the
first three samples listed. The findings were much less consistent for the Prison
Officer sample. This is due to the fact that in this sample, the scale did not meet the
criteria for a trait, and would therefore not be expected to be able to predict future
outcomes.
181$$
Table 38.
Correlation coefficients for the Generalised PsyCap scale correlated with
concurrent and future measures of job satisfaction, affective commitment,
performance, intention to resign, engagement and need for recovery in all relevant
samples in this thesis.
Not for profit employees (chapter 3)
Student sample 1 (G-MS-4 condition, chapter 4)
Student sample 2 (G-MS-6 condition, chapter 4)
Prison Officer sample (chapter 5)
Concurrent Measures
Job satisfaction .279**-.586** .485**-.608** .464**-.659** .414**-.464**
Affective Commitment
.046-.219* .346**-.359** .381**-.451** .291*-.398**
Performance
.389**-.565** .380**-.596** .351**-.655** -.080- -.248
Intention to Resign
- - - -.144- -.308**
Engagement - - - .317*- .486**
Need for recovery - - - -.211- -.380**
Future Measures
Job satisfaction .452** .519**-.554** .441**-.508** .113-.295*
Affective Commitment
.260 .247- .294** .317**-.345** -.057- .245*
Performance
.332* .297**-.483** .431**-.578** -.117- -.147
Intention to Resign
- - - -.115- -.153
Engagement - - - .136- .346**
Need for recovery - - - -.088- -.207
*p < .05
**p < .01
182$$
Can the Generalised PsyCap scale be utilised as a valid employee selection tool?
The premise of this research was that if it was possible to measure a stable, or
trait component of PsyCap then this may mean that organisations are able to select
employees already high in PsyCap into new job roles, either as well as or instead of
investing in training to increase employee PsyCap levels. Results of the current study
suggest that although it is possible to measure a considerably more stable component
of PsyCap than that measured by the PCQ-24, it is not sufficiently stable to be
considered a valid selection tool. Despite the studies reported in chapters three and
four showing that the Generalised PsyCap scale did meet the criteria for being
classified as a trait (in the conditions where it was presented before the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale), it did not remain stable through the final study and was
therefore not able to predict job-related attitudes, performance or well-being at the
end of the Prison Officer’s probation period. Although replicating this research in a
variety of samples is recommended to ensure generalisability, the current study
suggested that the Generalised PsyCap scale should not be considered a valid
employee selection tool.
Limitations and Further Research
There are a number of limitations to this research, the first of which relates to
the finding that PsyCap did not meet the criteria for a trait in the final study using
Prison Officers. A key limitation with respect to this finding is that the current
research does not provide definitive insight into the reason that the results of this
final study differed from the studies reported in the preceding chapters. This is
because two key factors were varied in the final study compared to the previous
studies; it was conducted over a longer period of time (nine rather than two months)
than the previous studies, and the participants in the final study were experiencing a
183$$
period of significant change (the transition to a new job), compared to the relative
stability (continuing in a current job) of participants in the proceeding studies. Thus,
two explanations for the difference in findings are plausible. The first is that
Generalised PsyCap changed in participants in the final study merely as a function of
time, and that the same change may have been found for the participants in the other
studies if the study was conducted over nine rather than two months. The second is
that the change in PsyCap levels in the final study was in some way related to the
environmental changes as the participants moved through their training process and
into their new job roles as Prison Officers.
Research aiming to determine whether time or environmental changes related
to the job transition caused the change in PsyCap should be conducted using
longitudinal research in two different samples of employees over the same length of
time. One sample should include employees who have already worked in their
current job role for a substantial period of time, and who continue in the same job
role for the period of the study. The other should include participants experiencing a
period of transition. The study may begin on their first day of a new job (in a similar
manner to the Prison Officer study), or even during the job search period. If these
two groups of employees complete the Generalised PsyCap questionnaire at regular
intervals over the same extended length of time the source of the change to
Generalised PsyCap could be determined. If PsyCap levels changed for both samples
this would indicate that changes in Generalised PsyCap occur as a function of time,
if PsyCap levels changed for only the transition group this would indicate that
changes in Generalised PsyCap occur as a result of environmental changes. It is
possible that changes could occur in only the non-transition group or in both groups
184$$
of employees, but the research reported here indicates that these findings are
unlikely.
A second question unanswered by both the current research and the suggested
research design above is if changes in Generalised PsyCap are caused by
environmental factors, which environmental factors have an impact? It is important
to identify what factors may cause an increase or reduction in an individual’s PsyCap
given its important implications for work performance, attitudes and well-being. The
study reported for Prison Officers showed a mean decrease in participants’ PsyCap
levels between the end of training and end of probation periods. A greater
understanding of factors that may have contributed to this could allow for
organisations to better design the ‘on-boarding’ or transition to a new workplace
process so that employees experience minimal change or even an increase in PsyCap
as they move to new job roles.
Some research has been conducted in factors that influence an individual’s
PsyCap (as measured by the PCQ-24). Early research conducted by Luthans and
colleagues has shown that short training sessions focused upon individual skills and
thought processes have been able to increase individual’s PsyCap levels (Luthans,
Avey, et al., 2006; Luthans, Avey, et al., 2008). Additionally, research has shown
that employees who perceive a higher degree of organisational support (defined in
terms of “the overall amount of support employees receive from their immediate
peers, other departments, and their supervisor” (Luthans, Norman, et al., 2008, p.
225)) are more likely to experience higher levels of PsyCap (Luthans, Norman, et al.,
2008). A greater understanding of specific job-related factors that are within an
organisation’s control could allow for organisations to ensure the all employees
185$$
experience maximal levels of PsyCap, and to ensure that the transition to work in a
new job role doesn’t reduce an individual’s PsyCap.
Some evidence of factors to investigate are revealed through a recent
longitudinal study that showed a reciprocal relationship between job and personal
resources by which job resources at time one were correlated with personal resources
at time two, but also personal resources at time one were correlated with job
resources at time two (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). In this study job resources were
operationalised in terms of autonomy, social support, supervisory coaching,
performance feedback and opportunities for professional development. Personal
resources were very similar to PsyCap, measured as a combination of self-efficacy,
organisation-based self-esteem and optimism. Thus, results of this study strongly
suggest that the same job resources may influence individual’s PsyCap levels. It is
recommended that further longitudinal research is conducted into the role that these
organisational factors have on individual’s PsyCap levels.
This research also points towards strategies that could be used at on-boarding
that may help to ensure that indivudals don’t experience a drop in PsyCap as a result
of the transition to a new job. For example, buddying the new with an existing
employee could increase levels of social support, an orientation which outlines
developmental and career pathways within the organisation could increase their
immediate awareness of professional development opportunities, and regular
scheduled coaching sessions between a new employee and their supervisor could
allow the employee to experience increased supervisory support, and receive
adequate feedback. Research to determine which of these interventions result in
PsyCap levels remaining stable (or even increasing) during the transition period
186$$
could provide valuable information to allow the development of effective on-
boarding programs for new employees.
The results of the current research additionally show the need to investigate
the types of jobs for which increased levels of PsyCap are beneficial for
performance, attitudes and well-being and those for which it is not. The results of the
Prison Officer study still suggest that implementing interventions or strategies to
increase individual PsyCap would be beneficial to organisations involved in the
Corrective Services and similar job types, as this would allow for improved
employee attitudes and well-being, without having an impact on performance.
However, the negative trending of the correlations between performance and PsyCap
in this sample raise the question as to whether there are specific job types for which
higher levels of PsyCap are detrimental to performance. Research with optimism
suggests that this may be the case is jobs that require a high degree of scepticism,
vigilance, caution or reality appreciation (such as lawyers) rather than initiative,
creativity and a positive outlook (Satterfield et al., 1997). Furthermore, should there
be some occupations for which PsyCap is detrimental to performance, it remains
unclear as to whether the employee would still experience improved work attitudes
and well-being as a result of higher PsyCap. It seems plausible that if high PsyCap
resulted in poor job performance, this would also translate into less desirable
attitudes towards work and decreased well-being. To answer these questions it is
necessary to examine the relationships between PsyCap and job attitudes,
performance and well-being across a wide range of jobs. Despite the benefits of
longitudinal research, it is recommended that this research stream would benefit from
cross sectional research that could more easily involve a wide range of types of
occupation.
187$$
A final question that remains unanswered in this research is why the Moment
Specific PsyCap scale demonstrated a higher degree of stability than that reported for
the PCQ-24. A limitation of this research is that the PCQ-24 was not administered
alongside the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap scales, thus it remains
unknown if the difference between the stability of the PCQ-24 and the Moment
Specific PsyCap scales is an artefact of the samples used, or a true difference that
exists. Longitudinal research in which both the Moment Specific PsyCap scale and
the PCQ-24 are administered to participants is required to answer this question.
Conclusion
Although research conducted with the PCQ-24 has shown the PsyCap
construct to be related to important outcomes including improved employee
attitudes, performance and well-being (Avey et al., 2011), a review of the literature
concerning each of the PsyCap components (hope, optimism, self-efficacy and
resilience) revealed that each of the constructs had been successfully conceptualised
as both state and trait measures, which differ from the ‘state-like’ conceptualisation
of PsyCap presented by Luthans and colleagues (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007).
Given the different uses of state and trait constructs for organisations (ie.
development or selection), this research aimed to construct pure state and pure trait
versions of the PCQ-24, termed the Moment Specific and Generalised PsyCap
scales. The internal reliability, stability over time and validity of these scales were
then assessed.
The initial studies suggested that it was possible to measure a trait component
of PsyCap using the Generalised PsyCap scale, although the Moment Specific
PsyCap scale was not sufficiently variable over time to meet the classification of
being a state. Analysis conducted within these studies showed that the scales
188$$
generally correlated with personality variables and work attitudes and performance in
a similar manner to the way the PCQ-24 correlated with these variables, indicating
that the changes made to the PCQ-24 to create the Moment Specific and Generalised
PsyCap scales did not significantly alter the underlying construct being measured.
The final study aimed to assess the validity of the Generalised PsyCap scale
as an employee selection tool. Results of this study indicated that it should not be
used for employee selection as in this final study the scale did not meet the criteria
for classification as a trait, and therefore was not able to predict future employee
attitudes and behaviours. Instead, the mean drop in PsyCap scores for participants in
this study point towards the need to better understand the environmental or
organisational factors that can influence an individual’s PsyCap so as to allow the
development of employee on-boarding processes which allow high levels of PsyCap
to be maintained or low levels increased. Additionally, results of the final study
showed that while Generalised PsyCap scores were related to concurrent measures of
employee attitudes and well-being, there was no relationship between Generalised
PsyCap and performance. Therefore the results of this study indicate that it is
important to develop a greater understanding of the job types for which PsyCap is
beneficial to performance and those for which it is not.
189$$
References
Adams, V.H.III, Snyder, C.R., Rand, K.L., King, E.A., Sigmon, D.R., & Pulvers,
K.M. (2003). Hope in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz
(Eds.), Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance.
(pp. 367-377). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317-332.
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Angle, H.L., & Perry, J.L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational
commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K.H. (2008). A call for longitudinal research in
positive organizational behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 29,
705-711.
Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K.H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the
impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviours,
and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127-152.
Axtell, C.M., & Parker, S.K. (2003). Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through
involvement, work redesign and training. Human Relations, 56, 113-131.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L., & Leiter, M.P. (2011). Key questions regarding work
engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20,
4-28.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
190$$
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Adams, N.E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral
change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-310.
Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal
of organizational behavior, 5, 41-51.
Barnum, D.D, Snyder, C.R., Rapoff, M.A., Mani, M.M., & Thompson, R. (1998).
Hope and social support in the psychological adjustment of children who
have survived burn injuries and their matched controls. Children's Health
Care, 27, 15-30.
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike's information criteria (AIC): The
general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345-370.
Brayfield, A.H., & Rothe, H.F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.
Bryant, F.B., & Cvengros, J.A. (2004). Distinguishing hope and optimism: Two
sides of a coin, or two separate coins? Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 23, 273-302.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Campbell, N.K., & Hackett, G. (1986). The effects of mathematics task performance
on math self-efficacy and task interest. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28,
149-162.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P.S. (2006). Teachers' self-
efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic
191$$
achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44,
473-490.
Carifio, J., & Rhodes, L. (2002). Construct validities and the empirical relationships
between optimism, hope, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Work, 19(2),
125.
Carver, C.S., Pozo, C., Harris, S.D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M.F., Robinson, D.S., . . .
Clark, K.C. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress:
A study of women with early stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 375-390.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation. In
E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory,
research, and practice. (pp. 31-51). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2003). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder
(Eds.), Positive Psychological Assessment. A handbook of models and
measures (pp. 75-89). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., Miller, C.J., & Fulford, D. (2009). Optimism. In S. J.
Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp.
303-311). New York: Oxford University Press.
Caza, B.B., & Caza, A. (2008). Positive Organizational Scholarship. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 17(1), 21-33.
Cepeda-Benito, A., Gleaves, D.H., Williams, T.L., & Erath, S.A. (2000). The
development and validation of the state and trait food-cravings
questionnaires. Behavior Therapy, 31, 151-173.
192$$
Chang, E.C., Rand, K.L., & Strunk, D.R. (2000). Optimism and risk for job burnout
among working college students: Stress as a mediator. Personality and
individual differences, 29, 255-263.
Chemers, M.M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 55-64.
Cheung, F., Tang, C.S., & Tang, S. (2011). Psychological capital as a moderator
between emotional labor, burnout, and job satisfaction among school teachers
in China. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 348-371.
Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P.C.L., & Davies, F. (2007). The impact of hope, self-esteem,
and attributional style on adolescents' school grades and emotional well-
being: A longitudinal study. Journal of research in personality, 41(6), 1161.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Conley, J.J. (1984). The hierarchy of consistency: A review and model of
longitudinal findings on adult individual differences in intelligence,
personality and self-opinion. Personality and individual differences, 5, 11-25.
Corr, P.J., & Gray, J.A. (1995). Attributional style, socialization and cognitive ability
as predictors of sales success: A predictive validity study. Personality and
individual differences, 18, 241-252.
Costa, P.T., Jr, & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-
PI-R) and Neo Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Curry, L.A., Snyder, C.R., Cook, D.L., Ruby, B.C., & Rehm, M. (1997). Role of
hope in academic and sport achievement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 1257-1267.
193$$
Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work
engagement and job performance. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.),
Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. (pp. 147-
163). New York: Psychology Press.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Dixon, A.L., & Schertzer, S.M.B. (2005). Bouncing back: How salesperson
optimism and self-efficacy influence attributions and behaviors following
failure. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25, 361-369.
Dunn, O.J., & Clark, V.A. (1969). Correlation coefficients measured on the same
individuals. Journal of the American Statistical Association., 64, 366-377.
Dunn, O.J., & Clark, V.A. (1971). Comparison of tests of the equality of dependent
correlation coefficients. Journal of the American Statistical Association., 66,
904-908.
Dutton, J.E., Glynn, M.A., & Spreitzer, G. (2006). Positive Organizational
Scholarship. In J. Greenhaus & G. Callahan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Career
Development (pp. 641-644). California: Sage.
Furnham, A., Crump, J., & Whelan, J. (1997). Validating the NEO personality
inventory using assessor's ratings. Personality and individual differences, 22,
669-675.
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of
general psychology, 9(2), 103-110.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and
competence in children: A building block for developmental
psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111.
194$$
Gist, M.E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human
resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.
Gist, M.E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea
generating among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787-805.
Gist, M.E., & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-
211.
Gordon, R.A. (2008). Attributional style and athletic performance: Strategic
optimism and defensive pessimism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9,
336-350.
Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., & Swann Jr., W.B. (2003). A very brief measure of the
Big-Five personality domains. Journal of research in personality, 37, 504-
528.
Grant, J.S., & Davis, L.L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument
development. Research in Nursing and Health, 20, 269-274.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. (2007). A new model of work role
performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327-347.
Hellman, C.M. (2002). Development of a multi-dimensilnal educational commitment
scale. Oklahoma State University. Proquest Dissertations and Theses
database.
Hill, T., Smith, N.D., & Mann, M.F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in
predicting the decision to use advanced technologies. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 72, 307-314.
195$$
Hinkin, T.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. Journal of management, 21, 967-988.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Hong, E. (1998). Differential stability of individual differences in state and trait test
anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 51-69.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternaltives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy
for surviving and thriving in the face of workplace adversity: A literature
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60, 1-9.
Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported
absence data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 574-591.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., & Locke, E.A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The
mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-
249.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., & Bono, J.E. (1998). The power of being positive: The
relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human
Performance, 11, 167-187.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J. (2003). The core self-evaluations
scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core self-concept and job performance. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, 19, 151-188.
196$$
Kashy, D.A., & Snyder, D.K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in
couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 338-348.
Kwon, P. (2000). Hope and dysphoria: The moderating role of defense mechanisms.
Journal of Personality, 68, 199-223.
Kwon, P. (2002). Hope, defense mechanisms, and adjustment: Implications for false
hope and defensive hopelessness. Journal of Personality, 70, 207-231.
Larson, M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of Psychological Capital in
predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
13, 45-62.
Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach's three dimensions
of burnout. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 75, 743-747.
Lissitz, R.W., & Green, S.B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on
reliability: A monte carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 10-
13.
Lopez, S. J., Snyder, C.R., & Pedrotti, J.T. (2003). Hope: Many definitions, many
measures
. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A
handbook of models and measures (pp. 91).
Lounsbury, J.W., Saudargas, R.A., & Gibson, L.W. (2004). An investigation of
personality traits in relation to intention to withdraw from college. Journal of
College Student Development, 45, 517-534.
Lozano, L.M., Garcia-Cueto, E., & Muniz, J. (2008). Effects of the number of
response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales.
Methodology, 4, 73-79.
197$$
Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior.
Journal of organizational behavior, 23(6), 695.
Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing
psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-72.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S.M., & Combs, G.M. (2006).
Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 27, 387-393.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., & Patera, J.L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based
training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 7, 209-221.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J.B., & Norman, S.M. (2007). Positive
psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological
capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance.
Management and Organization Review, 1, 249-271.
Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J.B. (2008). The mediating role of
psychological captial in the supportive organizational climate- employee
performance relationship. Journal of oOganizational Behavior, 29, 219-238.
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G.R., & Lester, P.B. (2006). Developing the
psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review, 5,
25-44.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological Capital. New
York: Oxford University Press.
198$$
Maddux, J.E. (2009). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In S. J. Lopez
& C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 335-
343). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mansfield, S.L. (2007). The relationship of CEO's and top leadership teams' hope
with their organizational followers' job staisfaction, work engagement, and
retention intent. (Regent University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.
Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development.
American psychologist, 56, 227-238.
McCrae, R.R, & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations
and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 173-175.
Menard, S. (1995). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis: Sage University Series on
Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation
coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied Multivariate Research:
Design and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Millear, P., Liossis, P., Shochet, I., Biggs, H., & Donald, M. (2007). Promoting adult
resilience in the workplace: Synthesizing mental health and work-life balance
approaches. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Conference of the
Australian Psychological Society, Brisbane, Qld.
199$$
Mitchell, T.R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., & James, L.R. (1994).
Predicting self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 79, 246-286.
Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwill, C.D.
(1989). Evaluation of the goodness-of-fit indicies for structural equation
models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
Parker, S.K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job
enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 83, 835-852.
Parker, S.K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of
flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology:
An international Review, 49, 447-469.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American psychologist, 55, 44-55.
Peterson, C., Luborsky, L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1983). Attributions and depressive
mood shifts: a case study using the symptom-content method. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 92, 96-103.
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, Y.L., Metalsky, G.I., &
Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 6, 287-300.
Peterson, S.J., & Byron, K. (2008). Exploring the role of hope in job performance:
results from four studies. Journal of organizational behavior, 29, 785-803.
Peterson, S.J., & Luthans, F. (2003). The positive impact and development of
hopeful leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 26-31.
Podsakoff, N.P., & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12, 531-544.
200$$
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Comon
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. (2003). Technology enabled work: The
role of self-efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring
behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 180-198.
Rand, K.L. (2009). Hope and optimism: Latent structures and influences on grade
expectancy and academic performance. Journal of Personality, 77, 231-260.
Rand, K.L., & Cheavens, J.S. (2009). Hope Theory. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder
(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 323-333). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Reivich, K., & Gillham, J. (2003). Learned optimism: The measurement of
explanatory style. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive
Psychological Assessment. A handbook of models and measures. (pp. 57-74).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rogelberg, S.G., Church, A.H., Waclawski, J., & Stanton, J.M. (2004).
Organizational Survey Research. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of
Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 141-
160). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and
resistance to psychiatric disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 147,
598-611.
Saks, A.M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating
effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer
adjustment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 82-92.
201$$
Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.
Salminen, J.K., Saarijarvi, S., Aairela, E., & Tamminen, T. (1994). Alexithymia-
State or trait? One-year follow-up study of general hospital psychiatric
consultation out-patients. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 681-685.
Satterfield, J.M., Monahan, J., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1997). Law school performance
predicted by explanatory style. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 95-105.
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). The conceptulization and measurement of
work engagement: A review. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work
Engagement: Recent Developments in Theory and Research (pp. 10-24). New
York: Psychology Press.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4,
219-247.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and
physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The
benefits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2,
26-30.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation
202$$
of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 1063-1078.
Scheier, M.F., Matthews, K.A., Owens, J.F., Magovern, G.J., Snr, Lefebvre, R.C.,
Abbott, R.A., & Carver, C.S. (1989). Dispositional optimism and recovery
from coronary artery bypass surgery: The beneficial effects on physical and
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
1024-1040.
Schoon, I. (2006). Risk and resilience: Adpatations in changing times. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schuerger, J., Tait, E., & Tavernelli, M. (1982). Temporal Stability of Personality by
Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 176-182.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G.L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-
being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (Eds.). (1992). Context effects in social and
psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sechrest, L. (1984). Reliability and validity. In A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.),
Research Methods in Clinical Psychology (pp. 22-54). New York: Pergamon
Press.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1998). Learned Optimism. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1999). The president's address. American psychologist, 54, 559-
562.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2006) Learned Optimism. (2nd Edition ed.). New York: Vintage
Books.
203$$
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. The American psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Seligman, M.E.P., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Thornton, N., & Thornton, K.M. (1990).
Explanatory style as a mechanism of disappointing athletic performance.
Psychological Science, 1, 143-146.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Schulan, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of
productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 832-838.
Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology
progress. American psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.
Sharpe, J.P., Martin, N.R., & Roth, K.A. (2011). Optimism and the Big Five factors
of personality: Beyond neuroticism and extraversion. Personality and
individual differences, 51, 946-951.
Snyder, C.R. (1989). Reality negotiation: From excuses to hope and beyond. Journal
of clinical and social psychology, 8, 130-157.
Snyder, C.R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New
York: Free Press.
Snyder, C.R. (2002). Hope Theory: Rainbows in the Mind. Psychological Inquiry,
13(4), 249-275.
Snyder, C.R., Harris, C., Anderson, J.R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S.
T., . . . Harney, P. (1991). The Will and the Ways: Development and
Validation of an Individual-Differences Measure of Hope. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570-585.
204$$
Snyder, C.R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1991a). Hope and health. In C. R.
Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology:
The health perspective. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Snyder, C.R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1991b). Hope and health: Measuring the
will and the ways. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of
social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 285-305).
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Snyder, C.R., Lapointe, A. B., Crowson, J. J., & Early, S. (1998). Preferences of
high- and low-hope people for self-referential input. Cognition & Emotion,
12(6), 807-823. doi: 10.1080/026999398379448
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Ybasco, F.C., Borders, T.F., Babyak, M.A., &
Higgins, R.L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 321.
Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F.R.H. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job activites as
predictors of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 330-350.
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things.
American psychologist, 15, 72-101.
Spielberger, C.D. (1966). Anxiety and Behaviour. NY: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.D. (1970). STAI Manual for the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory ("Self-Evaluation Questionnaire"). Palo, Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C.D., Jacobs, G.H., Russell, S.F., & Crane, R.S. (1983). Assessment of
anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger
205$$
(Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 159-187). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-efficacy and work-related performance:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (1998b). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy.
Organizational Dynamics, 26, 62-74.
Steiger, J.H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251.
Strack, F., Schwarz, N., & Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing:
The role of time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1460-1469.
Stumpf, S.A., Brief, A.P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and
coping with career-related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91-
108.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking About Answers. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J.
E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship :
Foundations of a New Discipline (pp. 94-110). San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Sympson, S.C. (1993). Validation of the Domain Specific Hope Scale: Exploring
Hope in Life Domains. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Kansas, Kansas.
Taylor, M.S., Locke, E.A., Lee, C., & Gist, M.E. (1984). Type A behavior and
fsculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 34, 402-418.
206$$
Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic
findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259-293.
Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context
effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299-314.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey
Response. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tugade, M.M., & Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). Resilient indiviudals use positive
emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320-333.
Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A historical review of the construct.
Holistic Nursing Practice, 18, 3-10.
Tuten, T.L., & Neidermeyer, P.E. (2004). Performance, satisfaction and utnover in
call centres. The effects of stress and optimism. Journal of Business
Research, 57, 26-34.
Van Veldhoven, M., & Broersen, S. (2003). Measurement quality and validity of the
"need for recovery scale". Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, i3-
i9.
Vandenberg, R.J., & Nelson, J.B. (1999). Disaggregating the motives underlying
turnover intentions: When do intentions predict turnover behaviour? Human
Relations, 52, 1313-1336.
Wagnild, G.M., & Young, H.M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation
of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Management, 1, 165-178.
207$$
Wang, Y., Chang, Y., Fu, J., & Wang, L. (2012). Work-family conflict and burnout
among Chinese female nurses: the mediating effect of psychological captial.
BMC Public Health, 12, 915-922.
Wang, Y., Liu, L., Wang, J., & Wang, L. (2012). Work-family conflict and burnout
among Chinese doctors: The mediating role of psychological captial. Journal
of Occupational Health, 54, 232-240.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wood, R.E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-
regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415.
Wood, R.E., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing
organizational performance in complex decision-making environments.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181-201.
Wood, R.E., & Locke, E.A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,
1013-1024.
Wright, T.A. (2007). A look at two methodological challenges for scholars interested
in positive organizational behavior. In D. L. Nelson & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Positive Organizational Behavior (pp. 177-190). London: Sage Publications.
Wright, T.A., & Quick, J.C. (2009). The role of positive-based research in building
the science of organizational behavior. Journal of organizational behavior,
30, 329-336.
208$$
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2007). The role
of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International
Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121-141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2009).
Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work
engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235-244.