The Development and Initial Validation of the Decent Work Scale

被引:255
作者
Duffy, Ryan D. [1 ]
Allan, Blake A. [2 ]
England, Jessica W. [1 ,4 ]
Blustein, David L. [3 ]
Autin, Kelsey L. [1 ]
Douglass, Richard P. [1 ]
Ferreira, Joaquim [4 ]
Santos, Eduardo J. R. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Psychol, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Purdue Univ, Dept Educ Studies, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
[3] Boston Coll, Counseling Dev & Educ Psychol Dept, Chestnut Hill, MA USA
[4] Univ Coimbra, Dept Educ Psychol, P-3000 Coimbra, Portugal
关键词
decent work; instrument development; psychology of working; PAY SATISFACTION; MECHANICAL TURK; LIFE SATISFACTION; MEANINGFUL WORK; FIT INDEXES; JOB; PSYCHOLOGY; CONSTRUCTS; RECOVERY; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1037/cou0000191
中图分类号
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号
0402 ; 040202 ;
摘要
Decent work is positioned as the centerpiece of the recently developed Psychology of Working Theory (PWT; Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016). However, to date, no instrument exists which assesses all 5 components of decent work from a psychological perspective. In the current study, we developed the Decent Work Scale (DWS) and demonstrated several aspects of validity with 2 samples of working adults. In Study 1 (N = 275), a large pool of items were developed and exploratory factor analysis was conducted resulting in a final 15-item scale with 5 factors/subscales corresponding to the 5 components of decent work: (a) physically and interpersonally safe working conditions, (b) access to health care, (c) adequate compensation, (d) hours that allow for free time and rest, and (e) organizational values that complement family and social values. In Study 2 (N = 589), confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a 5-factor, bifactor model offered the strongest and most parsimonious fit to the data. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance models were tested demonstrating that the structure of the instrument did not differ across gender, income, social class, and majority/minority racial/ethnic groups. Finally, the overall scale score and 5 subscale scores correlated in the expected directions with similar constructs supporting convergent and discriminant evidence of validity, and subscale scores evidenced predictive validity in the prediction of job satisfaction, work meaning, and withdrawal intentions. The development of this scale provides a useful tool for researchers and practitioners seeking to assess the attainment of decent work among employed adults.
引用
收藏
页码:206 / 221
页数:16
相关论文
共 68 条
[51]   Implications of recent developments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology [J].
Quintana, SM ;
Maxwell, SE .
COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, 1999, 27 (04) :485-527
[52]   Discussing the Notion of Decent Work: Senses of Working for a Group of Brazilian Workers without College Education [J].
Ribeiro, Marcelo A. ;
Silva, Fabiano F. ;
Figueiredo, Paula M. .
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 7
[53]   Evaluating Bifactor Models: Calculating and Interpreting Statistical Indices [J].
Rodriguez, Anthony ;
Reise, Steven P. ;
Haviland, Mark G. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 2016, 21 (02) :137-150
[54]   Employee attitudes and job satisfaction [J].
Saari, LM ;
Judge, TA .
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 2004, 43 (04) :395-407
[55]   Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries [J].
Savickas, Mark L. ;
Porfeli, Erik J. .
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2012, 80 (03) :661-673
[56]  
Sharone Ofer., 2014, Flawed System/Flawed Self. Job Searching and Unemployment Experiences
[57]   Measuring Meaningful Work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI) [J].
Steger, Michael F. ;
Dik, Bryan J. ;
Duffy, Ryan D. .
JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT, 2012, 20 (03) :322-337
[58]  
Tabachnick B.G., 2013, PEARSON2012
[59]   Problems with single interest scales: Implications of the general factor [J].
Tracey, Terence J. G. .
JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2012, 81 (03) :378-384
[60]   Composing Group-Level Constructs From Individual-Level Survey Data [J].
van Mierlo, Heleen ;
Vermunt, Jeroen K. ;
Rutte, Christel G. .
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2009, 12 (02) :368-392