SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ekonomi İşletme ve Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

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

İşte Kendini Yetiştirme Ölçeğinin Meslek Grupları Arasında Ölçüm Değişmezliğinin Test Edilmesi

Ömer Erdem KOÇAK
Pages
73–84
Publication Date
2020-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings highlighted the importance of taking occupational group differences into account when examining employees' levels of thriving at work, and that analysis should include controlling for potential effects of occupations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Thriving at work scale was developed by Porath et al (2011), and adapted to Turkish by Koçak (2016).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The original scale has two dimensions, each of which has five items; however, the Turkish version has four items for each dimension.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings highlighted the importance of taking occupational group differences into account when examining employees' levels of thriving at work, and that analysis should include controlling for potential effects of occupations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:İşte Kendini Yetiştirme · Ölçüm Değişmezliği · Çok Gruplu Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi

Abstract

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

Özet

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

🔖

Cite This Article

KOÇAK, Ö. E. (2020). Testing the Measurement Invariance of Thriving at Work Scale Across Occupational Groups. Ekonomi İşletme ve Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 73–84. https://ajindex.com/articles/218909

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329-341.
  2. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of educational psychology, 99(2), 274. Bakker, A. B., van Veldhoven, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the demand-control model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 3–16.
  3. Boussabbeh, M., Ben Salem, I., Prola, A., Guilbert, A., Bacha, H., Abid-Essefi, S., & Lemaire, C. (2015). Patulin induces apoptosis through ROS-mediated endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway. Toxicological sciences, 144(2), 328-337.
  4. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Sage. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 456. Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press.
  5. Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(3), 169-191.
  6. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 14(3), 464-504.
  7. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
  8. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10), 1040. Gerbasi, A., Porath, C. L., Parker, A., Spreitzer, G., & Cross, R. (2015). Destructive de-energizing relationships: How thriving buffers their effect on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1423. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
  9. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental aging research, 18(3), 117-144.
  10. Horn, J. L., McArdle, J. J., & Mason, R. (1983). When is invariance not invarient: A practical scientist's look at the ethereal concept of factor i