Solana Salessi,
Alicia Omar
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y
Técnicas, Argentina
Abstract
The aim of this study was to establish the discriminant, predictive and incremental validity of Belschak & Den Hartog´s Proactive Work Behaviors Scale. An empirical-instrumental study was carried out with a non-probabilistic sample (510 workers, 53% males). Analysis of exploratory structural equations (ESEM) showed cross-saturations lower than .30 and an adequate adjustment of an oblique hexa-factorial model. The values of average variance extracted, of its square root and of the heterotrait-monotrait ratio provided evidence of discriminant validity. SEM regression analysis confirmed the significant contribution of proactive behaviors in the explanation of job satisfaction and job involvement. Proactive personality showed itself to be a significant predictor of proactive behaviors. These results obtained provide favorable evidence for the validity of the instrument analyzed.
Keywords: Proactivity, Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, Validity, Instrumental Study.
References
American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Recuperado de http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Ato, M., López, J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038-1059. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational-behaviour: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 103-118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475-498. doi: 10.1348/096317909X439208
Belschak, F., & Den Hartog, D. (2017). Foci of proactive behaviour. In S. Parker, & U. Bindl, (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 169-189). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bergeron, D., Schroeder, T., & Martinez, H. (2014). Proactive personality at work: Seeing more to do and doing more? Journal of Business & Psychology, 29(1), 71-86. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9298-5
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J. & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061-1071. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
Cangiano, F., & Parker, S. K. (2016). Proactivity for mental health and well-being. In S. Clarke, T. Probst, F. Guldenmund & J. Passmore (Eds), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Occupational Safety and Workplace Health (pp. 228-250). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118979013.ch11
Crant, M. Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2017). Proactive personality: A twenty-year review. In S. Parker, & U. Bindl, (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 194-225). New York, NY: Routledge
Cheung, G. & Chang, W. (2017). Current approaches for assessing convergent and discriminant validity with SEM: Issues and solutions. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2017(1), 1. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.12706abstract
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET, 2006). Resolución D N.° 2857: CONICET: Lineamientos para el comportamiento ético en las Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. Buenos Aires: CONICET.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Paterson, N., Stadler, M., & Saks, L. (2014). The relative importance of proactive behaviours and outcomes for predicting newcomer learning, well-being, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational behaviour, 84(3), 318-331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.007
Grant, A. M. & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behaviour 28, 3-34. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
Hair, J. E., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F. L. (2008). Conceptual versus empirical distinctions among constructs: Implications for discriminant validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 36-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00004.x
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: conceptual, methodological and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15(4), 446-455. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.446
Ismaeli, A., Nowalid, W., & Bakar, R. (2016). Proactive behaviour as a mediator of the relationship between career management and career satisfaction. Journal Pengurusan, 48(1), 1-19.
Jiang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and career adaptability: The role of thriving at work. Journal of Vocational behaviour, 98(1), 85-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.10.003
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 341-349. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341
Le, H., Schmidt, F., Harter, J., & Lauver, K. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational behaviour and Human Decision Processes 112(2), 112-125. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
Liao, P. (2015). The Role of self-concept in the mechanism linking proactive personality to employee work outcomes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64(2), 421-443. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12003
Macdonald, S., & MacIntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1300/J022v13n02_01
Mallin, M., Ragland, C., & Finkle, T. (2014). The proactive behaviour of youngest salespeople: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Channels, 21(4), 268-278. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2014.945359
Marsh, H., Morin, A., Parker, P., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
Martínez-García, J. & Martínez-Caro, L. (2009). La validez discriminante como criterio de evaluación de escalas: ¿teoría o estadística? Universitas Psychologica, 8(1), 27-36. Recuperado de: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/647/64712168003.pdf
Messick, S. (1989). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American psychologist, 35(11), 1012-1027. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012
Montero-Rojas, E. (2013). Referentes conceptuales y metodológicos sobre la noción moderna de validez de instrumentos de medición: implicaciones para el caso de personas con necesidades educativas especiales. Actualidades en Psicología, 27(114), 113-128. doi: 10.15517/ap.v27i114.7900
Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 486-500. doi: 10.5465/amr.1983.4284606
Newton, P. E., & Shaw, D. S. (2016). Disagreement over the best way to use the word ‘validity’ and options for reaching consensus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 23(2), 178-197. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1037241
Parker, S., & Bindl, U. (2017). Proactivity at work: A big picture perspective on a construct that matters. In S. K. Parker & U. Bindl, U. (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797113
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviours. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
Parker, S. K. & Wang, Y. (2015). Helping people to ‘make things happen’: A framework for proactivity at work. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10(1), 62-75.
Rousseau, D. M. (2007). A sticky, leveraging, and scalable strategy for high-quality connections between organizational practice and science. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1037-1042. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.27155539
Sackett P., Dahlke J., Shewach O., & Kuncel, N. (2017). Effects of predictor weighting methods on incremental validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(10), 1421-1434. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000235
Salessi, S., & Omar, A. (2016). Satisfacción laboral genérica. Propiedades psicométricas de una escala para medirla. Revista Alternativas en Psicología, 34(1), 93-108.
Salessi, S., & Omar, A. (2018a). Comportamientos proactivos en el trabajo: validación y análisis psicométrico de una escala. Actualidades en Psicología, 32(124), 33-49. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15517/ap.v32i124.30642
Salessi, S., & Omar, A. (2018b). Implicación en el trabajo: validez y confiabilidad de la escala de Kanungo en Argentina. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Psicológica, 35(2), 179-192.
Salessi, S., & Omar, A. (en prensa). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión argentina de la Escala de Personalidad Proactiva. Psico-USF.
Schwab, D. E. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behaviour. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 3-43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Spitzmuller, M., Sin, H., Howe, M., & Fatimah, S. (2015). Investigating the uniqueness and usefulness of proactive personality in organizational research: A meta-analytic review. Human Performance, 28(4), 351-379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1021041
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Thomas, J., Whitman, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010) Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X502359
Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(1), 44-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x
Turban, D., Moake, T., Wu, S., Cheung, Y., & Yu, H. (2017). Linking extroversion and proactive personality to career success. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 20-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316633788
Vandenberghe, C., & Ok, A. (2013). Career commitment, proactive personality, and work outcomes: A cross-lagged study. Career Development International, 18(7), 652-672. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2013-0013
Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Thomas, C., Yu, J., & Spitzmueller, C. (2017). Explaining benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of engagement, team proactivity composition and perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational behaviour, 101(1), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.04.002
Yang, K., Yan, X., Fan, J., & Luo, Z. (2017). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work engagement: A polynomial regression analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 105(1), 43-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.033