Solana Salessi,
Alicia Omar
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y
Técnicas, Argentina
Resumen
El objetivo de este estudio fue establecer la validez discriminante, predictiva e incremental de la Escala de Comportamientos Laborales Proactivos de Belschak y Den Hartog. Se realizó un estudio empírico-instrumental con una muestra no probabilística (510 trabajadores, 53% varones). Análisis de ecuaciones estructurales exploratorios (ESEM) mostraron saturaciones cruzadas inferiores a .30 y un adecuado ajuste de un modelo hexafactorial oblicuo. Los valores de varianza media extraída, de su raíz cuadrada y de la proporción heterorrasgo-monorrasgo proporcionaron evidencia de validez discriminante. Análisis de regresión con SEM confirmaron la contribución significativa de los comportamientos proactivos en la explicación de la satisfacción y de la implicación en el trabajo. Del mismo modo, la personalidad proactiva mostró ser un antecedente significativo de los comportamientos proactivos. Los resultados brindan evidencia favorable a la validez del instrumento analizado.
Palabras clave: proactividad, satisfacción laboral, implicación en el trabajo, validez, estudio instrumental
Referencias
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