psychology - foh-cpd.co.za20).pdf · convenience (super, 1970). concomitant rewards are lar- gely...
TRANSCRIPT
PSYCHOLOGY
Activity for 2020
Activity No: C20 (20) 2023
Topic
Work values scale
Article
Development and validation of a work value scale for assessing high school students
Speciality
Psychometrist
Approved for TWO (2) Clinical Continuing Education Units (CEU’s)
Keywords: work values, scale development, high school students, mixed methodology
Abstract: Assessing work values with high school students is a critical component of career counseling practice, however it remains a
relatively understudied area of research. The purpose of this study was to develop and provide psychometric evaluation of a Work Values
Assembly (WVA) scale for assessing high school students. This study employed a mixed methodology to gather research data and conduct data
analyses. In the first study, 30 participants were involved in focus-group interviews about their work values. The interview data were analyzed
through a grounded theory approach and a framework of seven-dimension work values was derived. In the second study, the WVA scale was
constructed based on the descriptions and dimensions of the first study. Seven hundred fifty three high school students participated in the
pilot study. The revised scale was then administered to 896 high school students in a formal test. The exploratory- and confirmatory factor
analyses re-verified the quality of the items and the construct validity of the WVA scale. The scale also demonstrated good test-retest
reliability and criterion-related validity. Finally, 896 and 592 participants from high schools and colleges, respectively, participated in a test of
measurement invariance between the two groups. Implications for counseling as well as suggestions for future research were discussed.
Multistudy Report
Development and Validation of a
Work Values Scale for Assessing
High School Students
A Mixed Methods Approach
Yao-Ting Sung, Yun-Tim Yvonne Chang, Tzu-Ying Cheng, and Hsiu-Lan Shelly Tien
Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
The Meaning and Importance
of Work Values
The concept of work values is derived from the concept of
values; values are all of a person’s long-term preferences
and enduring convictions that are used to gauge the impor-
tance and agreeableness of an experience, or those that are
used to incite a person to action or decision (Rokeach,
1973). Thus work values are those lasting values that act
as standards in the field of work, and are therefore used
to judge work-related phenomenon, behaviors, and goals,
as well as provide the basis for the assessment of an individ-
ual’s career choices (Super, 1970).
The implications of work values are quite extensive with
many scholars considering them able to explain, predict,
and even become the basis or standard for career decisions.
For example, researchers (Rokeach, 1973; Sortheix, Chow,
& Salmela-Aro, 2015) consider work values capable of
providing for a relatively stable psychological system, and,
as a result, able to explain and even predict an individual’s
internalized traits and behaviors in a variety of work
environments. Schwartz (1992) considers work values to
be a barometer for objective appraisal and behavioral
guidance. Researchers (Judge & Bretz, 1992; Maynard &
Parfyonova, 2013) also view work values and work-related
objectives as the internalized standards by which an indi-
vidual selects a vocation or evaluates a job. Work values,
as seen in this light, do not merely aid in the selection of
an occupation or the appraisal of a job, but also reveal a
worker’s expectations of the ideal career, becoming the
basis for the explanation as to why we work (Dose, 1997;
Jambrak, Deane, & Williams, 2014; Wöhrmann, Fasbender,
& Deller, 2016).
Super (1970) and Gerpott (1988) both asserted that work
values tests also have implications for applicable aspects of
career guidance. Their importance, like similar aptitude and
interest tests, lies in their usefulness in the understanding of
internalized criteria for on-the-job expectations of satisfac-
tion and cognitive preferences toward the content of the
work, becoming the referential basis for career planning.
In Asia and Europe, streaming is a very important educa-
tion system (Sung, Chao, & Tseng, 2016; Sung, Huang,
Tseng, & Chang, 2014; Sung, Cheng, & Hsueh, 2017;
Trautwein, Lüdtke, Marsh, Köller, & Baumert, 2006). High
school especially is an important time for the designation of
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000408
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
2 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
a career path (Sung & Chao, 2015; Sung, Cheng, & Wu,
2016; Super, 1980); it is the time when students, according
to their abilities, are separated into academic or vocational
tracks (Betts, 2011; Sung et al., 2014), and as a result, their
future university majors or other vocational directions are
determined. Students, at this time, find themselves in the
midst of the formative period for work values, where they
must, based on the ebb and flow of societal experiences,
come up with their own preferences, capabilities, and val-
ues, thereby committing themselves to a future career
(Super, 1980). Therefore, if information on work values
and interests, prior to career designation, can be amalga-
mated and applied to the field of career counseling, then
besides providing high school students with more opportu-
nities to explore suitable career options via links between
various assessments and relevant occupations, this counsel-
ing will also be able to enhance student self-awareness,
avoiding the development of negative attitudes toward edu-
cation due to the selection of an inappropriate academic
discipline (Dawis, 1991; Lent & Brown, 2006).
The Dimensions and Measurement
of Work Values
Dimensions of Work Values
Ginzberg, Ginsburg, Axelrad, and Herma (1951) formulated
one of the earlier classifications of work values, proposing
three types based on what kind of reward they are associ-
ated with: intrinsic, extrinsic, and concomitant (as cited in
Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999). Intrinsic rewards can be
achieved by doing the job itself, which in itself can motivate
an individual to work, such as autonomy (Super, 1970).
Extrinsic rewards are the things of value brought about as
a result of doing the work, such as financial rewards and
convenience (Super, 1970). Concomitant rewards are lar-
gely related to social values, examples of which are social
relationships with coworkers or contributions to society
(Zytowski, 1994). Rokeach (1973) classified values into
two major types: terminal and instrumental. Terminal
values emphasize the goals the individual hopes to achieve
in his or her lifetime, such as personal values and social
values, while instrumental values focus on the beliefs, prac-
tical actions, and modes of behavior for achieving those
goals, such as moral and behavioral values.
Work Values Assessments and Their
Limitations
Recognizing the importance of work values, various tools to
assess work values have been developed. Table 1 provides
brief descriptions of several of the measurement tools that
are used most frequently by researchers.
A commonly used work values assessment is the Work
Values Inventory (WVI), developed in 1957 by Super and
Crites. WVI included 15 types of work values and 45 items,
including altruism, esthetics, creativity, intellectual stimula-
tion, achievement, independence, prestige, management,
economic returns, security, surroundings, supervisory rela-
tions, associates, way of life, and variety. Later, WVI mea-
surements were expanded through extensive research,
such as the Work Importance Study (WIS; Super & Sverko,
1995) and Super’s Work Values Inventory-Revised (SWVI-
R; Zytowski, 2006); both have modified the dimen- sions
and content of WVI.
Rounds and Armstrong (2005) recommended adopting
the experience gained from tools used for job adjustments
as a means to supplement career counseling so as to extend
it beyond the campus and into the work site. Based on the
Theory of Work Adjustment, the purpose of the Minnesota
Importance Questionnaire (MIQ; Paired Comparison
Version; Rounds, Henly, Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss 1981)
was to estimate the impact of the work environment on
the worker, focusing on the needs and values that the job
role brings to the worker and whether or not the work envi-
ronment meets the worker’s expectations and satisfaction.
The MIQ comprises 20 separate work needs items related
to work requirement descriptions differentiated through
factor analysis into six work values: achievement, comfort,
status, altruism, safety, and autonomy. Based on the MIQ,
McCloy et al. (1999a) developed the Work Importance
Profile (WIP) for the American career consulting agency
Occupational Information Network (O*NET). WIP included
similar 6 value dimensions and 21 needs.
Based on Table 1, we can also find some limitations of
those existent tools. Firstly, in the examination of reliability
and validity, although the majority of scales conform with
Nunnally’s (1978) criterion that reliability coefficients be
greater than .70, most studies did not demonstrate appro-
priate validity. Scholars (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda,
1993; Long, 1983) have proposed that exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) alone cannot reveal the complete structure
of the factors, and so suggested that confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) should be used to confirm the existence of
factor structure and goodness-of-fit indices. However,
CFA has been applied to only a few work values scales to
analyze their construct validity, and even if researchers
employed CFA, the studies suffered from the limitations
of small samples and poor model fit. For example, the
WIP (McCloy et al., 1999a) included CFA in its analyses,
the value for root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) was .11, the comparative fit index (CFI) was .8,
and TLI was .76, thus most of the indicators failed to meet
the criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999).
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1015-5759/a000408 - Monday, August 27, 2018 11:50:00 PM - IP Address:197.88.5.173
Table 1. Summary of work values scales
Scale Author(s) Year Sample Factors Reliability coefficient Validity
Work Values Inventory Super 1970 – Way of life, prestige, security, economic .74–.83 EFA
rewards, altruism, creativity, intellectual
stimulation, variety independence,
esthetics, achievement, management,
surroundings, supervisory relations,
associates
Minnesota Importance
Questionnaire
Gay, Weiss, Hendel,
Dawis, and Lofquist
1971 College students
& adults (N = 999)
Achievement, comfort, status, altruism,
safety, autonomy
.50–.86 Discriminant validity
Convergent validity
EFA
Rokeach Value Survey Rokeach 1973 – Terminal values, instrumental values .71–.78 EFA
Work Aspect Preference
Scale
Pryor 1979 Senior-high-school
students & adults
Security, self-development, altruism,
lifestyle, physical activity, detachment,
independence, prestige, management,
coworkers, creativity, money
.61–.84 EFA
Schwartz Work Value Ros, Schwartz,
and Surkiss
1999 College students
(N = 999)
Personal growth, autonomy, interest,
creativity, pay and security, contact with
people, contribution to society, prestige,
authority, influence
Not reported Content validity
Similarity structure analysis
Work Importance Profile McCloy et al. 1999a Graduate college Achievement, comfort, status, altruism, .50–.86 EFA
students (N = 941) safety, autonomy CFA
Career Value Scale Macnab, Bakker
and Fitzsimmons
2005 Aged 15–60 years
(N = 140,00)
Service orientation, teamwork, influence,
creativity, independence, excitement,
career development, financial rewards,
prestige, security
.75–.89 Concurrent validity
Construct validity
EFA
Super’s Work Values
Inventory-Revised
Zytowski 2006 Senior-high-school
Students (N = 99)
Achievement, prestige, security,
associates, supervisory relations,
creativity, surroundings, economic
returns, variety, independence, way of life,
intellectual stimulation
.70–.89 EFA
Construct validity
Work Values Leuty and Hansen 2011 College students
(N = 347)
Working environment, challenging work,
status, income, autonomy, organizational
Not reported EFA
Construct validity
support, relationships
Note. EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis.
Y.-T
. Sung e
t al., W
ork
Valu
es A
ssem
bly
3
© 2
017 H
ogre
fe P
ublish
ing. D
istribute
d u
nder th
e
Hogre
fe O
penM
ind L
icense
http
://dx.d
oi.o
rg/10.1
027/a000001
Euro
pean J
ourn
al o
f Psy
cholo
gica
l Asse
ssment (2
017)
4 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Secondly, cultural issues need to be emphasized more in
the construction of work value scales. Many researchers
have asserted that work values scales are influenced by
cultural factors. For example, Robinson and Betz (2008)
using SWVI-R, and Hartung, Fouad, Leong, and Hardin
(2010) using the WVI scale both found that African
Americans placed more importance on intrinsic work
values than did Americans of European descent. Fuller,
Edwards, Sermsri, and Vorakitphokatorn (1993) used theo-
retical constructs and measurement tools developed by
American academia in their cross-cultural research that
surveyed local Thai sociological phenomenon. The research
results indicated that, despite back-translation, many of the
statements in the English questionnaire were too abstract
and confusing and needed to be reworded.
Furthermore, comparisons of foreign versus domestic
research also revealed that differences in environments
and samples could lead to the extraction of different factor
constructs between various studies even though the scales
adopted were the same. Using a WVI scale as an example,
White (2006) extracted four factors from a sampling of
college students in an English-speaking country, namely,
comfort-independent, stimulation, affiliation, and achieve-
ment. Dolan, Díez-Piñol, Fernández-Alles, Martín-Prius,
and Martínez-Fierro (2004), on the other hand, extracted
four factors of extrinsic work values, social, economic work
status, intrinsic work values, and self-realization values
based on their Spanish participants. Moreover, Lee, Hung,
and Ling (2012) in a sampling of Malaysian teachers classi-
fied three different factors, that is, environment, intrinsic,
and security. The above research findings reveal that using
the same WVI scale for different cultures will result in
different factor structures; different ethnic and cultural back-
grounds must therefore be considered when constructing a
values scale, but in most cases the work value dimensions
of respondents from different cultural backgrounds are not
taken into account when values scales are constructed.
Thirdly, although research indicates an individual’s
work values change greatly during the transition from
adolescence to adulthood (Johnson, 2002), current theory
suggests that the structure of work values in a culture does
not change due to age (Harpaz & Fu, 2002; Jin & Rounds,
2012). However, when formulating a work values scale using
one age group, this theory must still be validated for that
particular scale if researchers intend to apply it to a different
age group. Unfortunately, most current work values scales
were developed surveying working adults, and never
rigorously validated with a high school sample. For example,
the widely used work values scale of Super (1970) was
constructed on the basis of the researcher’s work with
middle school students; whether or not the scale is suitable
for use with high school students still awaits validation.
Because of different backgrounds or mental sets,
different groups of participants may conceptualize con-
structs within the same measurement tool differently.
Therefore, directly comparing the testing results of two
groups with the same measurement tools may not be
appropriate (Raju, Laffitte, & Byrne, 2002). Previous
research usually focused on the evaluation of the reliability
and validity of a measurement tool through a single group
of participants with little consideration for the appropriate-
ness of using the same tool for another group.
Thankfully, there exist statistical tools for testing the
generalizability of a measurement method. Measurement
invariance has been proposed as a way to evaluate the
plausibility of applying testing tools to different groups
while measuring the same construct (Cheung & Rensvold,
2002). The testing of measurement invariance is a kind
of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), which
can evaluate if there exists invariance or equivalence in the
estimated parameters of factor models in different groups
(Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). By testing the configural
invariance (model 1; same factor structures across groups),
metric invariance (model 2; same factor loadings across
groups), and scalar invariance (model 3; same item inter-
cepts across groups), researchers can get more objective
information about the appropriateness of comparing the
test results of different groups with the same measurement
tool (e.g., Marsh, Nagengast, & Morin, 2013). Based on the
importance of evaluating the measurement invariance, this
study will test the measurement invariance of a Work
Values Assembly (WVA) scale among high school and
college students.
Aim of the Current Research
In Taiwan the most frequently used work value scales were
compiled some years ago, with most of the scales having
been based on scales developed in the Western societies,
such as Wu, Li, Liu, and Ou (1996) and Chen, Wang, Liu,
Ou, and Li (1987). Those scales suffered from the three
limitations mentioned above: They have a lack of rigorous
evaluation for construct validity, they directly adopted the
structure/dimension of values from other countries with
little consideration for indigenous culture, and they need
more evaluation for the appropriateness of application
to cross-age groups of participants (Hung & Liu, 2003).
To help compensate for these limitations, our research
has four aims:
(a) Determine the work values dimensions of Taiwanese
students and compare those with Western cultural
values by means of qualitative research.
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly 5
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
(b) Develop a WVA scale suitable for use with high school
students based on the work values dimensions
obtained by qualitative research.
(c) Empirically examine the psychometric properties of the
WVA scale, including its reliability and validity with
representative samples and abundant participants.
(d) Evaluate the measurement invariance in the WVA
scale’s structure between groups of high school and
college students.
We employed mixed methodology (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2003) with an exploratory design of the instrument devel-
opment model (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, &
Hanson, 2003) to fulfill the above purposes. The first study
employed a grounded theory approach to collect the quali-
tative data on the work value dimensions. The second study
evaluated various facets of measurement theory, including
reliability of internal consistency, validity from EFA, CFA,
and criterion-relatedness, and measurement invariance
for the WVA scale across high school and university
students. During the construction and evaluation process
of the WVA scale, the principles of the Standards for
Educational and Psychological (AERA/APA/NCME, 2014)
were referred to as a major guide. For example, the content
and relative importance of aspects of the content in the
WVA scale were carefully derived from the interview
results of focus groups, to ensure the representativeness
of the work value content and dimensions in Taiwanese
culture; the validity evidence based on internal structure
was gathered and evaluated by EFA and CFA; the validity
evidence based on external criteria was evaluated by
comparing the WVA scores with the scores of another
validated work value scale, the Work Importance Locator
(WIL; McCloy et al., 1999b); and for the evidence of
generalizability for the WVA scale across different groups,
a measurement-invariance analysis was conducted for both
data sets from high school and college students.
Study 1: Qualitative Research on the
Content of Taiwanese Work Values
In this study, a qualitative dual-approach (inductive
and deductive) research methodology was implemented.
The focus-group interview is often used for the process
of identifying dimensions and compiling statements in a
scale or questionnaire (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The
unique characteristic of focus-group interviews is their
ability, through group dynamics, to allow members to
express, in a relaxed setting, a diversity of opinions on
all types of experiences, perspectives, and views related
to the research topic, and, thereby, assist the researcher
to collect information-rich qualitative data and to examine
the topic from a totally new point of view (Morgan &
Krueger, 1993).
Method
Participants
The main purposes of this qualitative study were to eluci-
date the dimensions of work values in contemporary
Taiwanese culture and to establish a structural framework
for the WVA scale. According to previous researchers, while
the emphasis people place on different work values dimen-
sions may change substantially from adolescence to adult-
hood (Johnson, 2002), the actual structure of those
dimensions should remain stable over time (Harpaz & Fu,
2002; Jin & Rounds, 2012). Therefore, we believe that the
structure/dimensions derived from Taiwanese adults may
also represent the work values structure of Taiwanese
senior high school students. Furthermore, because each
participant of this study needed to attend the focus group
at least twice, and because Taiwanese high school students
are so intensely busy studying for entrance examinations,
which are very high stakes for their future career develop-
ment (Sung & Chao, 2015), recruiting senior high school
students for investigating work value structure/dimensions
would be impractical for this study. Based on the two
reasons above, this study recruited college-aged adults as
our focus-group sample while using senior high school
students as the sample for evaluating the reliability and
validity of the WVA scale developed based on the dimen-
sions provided by the college students. However, conscious
of the risks of generalizing across age groups, we addition-
ally tested the scale measurement invariance between these
two groups in Study 2.
The study followed Krueger’s (1988) suggestions on the
use of purposive sampling for focus-group research. First,
a pool of candidates was selected that met the objectives
(identifying work value dimensions) and conditions (college
students or graduates aged from 20 to 30 years with part-
or full-time work experience) of the study, and then actual
participants were randomly chosen from this pool; so that,
in this way, sampling errors could be reduced to a mini-
mum. The study utilized online advertisements with web-
based registration, and personal contact via campus
bulletins to solicit participants. The participants were
recruited based on their gender and work experiences;
participants with different work fields were given priority.
In the end we recruited 30 Taiwanese nationals split evenly
between men and women and divided into five separate
groups in such a fashion as to maximize the diversity of
each group.
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
6 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
The participants included four students from technology-
related university departments, seven students from liberal
arts and business departments, seven individuals with more
than 2 years of working experience in technology-related
fields, four individuals with liberal arts or business back-
grounds who were working in related areas, and eight
individuals working in fields unrelated to their university
majors. Each interview lasted 1.5 hr and was recorded with
the respondents’ permission. Due to the length of each
session and the desire to obtain high-quality data, each
group met 2 or 3 times to ensure each participant could
fully express themselves without time constraints.
Procedure
Data Collection
Following Krueger and Casey (2000), each discussion
group consisted of six members, as too many in a group
would hinder opportunities for experiential and observa-
tional exchanges between group members. At the begin-
ning of the first focus-group session, the researcher first
gave a brief self-introduction and explained the purpose
of the research. If members were still willing to participate
in the focus group they then filled out a consent form that
included basic data. The researcher also verbally notified
the participants that the entire session would be taped
and transcribed word-for-word, and notes would be taken,
so as to collect data from the group’s discussions and
record the opinions of participants. The researcher further
explained that privacy would be guaranteed and that,
should any participant feel uncomfortable, they could leave
at any time during the session. Only after all members
expressed agreement did a focus-group session begin.
The duration for each focus-group session lasted
between 90 and 120 min with a semi-structured interview
format, and each group met 2 or 3 times. Prior to a session,
developmental questions, covering the scope of the study,
were drafted as a means to keep the focus on research
objectives and to allow time for participants to reply. Once
a session was over, analysis of the data proceeded only after
researchers had completed the verbatim transcription of
source material and participants had been given the
opportunity to review transcripts for accuracy (Krueger &
Casey, 2000).
Adhering to the guidelines on question types applicable
to focus-groups interviews proposed by Krueger (1988),
the interviewers asked the following questions:
1. “Please state your name and briefly describe a day at
work.”
2. “What do you think of when you hear ‘work values’?”
3. “What do you get out of your current job?”
4. “What concerns you most when looking for a job?”
and
5. “What do you feel you can do to obtain the most from
your job?”
Researchers followed the interview questionnaire outline
and modified the questions according to the participants’
background, such that individuals who were employed were
asked to share their on-the-job experiences and to describe
what they hoped to gain from their jobs, while students
shared information about what they desired in their future
work.
Data Analysis
As a means to avoid overlap between work value dimen-
sions, the researchers considered the need to increase the
clarity of the boundaries between the conceptual meanings
for each representative category. Therefore Corbin and
Strauss’ (2007) grounded theory approach, which is based
on methods of coding and separation for real-time data
via hierarchical classifications and analysis, was selected
for further analysis of the textual data. In formulating the
basis of a statement, each derivative dimension was
explained and named. Not only were the concepts and
properties of each dimension clarified in this manner, but
so was the meaning of the statement it represented.
This process was divided into the following steps:
(1) Reading of the transcripts. Transcripts derived from the
recordings were read from beginning to end to gain a
comprehensive understanding of the material. While
reviewing each group, thorough coding was done that
showed the date the session took place, number of
sessions, participant code names, and positions of
important junctures. Following this, the materials were
stored, using specific rule-based filing so as to be
easily indexed for future reference.
(2) Open coding. Three research assistants with psychol-
ogy master degrees and a background of qualitative
research reviewed and coded the transcripts. The
coding process was as follows: first, each researcher
read and open-coded the transcripts while searching
for descriptive content related to work values. The
descriptive statements were collated. Similar descrip-
tive statements were grouped together into a code
until all were coded. Researchers compiled a total
of 231 descriptive sentences. A codebook was cre-
ated, which included a comprehensive list of all
codes, the properties of each code, and descriptive
statements.
(3) Axis coding. During this process, researchers inter-
preted and analyzed the open-coded data, summariz-
ing concretely interviewee discourse, assigning label
names with close associations to content meaning,
and assembling a hierarchical classification structure.
The three researchers named the 231 descriptive
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly 7
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Table 2. Example of optional translated code table
Selecting coding Axis coding Open coding
Main category Subcategory Concept Meaning of content
Compensation and benefits Source of financial stability Salary is fixed A fixed salary amount is wired monthly.
Monetary compensation is stable Work results in stable monetary
compensation.
Salary increases incrementally If one remains in the company then salary
will gradually increase.
Suitable working environment Good office environment Working in a good office environment is
good for both body and mind.
Office atmosphere is amicable The office atmosphere is harmonious and
pleasant; everybody diligently does their
work.
Working environment is very good The office working environment is very
good, much like a family.
sentences appropriately according to the implica-
tions they carried. When there was disagreement
between the three researchers regarding how a
particular statement should be classified, discussions
were held to obtain a consensus on the construct
classification.
(4) Selecting coding. Researchers referenced open-coded
and axial coded categories as units. Over the course
of extensive classification, shared characteristics were
captured until core categories, comprising the full
meaning of the research, could be selected, linking
each category and forming a preliminary explanatory
structure. Then the data was reinspected for struc-
tural completeness and superfluous categories were
eliminated while insufficient ones were augmented,
constituting a complete explanatory structure (Corbin
& Strauss, 2007). See Table 2 for additional examples.
After repeated cycles of selective coding, the research-
ers constructed an initial framework of 21 categories.
Following several reclassifications and in-depth discussion,
six categories, which were biased toward personality traits,
were eliminated, for example, sense of responsibility,
devotion, patience, conscientiousness, avoidance of compe-
tition, and emotional maturity. Afterward similarity of
meanings was compared and categories were merged with
a total of five being combined into two, for example,
“upward mobility,” “office amenities,” and “stable living,”
being combined into the category of “compensation and
benefits,” and “interaction with colleagues” was merged
with “social interaction.” There were 231 descriptive
sentences belonging to the following 12 core categories: (1) compensation and benefits (57 sentences, 24.7%),
(2) professional development (37 sentences, 16.0%),
(3) social relationships (26 sentences, 11.3%), (4) autonomy
(20 sentences, 8.7%), (5) variety (17 sentences, 7.4%),
(6) self-actualization (16 sentences, 6.9%), (7) social
approval (14 sentences, 6.0%), (8) prestige (12 sentences,
5.2%), (9) happiness (11 sentences, 4.8%), (10) prosocial
motivation (9 sentences, 3.9%), (11) work pressures (8 sen-
tences, 3.5%), and (12) importance of family (4 sentences,
1.7%). In order to ensure that scale measurements were
clear and unambiguous, researchers reviewed the 12 cate-
gories in an attempt to identify any overlap between the
categories. For example, social approval and prestige were
merged due to similarity. Additionally, the work-pressures
category has a negative connotation and is not something
that people would hope to obtain from their jobs (Super,
1980), and was thus discarded. Happiness was also dis-
carded because the concept was too vague; in addition to
it being the result of the satisfaction of needs, it is also
affected by satisfaction with other work values (Dawis &
Lofquist, 1984). Therefore, the 12 core categories were
reduced to seven dimensions, and they are presented in
the next section. We utilized qualitative methods and
constructed a conceptual work values framework from
empirical data, as shown in Table 3.
Results and Discussion
The seven dimensions that we derived in this study
corresponded to the following four main typical dimensions
that scholars have previously obtained through factor anal-
ysis: intrinsic values, extrinsic values, social values, and
prestige values (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007; Elizur, 1984;
Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999).
When comparing the work values framework revealed by
this study with commonly used work values measures of the
past, that is, WVI and MIQ, the self-actualization category
of our framework belongs to the intrinsic values dimension;
its implications include the importance of achieving goals
and actualizing their competence; this dimension is similar
to achievement in the WVI (Super, 1970) and the MIQ.
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
8 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Table 3. Work values structural framework
Dimension Content Sample item
Comfort Includes a stable life, salary, and benefits; the degree of
importance individuals place on obtaining a steady
source of income or stable life and a comfortable work
environment from their jobs.
Prestige Includes the concepts of social approval and social
status; the degree of importance individuals place on
obtaining social status and the recognition of others.
Growth Includes professional growth and challenges; the degree
of importance individuals place on professional
development and their willingness to accept challenges
at work.
Autonomy Emphasizes the power of autonomy that an individual
possesses, and whether he or she has the flexibility to
control working conditions and job content.
Self-actualization Includes the implementation of abilities and
actualization of ideals, with an emphasis on whether the
individual can achieve self-actualization through his or
her work and whether the job content is engaging, does
the job allow an individual to realize his or her full
potential, and does he or she feel that the work is
meaningful.
Prosocial motivation Includes serving others, social responsibility, and moral
conscience; importance is placed on whether an
individual’s job helps or affects others positively.
Interpersonal connections Includes expanding social networks and engaging in
teamwork; importance is placed on whether the job
requires the individual to come into contact with others
or take part in cooperative efforts.
The job would provide for a stable lifestyle.
The job would enable me to achieve higher social
status.
I could gain specialized skills working at the job.
I could be free to make decisions on my own at work.
The job enables me to make use of my expertise.
The job allows me to make some contribution to the
society.
I would be able to meet different people and make
friends.
The professional growth dimension also belongs to the
intrinsic values, and it includes the need for job challenges,
the application of knowledge, and the importance of
developing professional ability. This dimension is similar
to the creativity, variety, and intellectual stimulation cate-
gories in the WVI; the implications of the autonomy and
prosocial motivation dimensions correspond to those found
in both the WVI and MIQ.
As for extrinsic values, comfort emphasizes the stability,
rewards, and benefits obtained from work; this dimension
is similar to that of economic rewards and surroundings
from the WVI and to that of comfort and safety from MIQ.
In terms of social values, the descriptive sentences for
the interpersonal factor indicate that Taiwanese respon-
dents place importance on interacting with others and
having good relationships with colleagues; when compared
with the WVI, supervisory relationships are mentioned less,
and hence a dimension could not be constructed for this
value. Prestige emphasizes power and status; this dimen-
sion is similar to that of prestige from the WVI and to that of status from MIQ.
A comparison of Taiwanese work values and Western
work values reveals some similarities in the structural impli-
cations. The findings of this study indicate that Taiwanese
work values are characterized by multiple work value
dimensions. “Comfort,” which included receiving compen-
sation and benefits associated with work, was the most
widely mentioned dimension. The focus-group interviewees
also suggested that “professional growth” was important to
them at a job, and it was the second most widely discussed
value category.
Taiwanese also emphasized work setting features that are
interesting and challenging, autonomy in decision-making,
and the opportunity to achieve ideals with colleagues. They
placed more emphasis on meeting self-actualization, self-
expression, and self-development needs. More and more
are seeing work as a way to accomplish intrinsic needs,
which stands in contrast to previous generations (Lu & Lin,
2002; Wong & Yuen, 2012). “Social relationships” was the
third most commonly mentioned category. Unlike the
WVI, supervisory relationships were rarely mentioned in
our sample, and hence a dimension could not be constructed
for this value. In Western interpersonal values, good relation-
ships require the satisfaction of an individual’s emotional
needs and his or her desire for achieving security through
interaction with others, whereas in East Asian cultures, in
addition to satisfying individual emotional needs, good
relationships include maintaining a harmonious atmosphere
and cooperating in the sharing of resources (Huang, Eveleth,
& Huo, 1998; Wong & Yuen, 2012). Also, comparing our
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly 9
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
transcripts with the literature, past methods of classifying
values dimensions often categorized power, status, eco-
nomic reward, and work environment as extrinsic values.
However, in the present study these four dimensions were
classified into two separate categories. By comparing our
transcripts with the relevant literature on the subject, it can
be seen that the needs for power and status (i.e., an individ-
ual’s desire to obtain the approval and respect of others)
belong to the satisfaction of intrinsic psychological needs.
Needs expressed in surroundings and economic rewards
(i.e., an individual’s desire for a job that provides a good
living environment, salary, and benefits) belong to the satis-
faction of extrinsic material needs. Therefore, power and
status were renamed as prestige, and work environment
and rewards were subsumed into comfort.
Our work values structural framework was established
with the goal to develop a work value scale designed to
be used in Taiwan for high school students. Although it
was found that the value dimensions that we obtained
from the qualitative study reflect universal values, distinct
cultural differences were also found. However, to see exist-
ing cultural differences will require future studies to acquire
cross-national samples for qualitative studies. The develop-
ment of the work values framework in this study demon-
strates a potential research instrument that measures a
number of intrinsic and extrinsic values for studying
cultures and values in future studies.
Study 2: Quantitative Evaluation
of the WVA Scale
Pilot Study
Item Development and Review for the WVA Scale
After confirming the seven work values dimensions
described in Study 1, the content of the 231 qualitative
descriptive statements was reexamined, and the items were
rewritten and revised according to the implications of their
dimensions, so that the rewritten items corresponded more
closely to the category meanings. Finally, researchers
selected the items they considered to be the most represen-
tative of the dimensions. In total, 60 items were selected.
In order to assure the suitability of scale content, items
underwent a two-stage review process conducted by experts
in the field. In the first stage, 13 Taiwanese experts with
practical experience in the field of education and counseling
reviewed each of the 60 descriptive sentences, checking
and scoring items for readability and content; in total, 27
items were revised. In the second stage, nine Taiwanese
experts including three licensed psychologists, three high
school and university counselors, and three professors
holding doctorates conducted dimension classification of
the 60 items and revised the item dimension relevance.
Items were revised to ensure consistency and to discard
items that had relatively weak or ambiguous relationships
with the dimensions. After the review, 58 items derived
from the item development remained in the WVA scale.
The seven dimensional subscales were as follows: prosocial
motivation (10 items), interpersonal connections (9 items),
prestige (9 items), comfort (9 items), professional growth
(8 items), self-actualization (7 items), and autonomy
(6 items). The 5-point Likert rating scale was utilized.
Respondents answered according to the degree of impor-
tance they placed on each work values item, choosing one
of the following five options: “not important,” “somewhat
important,” “important,” “very important,” and “extremely
important.”
Participants
For the pilot test, the sample was comprised of 753 senior-
high-school students, aged 16–19 years, from Northern
Taiwan. Among them were 306 males (40.64%) and 444
females (58.96%); three students did not specify their
gender on the questionnaire.
Procedure
The pilot-test data were collected between late March and
mid-April 2012. The purpose of the scale and the method of
completing it were explained to the participating students
before the scale was administered to them. After they com-
pleted the scale, the students received a gift in appreciation
of their participation. The administration of the WVA scale
lasted for around 15–20 min.
Results
The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis
oblimin rotation was conducted. Oblimin (Promax) rotation
was used to assist interpretation of the components (Fabri-
gar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999; Thompson,
2004). The Bartlett’s test value was significant at
15,780.647 (p < .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
of sampling adequacy was .928. Therefore, exploratory
factor analysis was appropriate for these data. According
to the criterion of eigenvalue-greater-than-one (Kaiser,
1958), seven factors were extracted, which accounted for
56.77% of the variance. Eigenvalues ranged from 1.24 to
11.73. According to the item deletion threshold proposed
by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), a factor loading smaller
than 0.45 indicates that the factors explain less than 20%
of the observed variance, which is less than ideal for the
purposes of the present study (Leuty & Hansen, 2011).
Among the 58 items, there were 14 items (PS08, IP07,
IP08, IP09, CS07, PR09, PR08, PS10, SA07, GR07,
GR08, AU04, AU05, and AU06) with factor loadings
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
10 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Table 4. Rotated factor loadings and internal consistency reliability for the seven-factor model in the pilot test
Factor Internal consistency
Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communality estimates Residuals Cronbach’s α
PS01 .87 .19 .32 .19 .46 .38 .19 .79 .21 .92
PS02 .84 .17 .32 .23 .43 .39 .20 .75 .25
PS03 .82 .18 .40 .22 .47 .46 .22 .72 .28
PS06 .80 .21 .36 .24 .43 .39 .22 .70 .30
PS05 .77 .12 .42 .21 .40 .43 .17 .68 .32
PS04 .72 .20 .48 .20 .47 .48 .30 .69 .31
IP01 .14 .88 .22 .33 .20 .20 .31 .72 .28 .89
IP02 .09 .86 .20 .32 .16 .16 .33 .70 .30
IP03 .08 .86 .24 .32 .13 .18 .31 .73 .27
IP05 .23 .72 .32 .40 .29 .41 .24 .64 .36
IP06 .29 .71 .38 .44 .30 .44 .26 .62 .38
IP04 .24 .66 .29 .40 .26 .16 .29 .60 .40
PR01 .14 .28 .94 .26 .34 .40 .35 .81 .19 .88
PR02 .42 .25 .81 .22 .36 .34 .28 .72 .28
PR03 .25 .20 .79 .17 .31 .31 .34 .67 .33
PR06 .35 .32 .76 .26 .34 .47 .41 .66 .34
PR05 .43 .31 .66 .39 .38 .45 .30 .62 .38
PR04 .29 .20 .64 .19 .35 .23 .19 .56 .44
CS02 .26 .31 .28 .74 .24 .36 .25 .70 .30 .82
CS05 .15 .36 .21 .70 .21 .32 .22 .67 .33
CS01 .12 .45 .28 .62 .21 .41 .23 .59 .41
CS03 .12 .52 .31 .61 .22 .29 .32 .51 .49
CS04 .22 .36 .16 .59 .21 .14 .19 .62 .38
CS06 .34 .19 .28 .57 .25 .31 .28 .62 .38
GR02 .35 .25 .32 .27 .81 .34 .20 .71 .29 .85
GR01 .45 .13 .25 .20 .80 .36 .12 .68 .32
GR06 .37 .17 .31 .28 .77 .39 .22 .64 .36
GR03 .45 .22 .46 .18 .51 .49 .19 .58 .42
GR04 .39 .29 .36 .09 .49 .44 .30 .53 .47
GR05 .42 .08 .36 .12 .48 .37 .16 .64 .36
SA01 .51 .22 .37 .30 .42 .70 .25 .59 .41 .81
SA02 .35 .37 .34 .34 .43 .68 .31 .61 .39
SA04 .26 .12 .26 .30 .27 .65 .36 .68 .32
SA06 .34 .17 .36 .19 .55 .57 .37 .54 .46
SA03 .45 .18 .36 .22 .41 .55 .21 .60 .40
SA05 .51 .22 .37 .30 .42 .55 .25 .65 .35
AU01 .23 .35 .34 .30 .28 .35 .72 .79 .21 .87
AU02 .32 .37 .38 .32 .27 .38 .70 .82 .18
AU03 .18 .29 .40 .25 .21 .38 .61 .68 .32
Note. Bold values indicate items belonging to the same factor.
smaller than 0.45, therefore they were deleted from the
scale. Furthermore, five items (PS07, PR07, PS09, SA03,
and SA04) showed cross-loading with other items, which
means that those items were correlated with more than
one factor, which may increase bias and reduce the inter-
pretability of the scale, therefore those cross-loaded items
were deleted (Hair et al., 2006, pp. 149–151). After the
selection, an EFA with principal axis oblimin rotation was
conducted again for the remaining 39 items. In Table 4,
we can see that the factor loadings of the dimensions were
.72–.87 for prosocial motivation, .66–.88 for interpersonal
connections, .64–.94 for prestige, .57–.74 for comfort,
.48–.81 for growth, .55–.70 for self-actualization, and
.61–.72 for autonomy. The communalities ranged from .41
to .81. Since only three item loadings in the autonomy
dimension met the criterion, only those three items were
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly 11
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Table 5. The correlation matrix of factors in pilot study
Factor PS IP PR CS GR SA AU
PS 1
IP .49 1
PR .23 .35 1
CS .29 .37 .53 1
GR .62 .53 .28 .34 1
SA .61 .52 .31 .45 .71 1
AU .35 .48 .44 .41 .36 .52 1
Notes. AU = autonomy, CS = comfort, GR = growth, IP = interpersonal
connections, PR = prestige, PS = prosocial motivation, SA = self-
actualization.
selected. The correlation matrix of the seven factors is pre-
sented in Table 5. Overall, 19 items were removed and the
remaining 39 items were retained. There were six items in
each of the six dimensions except for the autonomy dimen-
sion. The factor loadings and the internal consistency relia-
bility coefficient (Cronbach’s α) of the seven dimensions are
listed in Table 4. Since only three items remained in the
autonomy dimension after the pilot test, seven new items
were developed using the same method as those items pro-
duced by the pilot study and were added to this dimension
for the formal test.
Formal Study
Participants
Three samples of students were recruited in this study.
The first sample comprised 896 high school students from
Taipei City and New Taipei City. There were 445 males
(49.67%) and 451 females (50.33%), aged 15–19 years.
They were sampled for the item analysis, reliability of inter-
nal consistency, and construct validity. The second sample
comprised 491 students (46.8% males and 53.2% females)
from public and private high schools and vocational high
schools in Taipei City. They were recruited for the test-
retest reliability and the criterion-related validity of the
WVA scale. The third sample included 896 students of
the first sample and 592 students (41.72% males and
58.28% females), aged 19–23 years, from public and private
colleges in Taipei City. The two groups of students were
sampled for the testing of measurement invariance.
Measurement Tools
This study employs two measurement tools. The first one is
the WVA scale developed in the pilot study. Including the
seven new items for the autonomy dimension, there was a
total of 46 items in the WVA scale. The second tool is the
Work Importance Locator (WIL), which was used as the
criterion of the criterion-related validity. The WIL was
\produced and funded by the O*NET project of the US
Department of Labor (McCloy et al., 1999b), for the
measurement of job seekers’ work values, which included
20 needs/items for respondents’ sorting through 5-point
Likert scales ranging from “5 = very important” to “1 = least
important.” The test interface and statements were changed
to Chinese whereby the test prompts and translated
statements underwent rigorous back-translation to ensure
that the translated item meanings completely matched those
of the WIL English version. WIL had several dimensions
closely related with the dimensions of the WVA scale, such
as altruism (WIL) versus prosocial motivation (WVA) and
self-actualization (WVA) versus utilization of ability (WIL).
The Pearson’s Moment-Product correlation coefficients
between the related dimensions of the WVA scale and WIL
were used as the indicators of criterion-related validity.
Procedure
The formal-test data were collected between September,
2012 and March, 2013. For the first sample, the procedure
of administration was identical to the pilot study. For the
second sample, the retest of the WVA scale was adminis-
tered two weeks after the first test, and the procedure of
both tests was identical to the pilot study. The administra-
tion of WIL was done immediately after the retest of the
WVA scale, the administration of the two tests lasted for
around 30 min. For the third sample, the recruitment of
college students and the administration of the WVA scale
were conducted in January and March, 2013. The proce-
dure was identical to the pilot test of the WVA scale.
Results
Item Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis
Because seven new items of the autonomy dimension
were added and tested along with the 39 old items,
we re-conducted the item analysis and EFA as in the pilot
test to reconfirm the quality of items. The EFA was
subsequently conducted with the principal axis factor with
promax rotation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient
was .944, and Bartlett’s test value was significant at
19,243.192 (p < .001). Therefore, exploratory factor analysis
was appropriate for these data. The EFA of the 42-item
version identified the most plausible models based on a
scree plot. The eigenvalue ≤ 1 was used as the criterion
for determining the number of factors to retain (Thompson,
2004). As illustrated in Figure 1, these models were
composed of seven factors, the eigenvalues ranged from
1.28 to 11.94. A total of 62.6% of the variance was
accounted for by the seven components. The factor load-
ings (Table 6) of the dimensions were .77–.85 for prosocial
motivation, .60–.86 for interpersonal connections, 56–.89
for prestige, .50–.77 for comfort, .46–.83 for growth,
.36–.68 for self-actualization, and .61–.75 for autonomy.
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
12 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Figure 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis scree plot of the 42 items.
The communalities ranged from .47 to .78. The correlation
matrix of factor loading is given in Table 7. Three items of
the newly added seven items in the autonomy dimensions
were selected based on their factor loadings and item-total
correlations and were integrated into the formal version of
the WVA scale, for a total of 42 items, 6 items per dimen-
sion. The results reconfirmed the quality of the items and
the robustness of the seven dimensions (factors) of the
WVA scale.
Reliability Analysis
The internal consistency reliability coefficient ranged from
.81 to .92. The overall scale reliability coefficient was .95.
The test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .83 to
.91 (see Table 6).
Construct Validity Analysis
LISREL 8.70 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004) statistical soft-
ware was used to conduct CFA to validate the 42 formal
items obtained by EFA and to determine whether a reliable
7-factor work values model had been established. The max-
imum likelihood estimates from the sample covariance
matrix were used in the CFA.
For CFA, the chi-square (w2) values are regularly used as
a criterion for model fit. However, because an excessive
sample size or a stronger correlation between variables
may have been the reason for the increased chi-square
values (Kline, 2010), approximate fit indices, such as the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), which is less sensitive to large
samples, the root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the Standardized Root-Mean-Square
Residual (SRMR), were also assessed (Byrne, 2001).
According to the criteria of Hu and Bentler (1999), the
CFI values acceptable for model fit are .90 or greater
(Hu & Bentler, 1999); RMSEA values less than .05 indi-
cate close model fit, values between .05 and .08 indicate
reasonable fit, those between .08 and .10 indicate mediocre
fit, and values greater than .10 indicate unacceptable fit; the
SRMR values acceptable for model fit are .08 or greater.
For the model evaluation as a whole, w2 (798,
N = 896) = 2,199.86 (p < .001) did not support the fit of
the model. The other values (RMSEA = .004, CFI = .98,
and SRMR = .05) met the criteria recommended by
Hu and Bentler (1999) as being indicative of a good model
fit. The CFA results are also shown in Figure 2. These
analyses show that there was a good fit between the frame-
work model proposed by this study and the research data
collected in the study.
Criterion-Related Validity Analysis
Table 8 indicates that the coefficient (r = .52) of the
prosocial motivation dimension from the WVA scale and
that of the social service dimension from the WIL were
significant (p < .05). The autonomy dimension from the
WVA scale and the creativity, autonomy, and responsibility
dimensions from WIL were all significantly and positively
correlated (r = .29, .36, and .39, respectively; p < .01 for
all). The comfort dimension from the WVA scale and the
work conditions, company policies, security, and rewards
dimensions from WIL were also all significantly positively
correlated (r = .19, .21, .27, and .29, respectively; p < .01).
The professional growth dimension from the WVA scale
and the ability utilization and achievement dimensions
from WIL were significantly and positively correlated
(r = .25 and .27, respectively; p < .05). The coefficient of
the interpersonal connections dimension from the WVA
scale and the coworkers dimension from WIL was .21,
(p < .01). The prestige from the WVA scale and advance-
ment and compensation from WIL were significantly
and positively correlated (r = .22 and .37, respectively;
p < .01). The self-actualization dimension from the WVA
scale and the ability utilization and achievement dimen-
sions from WIL were significantly and positively correlated
(r = .33 and .35, respectively; p < .05). The results that
scores of the WVA dimensions were significantly correlated
with the relevant dimensions of WIL provided supporting
evidence for the criterion-related validity of the WVA scale.
Measurement-Invariance Analysis
Previous research proposed the tests of configural invari-
ance, metric invariance, and scalar invariance for measure-
ment invariance (Schmitt & Kuljanin, 2008). Three steps,
each step corresponding to a test model, were conducted
to test the measurement of invariance of the WVA scale
between the groups of college and high school students.
The first was testing the model of configural invariance,
which implies that there should be the same number of
factors in each group and the same pattern of fixed and
free parameters. The second step is testing the metric
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly 13
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Table 6. Rotated factor loadings and reliability indices for the 7-factor model in the formal test
Factor Internal Consistency
Item no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communality estimates Residuals Cronbach’s α Test-retest reliability
PS01 .85 .00 —.05 .01 .01 .05 —.04 .77 .23 .92 .91
PS02 .85 .05 —.03 .01 .06 —.04 —.02 .73 .27
PS03 .79 —.03 .04 —.04 —.04 .03 .10 .72 .28
PS06 .79 .00 .12 —.02 —.08 —.03 .00 .68 .32
PS05 .77 —.04 .02 .01 .02 —.02 .05 .69 .31
PS04 .77 .09 —.04 .00 .03 .06 —.03 .71 .29
IP01 .09 .86 —.02 —.02 —.04 —.01 —.06 .72 .28 .89 .90
IP02 —.06 .83 .02 .05 —.04 .02 —.10 .71 .29
IP03 —.06 .77 .00 .02 .10 —.07 —.04 .69 .31
IP05 .02 .70 .05 —.03 .08 .03 —.13 .58 .42
IP06 .10 .70 .01 —.03 —.05 .01 .15 .62 .38
IP04 —.01 .60 .05 —.09 —.06 .04 .26 .64 .36
PR01 —.06 —.01 .89 .01 —.12 —.01 .10 .75 .25 .88 .87
PR02 .01 .04 .86 .04 —.06 —.07 .00 .74 .26
PR03 .07 .03 .79 .02 .05 —.08 —.07 .67 .33
PR06 .08 —.05 .65 —.08 .00 .11 —.01 .54 .46
PR05 —.03 .02 .58 .03 .15 —.05 —.04 .54 .46
PR04 —.01 .08 .56 .06 .06 .08 —.03 .56 .44
CS02 .09 —.06 .01 .77 .09 .08 —.23 .55 .45 .82 .84
CS05 —.01 —.03 .01 .68 .13 .02 —.13 .63 .37
CS01 .03 —.02 .04 .67 —.20 .05 .13 .51 .49
CS03 —.09 .02 —.01 .61 .00 —.07 .16 .46 .54
CS04 —.03 .05 .05 .54 —.09 .00 .07 .59 .41
CS06 —.01 —.01 —.02 .50 —.02 .02 .16 .54 .46
GR02 —.08 .01 —.03 —.04 .83 —.01 .02 .63 .37 .85 .84
GR01 —.09 .04 —.01 —.05 .77 .06 .07 .70 .30
GR06 .02 —.04 .10 —.07 .66 .05 .01 .58 .42
GR03 .10 —.10 .06 .05 .60 .02 .00 .57 .43
GR04 .18 .19 —.14 .14 .46 —.12 —.12 .48 .52
GR05 .08 —.08 .08 —.08 .46 .00 .32 .60 .40
SA01 —.01 .02 .02 —.07 —.04 .68 —.02 .56 .44 .81 .83
SA02 .06 —.09 —.01 .07 .04 .66 —.08 .57 .43
SA04 —.19 .03 .01 .03 .08 .63 .04 .48 .52
SA06 .06 .08 —.04 .00 —.04 .56 .02 .58 .42
SA03 .20 —.14 —.01 .04 .02 .51 .02 .42 .58
SA05 —.05 .30 —.04 .06 —.02 .36 .08 .54 .46
AU01 —.09 —.14 .06 —.02 —.07 .10 .75 .62 .38 .87 .88
AU02 —.03 .13 —.01 —.04 .03 .01 .74 .61 .39
AU06 .23 —.10 —.01 .01 —.01 —.05 .74 .61 .39
AU08 .05 .08 —.07 .21 .02 —.14 .72 .65 .35
AU09 .04 .04 —.05 —.04 .13 .04 .69 .65 .35
AU11 —.09 .00 —.04 .15 .30 —.04 .61 .56 .44
Note. Bold values indicate items belonging to the same factor.
invariance model, which implies equal factor loadings across
groups. The third step is testing the scalar invariance model,
which indicates the invariance of the item intercepts linking
the indicators (items) to the latent variable (Steinmetz,
Schmidt, Tina-Booh, Wieczorek, & Schwartz, 2009).
The most commonly used model estimation parameter is
Δw2, but Δw2 is very sensitive to the slight difference
between two comparative models for large sample size data
sets, so four other criteria of invariance analysis proposed
by researchers (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002;
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
14 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
Table 7. The correlation matrix of factors in formal study
Factor PS IP PR CS GR SA AU
|ΔCFI| ≤ .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), |ΔTLI| ≤ .05
(Little, 1997), |ΔRMSEA| ≤ .02 (Meade et al., 2008), and
Notes. AU = autonomy, CS = comfort, GR = growth, IP = interpersonal
connections, PR = prestige, PS = prosocial motivation, SA = self -
actualization.
Little, 1997; Meade, Johnson, & Braddy, 2008), including changes in the |ΔCFI|, |ΔRMSEA|, |ΔSRMR|, and the Tucker
Lewis Index (ΔTLI), were also used for evaluation. When
interpreted as evidence for measurement invariance
(Vandenberg & Lance, 2000; Wu & Hughes, 2015).
University and high school student WVI scale samples
and their nested assays on invariance have been conducted
(see Table 9). With respect to configural invariance
(model 1), except for w2 (798, N = 1,488) = 2,945.168
(p < .001), the model’s other indices of goodness-of-fit
Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the seven work values dimensions.
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
PS 1 |ΔSRMR| ≤ .03 (Chen, 2007), it would suggest that the
IP .21 1 two comparative models were not substantially different
PR .42 .39 1 from each other. However, according to previous research-
CS .23 .44 .37 1 ers, there is not a single criterion that is powerful enough to
GR .55 .28 .41 .37 1 support the claim of measurement invariance; therefore, a
SA .18 .37 .28 .29 .22 1 compromised way was proposed: the results that the major-
AU .38 .35 .39 .49 .51 .28 1 ity of criteria are within the suggested thresholds can be
Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly 15
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
—
Table 8. Criterion-related validity for the WVA scale and WIL scale
WIL
WVA A1 A2 I1 I2 I3 E1 E3 S1 W2 W3 W4 W6 R1 R2 R3
Prosocial motivation .11* .16* –.01 –.11* .01 .04 .52* –.14* –.23* –.17** –.19 –.15* –.23* .23** .04
Interpersonal connections .05 .07 .02 –.05 –.03 .21* .03 –.13* .04 –.15* –.13** –.01 –.01 .11* .03
Prestige –.03 .18* –.04 –.03 –.03 .01 –.16** .05 .37** –.06 .04 .03 .22** –.07 .07
Comfort –.13* .01 –.13* –.14* –.06 .03 –.13** .21** .29** –.05 .27* .19* .16** –.14 –.03
Growth .25* .27* –.02 –.08 .07 –.10 .11* –.13* –.15 –.05 –.15** –.03 –.15** .07 .03
Self-actualization .33* .35* .10* .05 .14* –.06 .12* –.17** –.13** –.02 –.22* –.12* –.19** .04 .13*
Autonomy .08 .12* .36** .38** .29** –.18* –.03 –.18** .04 .08 –.20** –.10* –.15 –.03 –.03
Notes. WVA = Work Values Assembly, WIL = Work Importance Locator, A1 = ability utilization, A2 = achievement, I1 = creativity, I2 = responsibility,
I3 = autonomy, E1 = coworkers, E3 = social service, S1 = company policies, W2 = compensation, W3 = independe nce, W4 = security, W6 = working
conditions, R1 = advancement, R2 = authority, R3 = recognition; numbers in bold represent significant, positive correlations that support the validity of WVA.
The following dimensions of WIL had no significant correlations: activity (W1), variety (W5), moral values (E2), human relations (S2), and techniques (S3).
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Table 9. Measurement-invariance analyses of WVA for students of different education levels
Model Explanation w2 (df) Δw2 (df) CFI ΔCFI RMSEA ΔRMSEA SRMR Δ SRMR TLI ΔTLI
Model 1 Configural invariance 2,945.168 (798) – 0.947 – .043 – 0.041 – 0.943 –
Model 2 Metric invariance 4,946.953 (1,631) 2,001.78*** (833) 0.900 —0.047 .052 0.009 0.058 0.017 0.893 —0.050
Model 3 Scalar invariance 5,757.759 (759) 810.806*** (35) 0.880 —0.020 .057 0.005 0.067 0.009 0.871 —0.022
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
(e.g., CFI = .947; TLI = .943; RMSEA = .043; and
SRMR = .041) are acceptable, which indicated that config-
ural invariance has been established and the two samples
had the same number of factors in the WVA scale.
The metric invariance test revealed that Δw2 (833,
N = 1,488) = 2,001.785, p < .001, |ΔSRMR| = .017,
|ΔRMSEA| = .009, |ΔCFI| = .047, and |ΔTLI| = .05. Except
for Δw2 and |ΔCFI|, all other indicators met the criteria pro-
posed by researchers (Chen, 2007; Meade et al., 2008).
According to Vandenberg and Lance (2000) and Wu and
Hughes (2015), the majority of indicators supported the
model fit of metric invariance. The intercept invariance test
(model 3) showed that the Δw2 (833, N = 1,488) = 2,001.785
(p < .001), |ΔSRMR| = .009, |ΔRMSEA| = .005, |ΔTLI| = .022,
and |ΔCFI| = .02. Except for Δw2, all other indicators met the
recommended threshold values for measurement invari-
ance (Chen, 2007; Meade et al., 2008). Accordingly, the
seven-dimension model of the WVA scale demonstrated
appropriate cross-group invariance and can be used to mea-
sure the work values for both university and high school
students in Taiwan.
General Discussion and Conclusions
There are several features in the current research. In Study 1,
a qualitative research methodology was employed to
obtain 231 descriptive statements related to work values,
and after repeated coding and classification, seven work
values dimensions were derived. In Study 2, quantitative
research methods were implemented to conduct scale
evaluations in order to verify that the seven derived work
values dimensions are appropriate for, and capable of,
explaining the framework of a Taiwan work values scale.
The dimension content is clear and, with no content overlap,
is an improvement on existing work values scales, the
dimensions of which are often vague or redundant.
Moreover, items were revised or deleted, and those with
low factor loadings or a conceptually vague content were
discarded, thus ensuring that items adhere to the core
concepts of the dimensions.
In terms of reliability, the scale derived herein compared
favorably with other work values scales in which high
school students were used as samples. The internal consis-
tency reliability coefficients for the WVA scale developed in
the present study ranged from .84 to .92, with an overall
scale reliability coefficient of .95 and a test-retest reliability
coefficient of .94. All of the above values indicate good
reliability that is generally superior to similar scales (see
Zytowski, 1970, or Pryor, 1979; for some comparisons).
The values indicate that when reapplied to samples of high
school students, the WVA scale should obtain consistent
and stable results.
In terms of validity, previous studies have rarely
employed CFA to explore construct validity, such as in
the Career Value Scale developed by Macnab, Bakker,
and Fitzsimmons (2005). The O*NET WIP utilized CFA,
but the model fit index was poor. Nevertheless, appropriate
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
16 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly
© 2017 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the
Hogrefe OpenMind License http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001 European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2017)
sample sizes of participants enabled the WVA scale to use
two types of statistical analyses to yield even more rigorous
results, and the model fit was within the reasonable range
suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999). Furthermore, the sig-
nificant correlations between dimensions of the WVA scale
and WIL provided solid evidence that the WVA scale has
the capability of measuring relevant work value constructs
which had been measured in other popularly used Western
tools. The measurement-invariance analysis revealed that,
whether for preemployment high school of university
students, the WVA scale developed through this research
had identical factor structure and measurement capability,
the test items did not demonstrate inconsistent meanings
for students with different education levels, and can be
trusted with considerable validity between the different
groups. This finding also supported the claims of Harpaz
and Fu (2002) that the structure of meanings of work
remains consistent during the transition of adolescence to
adulthood.
In terms of practical application, the WVA scale will
provide students with a better understanding of their own
work values, which, for high school students especially
(Ginzberg et al., 1951; Super, 1980), may still be developing.
School counselors may provide adolescents with the oppor-
tunity to engage in self-exploration related with their
emphasized values based on the results of the WVA scale,
which may greatly benefit their later career development.
Hence, helping young people to understand their own work
values is an important function of the WVA scale.
Qualitative research methods were used in this study to
derive work values dimensions that reflect local culture.
Although the WVA scale was constructed based on work
values dimensions that reflect local culture, this study also
found that the work value dimensions in the WVA scale are
also highly similar to those for Western society. Despite the
similarity of the framework and dimensions, future
research may investigate whether there exist different
emphases for different dimensions between different
cultures. In addition, multi-sample structural equation
modeling can be used to conduct intercultural measure-
ment invariance to test whether the extension validity of
the structural model of the present study is stable in cross-
cultural settings.
References Available on request
${p
roto
col}
://e
con
ten
t.h
og
refe
.co
m/d
oi/
pd
f/10
.10
27
/10
15
-575
9/a
00
040
8 -
Mo
nd
ay, A
ug
ust
27
, 2
01
8 1
1:5
0:0
0 P
M -
IP
Ad
dre
ss:1
97
.88
.5.1
73
QUESTIONNAIRE C20 (20)
Development and validation of a work value scale for assessing high school students INSTRUCTIONS
• Read through the article and answer the multiple choice questions provided below • Some questions may have more than one answer; in which case you must please mark all the correct answers
Question 1: Which of the following statements are TRUE regarding the meaning and importance of work values?
A: Values are all of a person’s long-term preferences and enduring convictions that are used to incite a person to action or decision
B: Work values are used to judge work-related phenomenon, behaviours and goals, but does not provide the basis for the assessment of an individual’s career choices
C: Work values are able to explain and become the basis for standard career decisions, but cannot predict career decisions
D: Work values are capable of providing for a relative stable psychological system
Question 2: Is it TRUE or FALSE that the importance of work values lie in them becoming the referential basis for career planning?
A: TRUE B: FALSE
Question 3: Limitations of existent tools include which of the following?
A: Most studies did not demonstrate appropriate validity B: Cultural issues need to be emphasized more in the
construction of work value scales C: Comparisons of foreign versus domestic research
revealed that differences in environments and samples could lead to the extraction of different factor constructs between various studies even though the scales adopted were the same
D: None of the above
Study 1: Qualitative research on the content of Taiwanese work values
Question 4: The twelve core categories were reduced to seven dimensions and included all the following, except for…………..?
A: Happiness B: Prestige C: Autonomy D: Social approval E: Self-actualization
Question 5: With regard to “social relationships” you hypothesize that there will be little difference between Taiwanese and Western values due to the universality of social media and its importance in relationships. Against this background which of the following are TRUE?
A: Social relationships was only the ninth mentioned category in the Taiwanese work values
B: In both cultures good relationships require the satisfaction of an individual’s emotional needs
C: In East Asian cultures good relationships include maintaining a harmonious atmosphere and cooperating in the sharing of resources
D: In Western cultures good relationships include the desire for achieving security through interaction with others
E: All the above
Study 2: Quantitative evaluation of the WVA SCALE
Question 6: Regarding item development and review, is it TRUE that after the two-stage review process, 58 items derived from the item development remained in the WVA scale?
A: YES B: NO
General discussion and conclusions
Question 7: Features of the current research include which of the following?
A: Qualitative research methodology was employed in Study 1 to obtain 231 descriptive statements related to work values, and from these seven work value dimensions were derived
B: In study 2, quantitative research methods were implemented to conduct scale evaluations
C: Due to content overlap, little improvement was realised on existing work values scales
D: All the above Question 8: In terms of reliability……………………?
A: The scale derived herein compared favourably with one other work values scale in which high school students were used as samples
B: The overall scale reliability coefficient was .95 with a test-retest reliability coefficient of .94
C: Values indicate reliability that is generally superior to similar scales
D: All the above
Question 9: You have some issues with the validity of this study, and find that …………………………?
A: Previous studies have all employed CFA to explore construct validity
B: The significant correlations between dimensions of the WVA scale and WIL provided solid evidence that the WVA scale has the capability of measuring relevant work value constructs which had been measured in other popularly used Western tools
C: Findings supported the claims of Harpaz and Fu (2003) that the structure of meanings of work do not remain consistent during the transition of adolescence to adulthood
D: None of the above
Question 10: What does this this study add to the literature on WVA scales and is there any practical application?
A: It will provide students with a better understanding of their own work values
B: It illustrated that work value dimensions on the WVA scale were highly similar to those for Western society
C: Helping young people understand their own work values is an important function of the WVA scale
D: Little new information is added
END
For office use MARK: /10 = _______%
(70% PASS RATE)
FAILED (R50 to resubmit)
PASSED (IAR will be sent)
MODERATED BY: CAPTURED: DATE:
PO Box 71 Wierda Park 0149
400 Theuns van Niekerk Street Wierda Park 0157
http://foh-cpd.co.za Whatsapp: 074 230 3874 Tel: 012 653-0133 /2373 Mon-Fri: 07:30-16:30
Activity accredited for TWO (2) CLINICAL CEU’s
PERSONAL INFORMATION
(If your personal details have not changed, only complete the sections marked with an asterisk *)
ANSWER SHEET
C20 (20) Development and validation of a work value scale for assessing high school students
SEND ANSWER SHEET TO:
FAX: 086 614 4200 / 012 653 2073 OR WHATSAPP: 074 230 3874 OR EMAIL: [email protected]
YOU WILL RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT SMS WITHIN 12-24 HOURS, IF NOT RECEIVED PLEASE SEND AGAIN
Please rate the article:
HPCSA No *FOH Number
*Initials &Surname *Cell Number needed for confirmation sms
Employer Email address
*Time spent on activity _____Hour _____Min
A B C D E A B C D E
1 6
2 7
3 8 4 9
5 10
I hereby declare that the completion of this document is my own effort without any assistance.
Signed:
Date:
POOR 1
FAIR 2
AVERAGE 3
GOOD 4
EXCELLENT 5