6/15/2011

1

Christopher R. BeasleyLeonard A. JasonSteven A. Miller2011 SCRA Biennial

� (Mis)Fit

� Alienation 1

� Anxiety 2

� Depression 2

� Diminished well-being 2

� Fit

� Satisfaction 3,4,5,6,7,

� Commitment 3,6,8

� Identification with a setting 3

� Citizenship behaviors 3

� Social integration 9

� Intent to stay in a setting 6

� Attendance of meetings 10,11

� Group involvement 12

Conceptualization Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results DiscussionIntroduction

Introduction Implications GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Value

Congruence

� Value Congruence 13

� When an individual’s values are similar to those of the setting

� Example� Individual value for

12-step recovery and setting emphasis on 12-step recovery

Supplementary

Value

Congruence

� Supplementary 14

� When individuals are similar to the environment or others there

� Example� Military veterans

living with other veterans

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Needs

Supplies

Supplementary

Value

Congruence

� Needs-Supplies 15

� When a setting supplies what an individual needs psychologically and physically

� Example� An individual with a

high need for cognitive structure in a highly structured environment

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Needs

Supplies

Complementary

Supplementary

Value

Congruence

� Complementary 14

� When individuals and

settings complement one-another

� Example

� Individuals with leadership skills in a

house that otherwise lacks leadership

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

6/15/2011

2

Needs

Supplies

Supplementary

Demands

Abilities

Value

Congruence

� Demands-Abilities 15

� When individuals have the ability to meet the demands of their environment

� Example� When a person has the

life skills and cognitive abilities needed to live in a self-sufficient setting

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Complementary

Needs

Supplies

Supplementary

Demands

Abilities

Value

Congruence

Direct

Subjective

� Direct vs. Indirect 16

� Direct assesses P & E simultaneously

� Indirect assesses P & E separately

� Subjective vs. Objective

� Subjective is a person’s perception of fit

� Objective is a third-party assessment of fit

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Complementary

Needs

Supplies

Supplementary

Demands

Abilities

Value

Congruence

� P-E Fit

� Direct, Subjective

� Value Congruence

� Supplementary Fit

� Complementary Fit

� Needs-Supplies Fit

� Demands-Abilities

Fit

Direct

Subjective

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Complementary

Person-

Environment

Fit

� Cable & DeRue 3

� Direct-Subjective

� Value Congruence with organization

� Needs-Supplies Fit with job

� Demands-Abilities Fit with job

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

� Inflexible workplace language

� Multilevel

� Similarity only through value congruence

� No individual fulfillment of environmental needs

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Introduction Conceptualization

� GEFS

� Person-environment fit measure

� Brief 15-item measure

� Flexible language for various settings

� Forward & reverse phrasing

� Five components of fit

GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

6/15/2011

3

Introduction Conceptualization

� Value Congruence

� My values prevent me from fitting in with my Oxford House.*

� The values of my Oxford House do not reflect my own values.*

� My personal values are similar to those of my Oxford House.

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

� Interpersonal Similarity

� The other residents of my Oxford House are similar to me.

� The other residents of my Oxford House are different from me.*

� I am different than the other residents of my Oxford House.*

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

� Unique Contributions

� My unique differences add to the success of my Oxford House.

� Nothing unique about me adds to the success of my Oxford House.*

� I make unique contributions to my Oxford House.

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

� Needs-Supplies Fit

� The Oxford House that I currently live in gives me just about everything I could ever need from a recovery home

� There is a poor fit between what my Oxford House

offers me and what I need in a recovery home.*

� The Oxford House that I live in does not have the attributes that I need in a recovery home.*

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

� Demands-Abilities Fit

� I have the ability to meet the demands of my Oxford House.

� The match is very good between the demands of my Oxford House and my personal skills.

� I am not able to meet the demands of my Oxford

House.*

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

� 246 attendees of the annual Oxford House World Convention� Mutual-help addiction recovery housing system� No professional staff� Over 1400 houses across the U.S. and abroad

� Sample demographics� 71% White, 19% Black, 11% Multiple or Other� 52% Male, 48% Female

� Median recovery = 24 months (SD = 42.86, 0-326)� 79% current residents (Median = 12 mo., SD = 20.97,

0-117)

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethodsMethods

6/15/2011

4

� GEFS� Person-environment fit� 26-item 4-point Likert-type

� Job Satisfaction Index Subcale Judge, Bono, and Locke’s (2000) Rothe (1951) � Modified measure of workplace satisfaction� Replaced “Job” with “Oxford House”� 6-item 7-point Likert-type� α = .81

� Tenure� How much longer do you expect to live in your Oxford

House? Years? Months?

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods

� Missing Data� Full Information Maximum Likelihood in Mplus

� Maximum Likelihood with Expectation Maximization for SPSS

� Confirmatory Factor Analysis on 15 of the 26 items (Mplus)

� Backward Regression (SPSS)� DVs = Satisfaction & Tenure

� IVs = Five factors

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods Results

Variable means and standard deviations

Min Max Mean SD

GEFS 33 60 50.02 5.19

Satisfaction 6 35 30.49 4.36

Tenure 0 117 21.08 46.9

Subscale internal consistency, descriptive statistics, and inter-scale correlations

Subscale α Min Max Mean SD VC IS UR NS

Value Congruence .65 4 12 10.12 1.57 ---

Interpersonal Similarity .78 3 12 8.14 2.08 .38* ---

Unique Role .72 3 12 9.93 1.65 .20* -.14 ---

Needs-Supplies Fit .71 6 12 10.43 1.57 .54* .29* .26* ---

Demands-Abilities Fit .49 7 12 10.52 1.24 .33* .07 .47* .43*

Notes. *p < .01

VC = Value Congruence subscale

NS = Needs-Supplies subscale

DA = Demands-Abilities subscale

IS indicates Interpersonal Similarity subscale

UC = Unique Contribution subscale

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

CFA Model Fit Statistics

Models χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA RMSEA

C.I.

SRMR

Model 1a 124.37** 80 .94 .92 .05 [.03, .07] .06

Model 1b 126.48** 80 .92 .90 .06 [.04, .07] .06

Model 2 389.17** 90 .57 .50 .12 [.11, .14] .12

Model 3 338.44** 89 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .13] .11

Model 4 336.04** 87 .64 .57 .11 [.10, .13] .11

Model 5 338.13** 90 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .12] .19

Model 6 172.52** 85 .87 .84 .07 [.05, .08] .08Notes. aTheorized five-factor model using the entire sample.

bTheorized five-factor model using only current residents.

CFI = Comparative Fit Index;

TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index;

RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

**p < .001

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

� Needs-Supplies fit

� β = .52, t(151) = 7.50, p < .001 rp2 = .25

� Explained 25% of the variance

� Interpersonal Similarity

� β = .14, t(151) = 1.94, p = .05 rp2 = .02

� Explained 2% of the variance

� These two aspects of fit explained 33% of the variance in resident satisfaction

� R2 = .33, F(2, 153) = 37.21, p < .001

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

6/15/2011

5

� Interpersonal Similarity

� β = .20, t(122) = 2.43, p = .02, rp2 = .04

� Explained 4% of the variance

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results

� Existing measures of P-E fit are not adequate for community settings

� Not flexible across settings

� Existing measures do not examine all facets of fit

� Interpersonal similarity seems to be important in community settings

� Need fulfillment may be more important in service settings

� Interpersonal similarity and need fulfillment may be related to satisfaction and tenure

DiscussionDiscussion

� Convenience sample

� Limited range

� Limited validity

� Internal consistency of Demands-Abilities Fit

and Value Congruence

� Not tapping excess ability

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion

� 5-point scale

� Other settings

� Multiple setting fit and global outcomes

� Outcomes for environment

� Benefits of misfit

� Program-environment fit

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion

1. Thomson, W.C. & Wendt, J.C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by student teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 269-274.

2. Caplan, R.D., Tripathi, R.C., & Naidu, R.K. (1985). Subjective past, present, and future fit: Effects on anxiety, depression, and other indicators of well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 180-197.

3. Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.4. DeRue, D.S & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Stability and change in person–team and person–role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction,

performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253.5. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of

elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453.6. Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 63, 473-489.7. Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The

moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.8. Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and

performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477.9. Segal, S.P., Silverman, C., & Baumohl, J. (1989). Seeking person-environment fit in community care placement. Journal of Social Issues, 45(3), 49-64.10.Humphreys, K. & Woods, M.D. (1993). Researching mutual help group participation in a segregated society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

29(2), 181-201.11.Luke, D.A., Roberts, L., & Rappaport, J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-fit predictors of self-help group attendance. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 216-238.12.Mankowski, E.S., Humphreys, K., & Moos, R.H. (2001). Individual and contextual predictors of involvement in twelve-step self-help groups after

substance use treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 537-563.13.Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-

349.14.Muchinsky, P.M. & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.15.Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.16.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology,

49(1), 1-49.

N

E

T

D

H

E?

1. Thomson, W.C. & Wendt, J.C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by student teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 269-274.

2. Caplan, R.D., Tripathi, R.C., & Naidu, R.K. (1985). Subjective past, present, and future fit: Effects on anxiety, depression, and other indicators of well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 180-197.

3. Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.4. DeRue, D.S & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Stability and change in person–team and person–role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction,

performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253.5. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of

elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453.6. Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 63, 473-489.7. Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The

moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.8. Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and

performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477.9. Segal, S.P., Silverman, C., & Baumohl, J. (1989). Seeking person-environment fit in community care placement. Journal of Social Issues, 45(3), 49-64.10.Humphreys, K. & Woods, M.D. (1993). Researching mutual help group participation in a segregated society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

29(2), 181-201.11.Luke, D.A., Roberts, L., & Rappaport, J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-fit predictors of self-help group attendance. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 216-238.12.Mankowski, E.S., Humphreys, K., & Moos, R.H. (2001). Individual and contextual predictors of involvement in twelve-step self-help groups after

substance use treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 537-563.13.Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-

349.14.Muchinsky, P.M. & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.15.Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.16.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology,

49(1), 1-49.