Cross-Cultural Validation of the Turkish Version of the Decent Work Scale

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Decent Work Scale (DWS), a recently developed measure that assesses the psychological experience of the quality of one’s work life. The proposed five-factor structure was verified with a sample of 326 Turkish working adults. Consistent with previous research, a five-factor bifactor model showed best fit to the data. The results of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis showed that the structure of the instrument was invariant across gender, income, and social class groups. Convergent and discriminant validity were supported by positive correlations with person–organization fit, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and work meaning and by negative correlations with withdrawal intentions. Evidence of predictive validity was obtained by regressing the five subscales on four outcome measures. These findings suggest that the Turkish version of the DWS can be used for assessing decent work among Turkish working adults and cross-cultural psychological research.

Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration

“…Although we view decent work as a key predecessor of meaningful work, some individuals may have the capacity to experience their work as meaningful even if it is not decent. For example, correlations between decent work and meaningful work are strong but range from 0.48-0.58 (Allan, Tebbe, Bouchard, & Duffy, 2018;Duffy et al, 2017;Işık, Kozan, & Işık, 2018), indicating these are not completely overlapping constructsit is possible to have one without the other. To date, however, it is unclear what types of individuals would be more likely to experience meaningful work in environments where one or more components of decent work is absent.…”

Expanding the Impact of the Psychology of Working: Engaging Psychology in the Struggle for Decent Work and Human Rights

“…The PWT also includes several proposed moderators including proactive personality, CC, social support, and economic conditions, which are thought to be modifiable and to influence the relations between the macro-level factors, mediators (work volition and career adaptability), and the attainment of decent work. Initial research using the PWT has produced promising results, including empirical support for many aspects of the theoretical model (e.g., Allan, Tebbe, Bouchard, & Duffy, 2018; Autin, Douglass, Duffy, England, & Allan, 2017; Douglass, Velez, Conlin, Duffy, & England, 2017; Tokar & Kaut, 2018) and the development of a self-report measure of decent work (Duffy et al, 2017; Işık, Kozan, & Isik, 2018). The PWT offers flexibility in defining specific constructs in ways that are consistent with a broad scholarly agenda.…”

“…Initially forged from activists and scholars in labor movements, public policy, and economics (ILO, 2008; Standing, 2014), the Decent Work Agenda has largely marginalized a critical aspect of people’s work lives—their psychological experience and meaning in relation to work. As a response to this notable gap in knowledge and public policy, psychologists have recently begun to focus theoretical and research attention to the problem of decent work (e.g., Blustein, Olle, Connors-Kellgren, & Diamonti, 2016; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2016; Di Fabio & Maree, 2016; Duffy et al, 2016, 2017; Isik et al, 2018; Pouyaud, 2016). Building on a social philosophical critique by Deranty and MacMillan (2012), which proposed that the ILO concept of decent work focuses too heavily on the social and economic aspects of work, Blustein, Olle, Connors-Kellgren, and Diamonti (2016) adopted an explicitly psychological perspective to critique the existing macro-level lens with which decent work has been defined and operationalized.…”

Construction and Validation of the Quality of Maternity Leave Scales (QMLS)

“…We used the 15-item, five subscale DWS to assess perceptions of decent work, defined as work that possesses the following five components: (1) interpersonally and physically safe working environments, (2) health-care benefits, (3) compensation that is adequate, (4) hours that allow one to engage in free time and rest, and (5) organizational values that allow a work–life balance (Duffy et al, 2017). Aligned with previous research, we summed the five Decent Work subscales, with higher scores on the scale indicated greater levels of decent work (Autin et al, 2019; Duffy et al, 2017; Işık, Kozan, & Işık, 2018; Kozan, Işık, & Blustein, 2019). Example items included “I feel physically safe interacting with people at work” and “I get good health-care benefits from my job,” where participants indicated their agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree .…”