Investigating Psychometrics of Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale

Park, In‐Jo; Hai, Shenyang; Lee, Seungmi; Sohn, Young-Woo

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02067

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used Cronbach’s α , McDonald’s ω (for subscales consisting of at least three items, Tables 3 – 5 reported in Supplementary Material ) and Mokken scale analysis (coefficient H ) to assess the properties of the subscales of the BIAS map. Mokken scale analysis is used to investigate psychometric properties of a scale, comparing its actual Guttman errors to expected errors (resulting in scalability score) and assessing “whether each item evaluates the same underlying concept” ( Park et al, 2019 ). When assumptions are violated, the omega coefficient provides a better assessment of the internal consistency (reliability) of a scale than the alpha coefficient does ( Dunn et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Response Instruction and Target Group on the BIAS Map

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response instructions—inviting participants to respond from a certain perspective—can significantly influence the performance and construct validity of psychological measures. Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and then the BIAS map (“behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes”) were originally developed as universal measures of shared cultural stereotypes—participants’ perceptions of what most of the people in a society think about the target group—and their related social-structural antecedents, emotions and behavioral tendencies. Yet a number of studies have adopted a different response instruction focusing on individual stereotypes—what the participants personally think about the target group. So far, there is little evidence to suggest how these two different response instructions (individual vs. shared cultural perspective) might influence the performance of the BIAS map, especially when applied to target groups that elicit different normative and social desirability concerns. To provide novel evidence, we conducted an experiment with a representative sample of ethnic Slovaks ( N = 1269). In a 2 × 2 factorial design, we found response instruction (individual vs. shared cultural perspective) and target group [stigmatized ethnic minority (the Roma) vs. non-stigmatized ethnic minority (the Hungarians)] had significant effects on the BIAS map and their interaction had significant effects on the social structure and behavioral tendencies (but not on stereotypes and emotions) scales. Exploratory analysis also points to partial influence on the mediation hypothesis underlying the BIAS map and minor effects on its scale properties. Our evidence suggests that the difference between individual stereotypes and shared cultural stereotypes partially depends on the target group in question and that they should be treated as two potentially separate constructs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Response Instruction and Target Group on the BIAS Map

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, participants in Study 3 were required to rate the measure two times over a 4-week period to confirm the test–retest reliability of the measure. Considering that 4 weeks is a relatively short time interval and may lead to a carryover effect due to memory or practice ( Allen and Yen, 2001 ; Park et al, 2019 ), future studies should extend the time interval to strengthen the reliability of our scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The time lag of 4 weeks is appropriate to explore the stability of the measurement, since a 4-week interval is long enough to allow the variability in individuals’ attitudes and behaviors but also is short enough to allow some stability in individuals’ lives ( Daniels and Guppy, 1994 ; Ouweneel et al, 2011 ). Additionally, previous studies (e.g., Park et al, 2019 , 2021a ) have demonstrated the test–retest reliability of their measurements using a 4-week interval.…”

Section: Study 3: Test–retest Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Two items (i.e., “I do not use my strengths to complete my job-related tasks,” and “I do not apply my strengths to establish positive relationships with others at work.”) were eliminated because they had loadings lower than 0.35 on the first factor. A possible explanation for this result may be that reverse-worded items are highly likely to cause response errors and therefore impair construct validity ( Swain et al, 2008 ; Park et al, 2019 ). The factor analysis was re-conducted on the remaining items, which results in a 16-item, two-factor solution (8 items for strengths use for tasks and 8 items for strengths use for relationships).…”

Section: Study 1: Scale Development and Construct Validity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strengths Use for Tasks and Relationships in Organizations: Development and Validation of a Strengths Use Scale

Hai

Park

2022

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual character strengths have been increasingly valued, as they facilitate social functioning, well-being, and performance. However, little is known about how individuals use their strengths for important but distinct goals including task accomplishment and relationship maintenance in organizations. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a Strengths Use Scale that can be used to measure the use of strengths for tasks and relationships in the workplace. For this purpose, we used the exploratory mixed-method design and conducted a series of studies. In Study 1, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to ensure the construct validity of the Strengths Use Scale on a sample of 187 employees. We found that the scale comprises two dimensions: strengths use for tasks and strengths use for relationships. In Study 2a, we verified the two-factor structure of the Strengths Use Scale using the confirmatory factor analysis on a separate sample of 213 employees. The results of Study 2b demonstrated that the scale has good measurement invariance across gender and age groups, on the sample of 205 employees. Moreover, strengths use for tasks and strengths use for relationships positively correlated with well-being and work engagement and negatively correlated with turnover intention, supporting the criterion-related validity of the scale. In Study 3, a test–retest reliability analysis with a sample of 94 employees indicated that the scale has high reliability. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…The CDAT has good structural and construct validity (Xu & Tracey, 2015b). The instrument has been validated or used in several cultures and countries, such as France (Storme et al, 2019) which is high in individualism and uncertainty avoidance dimension, South Korea (Park et al, 2019), which is low in individualism but high in uncertainty avoidance dimension, and China (Xu et al, 2016), which is low in individualism and uncertainty avoidance aspect. In individualistic societies, individuals are expected to prioritize and take care of themselves and their direct family, but in collectivistic settings, individuals belong to 'in groups' that care for them in exchange for a certain level of loyalty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation of The Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale

Sawitri

Qonitatin

Kristiana

et al. 2023

JEHCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to various changes that increased the possibility for university students to experience career ambiguity. Those with a high tolerance for career ambiguity perceive ambiguous situations as advantageous and do not reject the complexity of the discrepancy. This study aimed to yield the Indonesian version of the Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale and examine the construct validity and concurrent validity of the adapted version. This study involved 1256 first-year students (58.7% female, mean age = 18.23 years, SD age = .66) from a public university in Central Java, Indonesia. Data were collected using measures of ambiguity tolerance in choosing a career, career decision-making self-efficacy, and vocational identity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to examine the structure of the factor of the final scale, showing good fit indices (CMIN/df = 2.93, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .04). Reliability coefficients of each the three subscales were satisfactory. Concurrent validity was shown by expected associations with measures of career decision-making self-efficacy and vocational identity.

show abstract

Investigating Psychometrics of Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale

Cited by 13 publications

References 41 publications

The Impact of Response Instruction and Target Group on the BIAS Map

The Impact of Response Instruction and Target Group on the BIAS Map

Strengths Use for Tasks and Relationships in Organizations: Development and Validation of a Strengths Use Scale

Adaptation of The Career Decision Ambiguity Tolerance Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About