CRIQ: An innovative measure using comparison awareness to avoid self-presentation tactics

Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 199–214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / jvb

CRIQ: An innovative measure using comparison awareness toavoid self-presentation tactics

Nicole de Jong a,⁎, Rob G.J. van Leeuwen b, Hans A. Hoekstra a, Karen I. van der Zee c

a Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlandsb GITP Research, The Netherlandsc University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: University of GroningenE-mail address: [email protected] (N. de Jong).

0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Inc. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.003

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 30 October 2013Available online 11 January 2014

The article presents a new measure for career role identification, the Career Role IdentificationQuestionnaire (CRIQ). In constructing the CRIQ, we used the Comparison Awareness InducingTechnique (CAIT), a new and innovative method to reduce the effects of self-presentationtactics.The results show that the CRIQmeasures identificationwith the six career roles conceptualized byHoekstra (2011). The inventory has reliable scales and a clear factorial structure. Furthermore, theCAIT receives some support as a new way to deal with the problem of social desirability inself-report measures. The CAIT technique is thought to induce comparison awareness and thussuppress various response tendencies.

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Career rolesRole acquisitionRole identificationComparison awarenessSelf-presentation tacticsScale development

In a dynamic and complex work environment, the nature of jobs is changing. While jobs used to be described in terms of a setof fixed tasks that had to be performed by one person, today tasks are subject to rapid changes and development (Arthur,Khapova, &Wilderom, 2005). As a result, the dominant view on career development changed in such a way that jobs can better bedescribed in terms of a set of roles (Hoekstra, 2011; Parker, 2007). With the changing nature of jobs, the view on careers alsochanges towards a perspective that is less focused on the sequence of jobs, but more on combinations and sequences of differentroles in one's work. The development of practices and instruments that address the changes in the occupational landscape hasjust begun. Recently, a model was proposed that specifies the nature and development of career roles (Hoekstra, 2011). Careerroles refer to the stable and repetitive patterns in one's way of functioning; attributed on the basis of perceived reality offunctioning, not on assigned job titles. Workers may perceive their own career roles differently than their environment.Furthermore, persons may identify with career roles not conquered yet, as much as with the roles they believe to fulfill. In theseperceptions the dynamics of careers are formed.

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we present a new measure of role identification, the Career RoleIdentification Questionnaire (CRIQ). Second, we apply the Comparison Awareness Inducing Technique (CAIT) to reduce theeffects of self-presentation tactics. We will first explain the construct of career roles and role acquisition processes, andthen discuss career role identification. After describing the development of the CRIQ as a measure of career rolesidentification, and the new item-presentation technique CAIT that was used, we report a study of the psychometricproperties of the CRIQ.

1. Roles in life and career

People play a variety of roles in their lives; some existent from childhood, others appear as people mature. In this regard, oneof the pioneers in this area of research, Super (1980) distinguished nine major life roles (e.g., child, student, worker, partner,

, Grote kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands. Fax: +31 50 363 4581.

ll rights reserved.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.003&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.003

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.003

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02516888

200 N. de Jong et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 199–214

parent, citizen, homemaker, leisurite and pensioner). Each of these life roles may play an important part in people's lives acrossdifferent domains and settings (e.g., home, school, work and community). A career in this sense is a constellation of interacting,varying and changing life-roles (Super, 1980, 1990). Conceptualizing a career as such, career development can be described interms of a sequence of positions and occupations (Super, 1957). Overall, a more diverse role repertoire may result in greatersatisfaction than simultaneously playing very similar roles (Super, 1980).

The notion of holding multiple roles is important, not only for life-roles in general, but also within today's complex workenvironment. Nowadays there is increased room for job crafting within many jobs, affecting the meaning of one's work andallowing workers to see beyond the boundaries of their job description (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). As a result roleboundaries and perceptions change; allowing employees to broaden their role orientation and become more flexible (Parker,2000). How people view their job in terms of roles can have a great influence on their job satisfaction and performance (Parker,2007; Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). First, flexibility in terms of role breadth can influence one's job performance, careerpotential and career success (Briscoe & Hall, 2006; Morrison, 1994; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997). Second, experience in a varietyof functional experiences (e.g., diversity of roles) has been associated positively with promotion, salary level, and overall positiveaffect (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994).

Recently (Hoekstra, 2011) developed a model of 6 universal career roles. The model assumes that over time enactedwork roles may grow into stable and enduring career roles (Hall, 1976; Hoekstra, 2011). Hoekstra defines a career roleindependent of jobs and functioning level, as ‘a coherent and enduring set of characteristics of the perceived effects of theway a person is doing his or her work’ (Hoekstra, 2011). Hoekstra based his model on the systematic combination of threeclasses of individual motives (distinction, integration and structure, derived from Hogan, 2007) and two essentialorganizational themes (exploitation and exploration, derived from March, 1999). First, distinction refers to dominantpersonal motives of autonomy, agency, and self-assertion; integration refers to motives of connectedness, belonging,cooperation, and sharing; structure refers to motives of collective meaning, cohesion, purpose, institutional structure.Second, exploitation refers to performance directed at production and results, exploration is aimed at innovation andchange. Combining both individual and organizational motives, the career role model distinguishes between six careerroles, each of which typically serves a certain group of motives, characterized by the combination of an individual and anorganizational theme. Hoekstra proposes the Maker, Expert, Guide, Presenter, Director and Inspirer-role as building blocksfor career development (Hoekstra, 2011). The Maker-role involves direct results and making things happen. TheExpert-role involves questions and problems rather than direct results. The Presenter-role involves influencing others. TheGuide-role involves helping and guiding others. The Director-role involves the use of means and resources of the currentcollective to the best possible use in the long run. The Inspirer-role, involves exploration of possibilities for change andinnovation (Table 1).

2. Role acquisition processes

Role acquisition is, to a large extent driven by the process of role taking and role pressure. Both processes drive actualfulfillment of career roles, but are also involved in identifying with those roles. For most people, the first career roles that developwill result from the expectations and demands of others, by a process called role pressure. Later on, people may increasingly worktheir way towards roles they prefer for themselves, a process we denote as role taking.

Individual, organizational and external motives may all play an important part in a person's role acquisition. When rolepressure is very high, presumably there is not much room for changes guided by identification with other than actual roles. Whenrole pressure is moderate, identification with certain roles will determine a person's role-taking ambitions and behaviors. Goodperformance in turn will enhance the possibilities to work one's way towards preferred roles. In sum, as people grow in their

Table 1The career roles model: six career roles.

Organizational performance domain:

Exploitation: Production, results Exploration: Innovation, change

Dominant personal motive:

Distinction: Maker ExpertAutonomy/AgencySelf-assertionIntegration: Presenter GuideConnectedness, Belonging,Cooperation, SharingStructure: Director InspirerCollective meaning, Cohesion, Purpose, Institutional Structure

Note. The Inspirer-role has been called Inspirator-role in a former version of the model (Hoekstra, 2011). However, the adaptation to Inspirer-role fits thedescription and as suggested upon review is more comfortable for English speakers.

201N. de Jong et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 199–214

work and become more confident and autonomous, although still bound to external pressure on the job, the process of selectingtasks and roles ideally would become a more conscious decision, reinforcing and differentiating career role identification, andhence also role taking (Crant, 2000; Parker, 2007).

An instrument to measure the six career roles just described has recently been published (Hoekstra, 2011). In Hoekstra'sconception of career roles, self-perceived and other-perceived fulfillment of roles, as well as the identification with career rolesare all important elements of career dynamics. Too much discrepancy between career role enactment and career roleidentification may have negative effects on job performance, job satisfaction, and psychological well-being (Fugate & Kinicki,2008). Subsequently, this can have major consequences for career role enactment in terms of motivation or performance (Hall,2002). Therefore, the identification with each of these career roles was the measurement target for the CRIQ instrument describednext.

2.1. Career Role identification

Differences between role taking and role pressure acquire additional meaning when looking at the way people relate to andidentify with their own roles. Enacted roles will not always be what a person identifies with and aspired roles may in reality beout of reach for all sorts of reasons. By career role enactment we mean the observed activities of a person in a job and their effects,fitting a specific role. However, people may feel attracted to, or strive for, roles that are not frequently (or not at all) enacted. Indoing so, people can relate to career roles in multiple private ways as well.

Specifically, we define Career Role identification as the mental act of identifying the career role as part of the self. This can bedone by elaborate self-construction (Holland, 1997), unreflected commitment (Brisbin & Savickas, 1994) or by external pressure.Career role identification is not publicly observable by definition, but a private event in the person's mind. This ‘private’ careerrole identification can be a conscious identification as well as an unconscious preference. For instance, a person may aspire towork in the Director-role and thus have a preference for strategic leadership, also when this position is still out of reacheffectively. Or, one might unconsciously long for a role as Presenter, attracting attention and having influence on others, withoutknowledge of such a preference.

3. Measuring Career Role identification

The purpose of this study was to develop a measure for career role identification, the Career Role Identification Questionnaire(CRIQ). Because career role identification is such a private matter, a reasonable way to access one's identification with career rolesis through the use of self-report measures. One of the challenges in constructing such measures is to prevent self-serving motivesdominating the responses (Robins & John, 1997). As previous research has shown, a high number of people tend to identify to aconsiderable extent with all career roles, possibly fearing to present a narrow profile that might reduce career chances (Hoekstra& Groen, 2008).

3.1. Self-presentation tactics

People tend to enhance one or more self-components or defend themselves against negative self-views using self-servingmotives such as self-enhancement and self-protection (Alicke & Sedikides, 2009). Furthermore, self-serving motives enable aform of damage control and operate when a part of the self is threatened to drop below a tolerated point (Alicke & Sedikides,2009). Under influence of both self-enhancement and self-protection processes, people can (consciously as well asunconsciously) adopt self-presentation tactics while answering to self-report measures.

An important self-presentation tactic is socially desirable responding, which is responding in such a way to portray oneself asappealing. This response set includes faking answers and impression management (Paulhus, 1991). The tendency towards sociallydesirable responding is even more likely to occur when the evaluation is perceived as important to one's self-concept and globalself-esteem (Alicke & Sedikides, 2011; Paulhus, Harms, Bruce, & Lysy, 2003). As career roles are situated in a work context, andrespondents are likely to feel evaluated in their work, the tendency to respond in a socially desirable way must be considered verylikely.

3.2. The influence of self-presentation tactics

There are a number of ways in which self-presentation tactics can influence the rating process and lead to biases inself-reports. First, self-presentation motives may reflect roles that people aim, or hope for (Alicke & Sedikides, 2009; Paulhus,1991). Second, identification with a career role may (un-)consciously be influenced by the importance that a role has been givenin the employment context in such a way that a general base level is required by the company. This is, for example, the case forhealth care institutions where the Guide-role is prevalent. Third, identification with an already acquired role may unconsciouslyenhance identification-tendencies as one is already familiar with that role. Related, general attractiveness of a career role mayinfluence personal attractivity ratings above personally felt identification. For instance, ratings of the Director role willpresumably seldom be very low among management, because such scores might reflect a lack of ambition which is sociallyundesirable for them. In the rating process, a consequence can be that the self-presenting person will focus more on the image ofthe role than on one's own feelings about the role. As such, self-presentation can be used if employees have specific goals in


portraying themselves or wish to impress others. Self-report measures include a self-evaluative component; thereforenumerous individual differences possibly play a role in self-presentation biases such as narcissism, self-concept certainty orclarity and self-handicapping (Morf, Horvath, & Torchetti, 2011; Paulhus & John, 1998; Sedikides & Gregg, 2008; Sedikides &Strube, 1997).

3.3. Minimizing the effects of self-presentation tactics

Overall, Likert type scales are the dominant measurement tool in questionnaires (Ogden & Lo, 2012). To minimizeself-presentation tactics and avoid response style problems, use of other types of scales, such as the forced-choice, ipsativemeasures has been suggested. This technique results in Forced Choice Ipsative Data (FCID) (Meade, 2004). Ipsative data howeverhave the clear disadvantage of implying scale interdependence. Scales are no longer measured independently (Meade, 2004),which poses serious problems when analyzing the scales, especially with multivariate techniques (e.g., Baron, 1996; Cornwell &Dunlap, 1994).

To overcome problems of both ipsative and traditional Likert scales and still reap some of the intended advantages of thechoice paradigm, we developed a new item format designated the Comparison Awareness Inducing Technique (CAIT).Applying the CAIT people are free to respond on the items as they would on a Likert scale, responding to every singleword-item on a [1–7] range without forced comparison between the items, thus avoiding the problems of forced choicemeasures. At the same time, some awareness of comparison between different items is induced in respondents by presentingthe items in a threefold set. For the CAIT, on each page three word-items representing different roles are presented in the formof a triangle imposed on a circle. The respondent is asked to rate each of the three items by indicating a preferred position foreach of the three word-items. By the threefold presentation of the word-items a comparative mindset is thought to be inducedin respondents so as to mitigate self-presentation tendencies. A more elaborate description will be presented on the followingpages.

4. The Comparison Awareness Inducing Technique (CAIT)

The Comparison Awareness Induction Technique (CAIT) is based on a number of assumptions about the item responseprocess. First, responses to Likert items often fall prey to acquiescence (Dittrich, Francis, Hatzinger, & Katzenbeisser, 2007).Consciously or unconsciously respondents tend to agree with seemingly desirable items and disagree with undesirable items,

Fig. 1. Example Item Comparison Awareness Inducing Technique. People are asked to rate to what extent each of the presented words relate to them as a person.The item “Know” refers to the Expert role, “Connect” to the Guide role, and “Stimulate” to the Inspirer Role, respectively.


engaging in socially desirable responding (for an overview see Zickar & Gibby, 2006). Thus, on any rating scalerepresenting single dimension scale-points in the direction of the socially desirable scale-end will tend to be overrated.Second, when actively comparing equally desirable or equally undesirable options, respondents will be induced tomoderate strong preferences and extreme ratings. And third, even if active comparison is not required, the presence ofcomparable options will enhance awareness of relative differences and thus moderate the ratings of options unless theyare very strongly preferred or rejected. In comparison, previous research has shown high mean scores when asking foridentification as well as high correlations between scales with career roles with a Likert method (Hoekstra & Groen,2008). With the CAIT, we intend to induce comparison awareness, resulting in a downward rating adjustment. We expectthat this comparison will result in lower overall ratings and increased differences between the item-words withinitem-sets.

As Fig. 1 shows, the CAIT provides three word-items at once, introducing comparison awareness between options. Hence,chances for one desirability dimension to dominate the mind-set of the respondent are supposed to diminish. Even if suchdifferences are not consciously processed and weighted in the response process, the format will contribute to avoidance of simpledesirability connotations. The number three is thought to be crucial here. For example, presenting two options simultaneously,the respondent will most likely enter the mind-set of an either-or script. The comparison leads to the association with choice andcompetition between items. However, presenting three word-items instead is thought to balance the options within the givencontext (career roles). Simultaneously identification is being operationalized as being part of the self, by asking participants: ‘Towhat extent do roles relate to you as a person’ (Expert-, Guide-, and Inspirer-role). As a result, we believe this fits the assumptionthat through comparison awareness people show less desirable responding patterns and will more inclined to balance extremescores.

4.1. Graphic item presentation

As shown in Fig. 1 the word-items in an item-set are graphically positioned on a circle in such a way that they form anequilateral triangle. The orientation within the circle of the item-set triangle is chosen randomly, to make sure the location of theword-items does not influence the reported ratings. As starting position, each item is shown with a rating value of 4, which is thescale-midpoint. Respondents can vary each rating value independently between 1 and 7.

Fig. 2. Example Item Comparison Awareness Inducing Technique. People are asked to rate to what extent each of the presented words relate to them as a person.The item “Know” refers to the Expert role, “Connect” to the Guide role, and “Stimulate” to the Inspirer Role, respectively.

image of Fig.�2


4.2. Item-sets as threesomes

An item-set consists of three word-items that are simultaneously shown to participants. Participants are asked to rate allthree word-items on their own 7-point Likert scale. There are no constraints how to answer the three individual word-items.All three word-items can be rated on their own 7-point Likert scale by moving the points to the inner or outer part of the circle(Fig. 2).

4.3. Item combinations

The number of word-items, and hence item-sets, were chosen such that full competition between all different scales wasrealized. Thus, the six role scales are pitched against each other an equal number of times.

5. Development of the Career Role Identification Questionnaire (CRIQ)

The Career Role identification Questionnaire (CRIQ) was constructed, using the CAIT, to measure identification with each of thesix career roles in the career role model (Hoekstra, 2011).

5.1. Generating word-items

Word-items were developed using existing literature and specification of the career role construct (Hoekstra, 2006, 2011).Starting point was the VLR-30 (a Dutch 30 item-survey for career roles) which was originally developed by Hoekstra (2006).Furthermore, concept definition and presumed effects of the six different career roles served as the basis for word-itemgeneration. All generated word-items were intended to reflect the career role in actions or outcomes. With the career roledefinitions as guidelines, the first and the third author generated as many verbs (for role-typical actions) and nouns (forrole-typical outcomes) as possible to generate a large item-pool.

5.2. Word reduction

The initial item pool with both verbs and nouns was reviewed by experts to maximize content validity (DeVellis, 1991). Sixexperts in career development and psychology were provided with the pool of word-items along with the construct definition forthe career roles. The experts were asked to rate each word on a scale from 1 (not representative) to 5 (completely representative).To remain in the pool a word-item had to be rated a three or higher by each of the experts. Subsequently, the five nouns and thefive verbs for each of the six career roles that received the highest average scores from the experts were used for further scaledevelopment (Table 2). This resulted in a total of 60 word-items.

5.3. Operationalizing item-sets

The five verbs and nouns representing each scale were all used twice in constructing item-sets, in order to have a fullcompetition for the six career role scales. This resulted in a total of 120 word-items composing 40 item-sets of three word-itemseach. For each item-set, three word-items from different career role scales are used. Word-items referring to the same career rolescale were never used in one item-set. For every word-item in the item-set we asked participants to rate on a 7-point scale: ‘Towhat extent do the following words relate to you as a person’ ranging from 1 (I do not relate to this word) to 7 (I strongly relate tothis word). Examples of (translated) word-items are ‘Make’(Maker-role), ‘Know’(Expert-role), ‘Show’ (Presenter-role), ‘Connect’(Guide-role), ‘Control’ (Director-role) and ‘Stimulate’ (Inspirer-role). All Likert rating combinations are possible in every item-set(for example, 2-2-2, 5-3-1 or 7-5-3).

Table 2Mean scores expert-ratings for each career role.

Maker Expert Presenter Guide Director Inspirer

Verbs 4.73 4.67 4.2 4.83 4.7 4.7Nouns 4.30 4.63 4 4.54 4.77 4.23Total 4.52 4.65 4.1 4.69 4.73 4.5

Note. Ratings range from 1–5.


6. Overview of studies

In the first study we investigated the characteristics of the CAIT, exploring the CAIT-assumptions comparison awareness andsufficiently independent answering. The second study focused on reliability and construct validity of the CRIQ assessing internalconsistency and factorial structure of the CRIQ with exploratory factor analyses.

7. Study 1: A simulation study of scale independence

The goal of study 1 was to test the assumptions behind the CAIT. The first assumption is that the scores for the six role-scalesare non-ipsative, rendering sufficiently independent scales.

Ipsative measurements result in negative correlations between scales. This follows from the notion that the sum-scoreof each respondent is a constant, and therefore has zero variance. Because the variance of the sum equals the sum of thevariances and covariances, some, if not all of the covariances should be negative to cancel the positive sum of thevariances. Also the correlations will be negative, at least their mean will. If all scale-variances are about equal the meancorrelation is about equal to −1 / (k − 1), where k is the number of scales. For example, with two scales a correlation of−1 is found between them, while the mean inter-correlation between three scales will be around − .50. It is important tonote that these correlations are an artifact of the ipsative measurement method. The question is whether this method willby itself generate negative correlations between scales as does the ipsative method. As stated, we suppose this will not bethe case.

The second assumption is that the semi-comparative response format leads to moderation of all-out desirable responding, inturn causing low to medium correlations between items within sets (i.e. from different role scales).

The assumption behind the ‘awareness inducing’ method is that, although the respondent is free to rate each item on a 1–7Likert scale, the three word-items in an item-set will presumably not be rated independent of each other. We suppose that eachwords-item is rated in comparison to the other two word-items in the item-set, resulting in some kind of ‘weighted’ scores. Thisline of reasoning has two implications for the characteristics of surveys using CAIT: First, the data should show no negativecorrelations within item-sets as would be the case for ipsative data because with CAIT people are free to rate word-itemsindependent of each other. Furthermore, through comparison awareness word-items within item-sets should show low tomedium positive correlations. Finally, we expect that word-items from the same scales show moderate to high correlationsbetween same role word-items over different item-sets confirming consistency of the scale. This leads to the followinghypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There are no negative correlations between different scales.Hypothesis 2: Within item-sets, presented word-items have lower or equal correlations compared to same scale word-itemsbetween-sets.Hypothesis 3: Between item-sets, same scale word-items show moderate to high correlations (.30 b r N .60).

7.1. Method

To test the CAIT-assumptions a programwas written by the second author (in DelphiXE2) to perform a number of simulations.The program generated uncorrelated data resembling the data-structure from the CRIQ, N = 235, 40 item-sets consisting of 3word-items each, constituting six scales. Although uncorrelated, a number of restrictions and parameters apply to the generatedsimulation-data. First, the upper and lower bounds for the sum-score allowed could be set to any value from 3 to 21, resulting in

Table 3Generated simulated results varying degrees of ipsativity.

Rangeinterval

Meanitem-score

SDitem-score

Mean sumitem-set

SDitem-set

Mean r within-sets(on item level)

Mean r between-sets same scale(on item level)

Mean r between-setsdifferent scale(on item level)

Mean r scalesover all scales(scale level)

3 4.37 1.16 13.11 0.64 − .43 .33 − .06 − .195 4.37 1.27 13.10 1.51 − .21 .29 − .05 − .147 4.44 1.39 13.33 2.04 − .08 .31 − .04 − .079 4.49 1.48 13.47 2.58 .06 .33 − .01 .0611 4.52 1.57 13.57 3.17 .22 .34 .04 .2113 4.54 1.59 13.65 3.32 .25 .36 .05 .2115 4.66 1.73 14.03 4.05 .42 .34 .12 .4017 4.51 1.74 13.57 4.08 .42 .37 .13 .3919 4.36 1.78 13.10 4.27 .46 .37 .14 .4419 4.9 1.55 14.75 3.2 .26 .48 .28 .54

Note. The last row shows results found in the empirical sample N = 235.


intervals with a range of 0 (both bounds set to the same value) to 18 (bounds set to the interval [3–21]). Second, the variability ofpreferences for the six scales, and (independently) the variability of the word-items within each scale, could be varied. The‘comparison awareness’ is simulated by generating three ratings for the word-items independently on the basis of preference forthe scales, and then adjusting them to the given range and standard deviation of the sum-score. The simulation-data is used to (a) testthe CAIT-assumptions in a simulated data-set with uncorrelated scales and (b) compare the simulated results for differentparameters, with the CRIQ-results from the empirical sample. The found differences can be indicative for the ‘true state ofmind’whenanswering the CAIT.

7.2. Results

Table 3 shows the results of multiple simulated data-sets varying in item-set interval ranges. For comparison, the final rowof Table 3 shows the values found in the empirical sample (Study 2). As Table 3 shows, for fairly ipsative conditions (range 3–7)negative overall correlations between the six scales were found. However, with a relatively small range of allowablesum-scores of the item-sets (range N 9) negative between scales correlations disappear. These results are comparable for allvalues of the between-scales and within-scales variances, within reasonable boundaries. Furthermore, the mean between-setcorrelation for word-items of the same scale remains .33 overall, which indicates that the six scales are reliable (note that thevalue is the mean correlation between two word-items, not a reliability coefficient alpha). The mean between-set correlationfor word-items of a different scale is slightly negative in the near-ipsative condition, and rises to low positive values. The meanwithin-set word-item correlation is close to − .50 in the near-ipsative condition, as expected, and becomes positive when theinterval range increases. The mean correlation between scales is close to − .20 in the near-ipsative condition, as expected, andbecomes positive for larger interval ranges. Altogether, it seems fair to conclude that this procedure generates moderatecorrelations for the six scales when there is no range restriction for the item-set [3–21] and considerable range withinitem-sets [1–7].

Hypothesis 1. There are no negative correlations between different scales.

In the simulation that resembled the empirical data most, in mean and in standard deviation of item-scores and item-sets, amean r = .21 over all scales is found confirming Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2. Within item-sets, presented word-items have lower or equal correlations compared to same scale word-itemsbetween-sets.

In the simulation that resembled the empirical data most, in mean and in standard deviation of item-scores and item-sets, awithin-set of r = .22 is found, which is similar to the empirical value of r = .26. These values are lower than the betweenitem-set same scale word-item r = .34 in the simulation study and r = .48 in the empirical study. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 isconfirmed.

Hypothesis 3. Between item-sets, same scale word-items show moderate to high correlations (.30 b r N .60).

In the simulation that resembled the empirical data most, a between item-set same scale word-item r = .34 is found which isslightly lower than the empirical value of r = .48. Both results fall in the expected range of correlations, therefore Hypothesis 3 isaccepted.

Fig. 3. Frequencies of the sums of item-sets of the CRIQ.

image of Fig.�3

Table 4aScale characteristics of the CRIQ 1.0.

α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Roles1.Maker .97 5.07 1.15 – .43⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎

2. Expert .96 4.94 1.12 – .29⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎

3. Presenter .93 4.17 1.02 – .57⁎⁎ .62⁎⁎ .79⁎⁎

4. Guide .95 4.96 1.10 – .43⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎

5. Director .95 4.43 1.12 – .70⁎⁎

6. Inspirer .94 4.68 1.06 –

Note: ** p b .01. Results the CRIQ1.0 (N = 310) are presented.


To a large extent the results support our assumptions. In the next study we test the assumptions in an empirical sample andevaluate and compare the empirical sample to the simulation-study.

8. Study 2 Psychometric properties of the CRIQ in a field sample

In Study 2 we aimed to map the factorial structure of the CRIQ and establish robustness of the structure across two differentsamples. Based upon initial results we made minor changes for the second sample and adapted the CRIQ 1.0 to CRIQ 1.1 byreplacing a total of seven word-items for the Presenter- and Inspirer-scale. We used both data-sets in the analysis.

8.1. Method

8.1.1. Participants and procedureFor CRIQ 1.0 respondents were a Dutch random sample of 310 employees from different companies in the Netherlands. The

sample represented a wide range of professions (e.g., technicians, nurses, doctors, policy makers) that participated in alongitudinal portal survey on a voluntary basis. The survey was part of a larger survey, not reported here. Based upon initialresults, for the second study the CRIQ1.0 was adapted into CRIQ1.1 by replacing a total of seven word-items for the Presenter- andInspirer-scale. For CRIQ 1.1 respondents were a Dutch random sample of 235 employees that participated in an online survey on avoluntary basis. Respondents were visitors on the website of a Dutch HRM company and received no payment. Personal data likeage, gender and job type were not known for this group; generally this site is visited by persons interested to improve on theirwork situation in some way.

8.1.2. AnalysesTo analyze the CRIQ scales Cronbach's alpha, mean scores, standard deviations, and correlations were examined. Subsequently,

exploratory factor analyses (varimax rotation) were conducted to map the factorial structure. In addition, confirmatory factoranalyses were conducted in order to further test the model. The comparative fit index (CFI) and the root-mean-square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) are used in determining model fit. The CFI ranges from 0 to 1, measuring the relative fit in relation to anull model of complete independence, CFI measures larger than 0.95 are indicative of a good fit (Bentler, 1990). The RMSEA is aclose fit measure, known to be relative insensitive to sample size. An RMSEA value of 0.08 or smaller is indicative of acceptable fit(e.g., Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).

Table 4bScale characteristics of the CRIQ 1.1.

α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Roles1.Maker .96 5.10 1.07 – .54⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎

2. Expert .96 5.15 1.11 – .37⁎⁎ .58⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎

3. Presenter .92 4.21 .95 – .53⁎⁎ .55⁎⁎ .68⁎⁎

4. Guide .95 5.19 1.01 – .49⁎⁎ .65⁎⁎

5. Director .96 4.88 1.10 – .59⁎⁎

6. Inspirer .94 4.97 1.04 –

Note: ** p b .01. Results the CRIQ1.1 (N = 235) are presented.

Table 5Factor loadings of the CRIQ1.0 & CRIQ 1.1.

Rotated component matrixa

Career role

Director1.0 1.1

Maker1.0 1.1

Expert1.0 1.1

Inspirer1.0 1.1

Guide1.0 1.1

Presenter1.0 1.1

1.doen .78 .744.maken .67 .567.aanpakken .80 .6710.uitvoeren .81 .6613.realiseren .80 .6416.doen .86 .7719.maken .81 .6422.aanpakken .82 .7225.uitvoeren .83 .7128.realiseren .82 .6961.actie .70 .7464.daadkracht .47 .53 .5767.resultaat .58 .5870.oplevering .64 .5273.handeling .60 .6276.actie .76 .7279.daadkracht . 44 .67 .6482.resultaat .67 .5785.oplevering .68 .6088.handeling .72 .703.analyseren .70 .6614.onderzoeken .75 .7817.onderzoeken .77 .7920.bestuderen .79 .6932.weten .67 .5835.analyseren .78 .7138.denken .74 .7049.weten .80 .6652.bestuderen .79 .7855.denken .78 .7663.kennis .77 .6874.precisie .56 .6377.onderzoek .81 .8080.inzicht .60 .50 .4492.inzicht .63 .52 .4195.specialisme .61 .6098.onderzoek .81 .82109.kennis .41 .72 .65112.specialisme .62 .55115.precisie .53 .652.vormgeven .55 .43 .375.presenteren .46 .298.indruk maken .68 .6311.beinvloeden/verleiden .42 .23 .4431.etaleren .74 .6634.etaleren .41 .74 .6837.vormgeven .50 .49 .4040.presenteren .46 .4143.beinvloeden/verleiden .26 .4846.indruk maken .72 .7162.stijl .56 .5165.uitstraling .52 .3268.houding/show .46 .44 .7771.vorm .52 .4491.uitstraling .43 .62 .3794.vorm .55 .3897.stijl ,63 .42100.impact .40 .41 ,03 .17103.houding/show ,41 .72106.impact .48 .19 .196.helpen .67 .5815.bemiddelen .60 .5423.verbinden .58 .5526.inleven .77 .6033.begeleiden .69 .62


Table 5 (continued)

Rotated component matrixa

Career role

Director1.0 1.1

Maker1.0 1.1

Expert1.0 1.1

Inspirer1.0 1.1

Guide1.0 1.1

Presenter1.0 1.1

41.bemiddelen .67 .6644.inleven .46 .77 .5750.verbinden .68 .5153.helpen .41 .69 .5758.begeleiden .70 .5666.feedback .43 .3975.begrip .66 .5083.steun .77 .6486.coaching .70 .5993.hulp .69 .62101.feedback .48 .36104.steun .77 .68110.coaching .44 .72 .62113.begrip .75 .53118.hulp .73 .629.stimuleren/ruimte scheppen .24 .52 ,5918.inspireren .44 .40 .61 ,4324.uitdagen/* .47 .43 .3829.vernieuwen .65 .7136.prikkelen .44 .45 .4942.uitdagen/ter discussie stellen .52 .47 .4647.inspireren .46 .6251.stimuleren/ruimte scheppen .50 .33 .49 .4956.vernieuwen .69 .6759.prikkelen .52 .59 .4069.overtuiging/verandering .52 .46 .22 .5878.visie/stoekomstvisie .51 .41 .49 .5784.waarden/idealen .20 .45 .4389.creativiteit .62 .6796.creativiteit .66 .69102.verbeelding .43 .61107.waarden/idealen .22 .46 .44111.visie/toekomstvisie .56 .47 .49 .56116.verbeelding .47 .63119.overtuiging/verandering .45 .42 .25 .6112.reguleren .44 .45 .4421.beslissen .73 .7727.besturen .70 .7430.besturen .74 .7339.beslissen .73 .7845.leiden .76 .7948.regisseren .78 .7054.reguleren .53 .5557.leiden .77 .7660.regisseren .76 .6772.strategie .64 .5481.overzicht .48 .4987.sturing .72 .7190.regie .78 .7399.koers .67 .58105.koers .64 .65108.strategie .65 .60114.regie .77 .78117.overzicht .48 .49120.sturing .76 .73

This table shows factor loadings for both CRIQ 1.0 and CRIQ 1.1. CRIQ1.0 N = 310. Explained variance is 59%. CRIQ 1.1 N = 235. Explained variance is 57%.Loadings b .40 were omitted. 24.uitdagen* in CRIQ1.1 is a residue of CRIQ1.0.


After investigating both samples separately, orthogonal procrustean results are presented rotating the CRIQ1.1 factor solutionto the CRIQ1.0 (target) factor solution. Although the CRIQ1.1 has the seven improved word-items, CRIQ1.0 was chosen as thetarget solution because more background information is available for this sample.

Table 6Phi-coefficients procrustean rotation.

Career role

Maker Expert Presenter Guide Director Inspirer

Maker .97Expert .93Presenter .96Guide .93Director .91Inspirer . .91

Note. Procrustean rotation matrix available upon request.


8.2. Results

8.2.1. Preliminary explorationFig. 3 shows a summary of item-characteristics of the 40 item-sets of the CRIQ from the field sample (N = 235). The results

show that the range of the item-sets differ from [3–21] indicating that there is no observable restriction for the total score of theitem-set as the total sum varies between all possibilities.

8.2.2. Reliability and descriptive statisticsTables 4a and 4b show the reliabilities and descriptive statistics for the different CRIQ-scales. The six career role scales had

satisfactory reliabilities (α ranging from .94 to .96). The different career role scales were moderately to highly correlated(correlations ranging from .21 to .79). High correlations were found between Maker- and Guide-role (CRIQ1.0 r = .38; CRIQ1.1r = .66), Presenter- and Inspirer-role (CRIQ1.0 r = .79; CRIQ1.1 r = .68), Director- and Inspirer-role (CRIQ1.0 r = .70; CRIQ1.1r = .59), and Guide- and Inspirer-role (CRIQ1.0 r = .63; CRIQ1.1 r = .65).

Complete independence is theoretically not to be expected as roles are, to some extent, related to one another and therefore maybe connected in respondent's perception (Hoekstra, 2011). Furthermore, often people are likely to identify with more than one role.

In light of the simulation study we can estimate differences between correlations found empirically and correlationsgenerated due to the CAIT. The increase of variability within-sets appears to generate accumulative overall scale correlation.As shown in Table 3 in the simulation study an overall scale correlation of r = .44 is found compared to an overall scalecorrelation of r = .54 in the empirical sample, when the interval range is 19. As Table 3 shows, for the simulation thatresembles the empirical data most in mean and in standard deviation of item-scores and item-sets, we find a mean r = .21.Therefore, based on the simulation study we may estimate that part of the correlations will be an effect of the CAIT, resultingin an over estimation of the theoretical r = .21 dependence.

3. Factorial structureTo test the proposed six-factor solution we performed an exploratory factor analysis For CRIQ1.0 and CRIQ1.1 on the 120

word-items. After varimax rotation a clear structure of the six career role scales emerged. For CRIQ1.0 all items loaded higheston their own scale, except for 1 Presenter-item, that loaded highest on the Director-scale and 10 Inspirer-items that loadedhigher on the Director-, Maker-, and Guide-scale. After slight changes were made for the CRIQ1.1 all items loaded highest ontheir own scale, except for 5 Presenter-items, they loaded higher on the Inspirer-, Maker-, and Director-scale (see Table 5).

Subsequently, we fitted the CRIQ1.0 in the proposed six factor model. This model did not fit adequately, (RMSEAs = 0.08,CFI = 0.618). After inspecting modification indices, we detected as expected in light of the item content, correlated residualsbetween the word-items that were used twice in constructing the item-sets. Allowing these residuals to correlate resulted in animprovement in model fit (RMSEAs = 0.059 CFI = 0.794). Evaluating the goodness-of-fit-indices, we conclude that the allowingfor correlated residuals in the model results in a good RMSEAs fit, with a somewhat low CFI fit.

To test robustness of the CRIQ-scales we performed an orthogonal procrustean rotation. Table 6 shows results of thePhi-coefficients for the scales, coefficients vary between .91 and .96 corresponding to a fair similarity, indicating that most factorscan be considered equal (Lorenzo-Seva & ten Berge, 2006).

9. General discussion

Despite increased attention for the changing nature of jobs and careers, development of practices and instruments supportingthese developments is still in its infancy. The aim of this paper was twofold. First, we introduced and evaluated the ComparisonAwareness Inducing Technique (CAIT); an innovative method to reduce the effects of self-presentation tactics. Second, wepresented and evaluated the Career Role Identification Questionnaire (CRIQ), a new measure for role identification. We tested theassumptions of the CAIT and psychometric properties of the CRIQ in two studies.


The results from Study 1 indicate that the CA IT receives encouraging support as a new way of dealing with self-reportmeasures and socially desirable responding.The method does not generate negative correlations when the range of sum-scores is sufficiently large. As the empirical datashow, this is what happens in a real application.The method does generate correlations between scales, if the within-set variability is large. Meaning that the overallrole-correlations found in an empirical study are probably overestimated.

The results from study 2 show encouraging support for our conceptualization of the Career Role Identification Questionnaire(CRIQ) as a measure of identification with the six career roles. After adapting the CRIQ1.0 to the CRIQ1.1, apart from 5Presenter-items, a clear factorial structure emerged. Furthermore, item loadings were found to be equivalent across the twosamples, indicating the robustness of the CRIQ. Taking a closer look with a confirmatory factor analysis, the proposed six careerrole model shows an acceptable fit. In summary, the results indicate that the CAIT is an innovative method for dealing withself-presentation tactics and used across samples the CRIQ is a reliable and robust measure of career role identification.

10. Limitations

Although the proposed factorial structure emerges from both samples indicative of existence of six career roles, there is roomfor improvement. In line with previous research, the Presenter-, Director- and Guide-scale show high inter-correlations(Hoekstra, 2011). Due to these high correlations, the Inspirer-scale emerges less clear from the factorial structure. In spite of theseresults, overall the career roles were found to be reliable and constitute distinct dimensions, indicating conceptual accuracy of theitems. However, future research may offer insight in these results. For example, although all career roles can vary independently,environmental influence can vary resulting in broad and narrow jobs. Subsequently, workers may adopt and identify with moreor less roles causing (high) inter-correlations between roles.

Furthermore, although the RMSEA (0.059) is satisfactory, the CFI fit is below the 0.90 which is generally acknowledged as anacceptable fit. It has been reasoned however, that fit indices may reflect other uncontrollable variables in addition to reflectingmodelfit. Different aspects such asmodel-type andmodel complexitymay influence the fit indices andmodel-fit results, respectively (Fan &Sivo, 2007).With regard to ourmodel, a simple structure does not apply because the items consist of two parts. There is a general part,that applies to all latent variables (a good worker role, that comprises all six career roles) and an item-specific part, that appliesespecially to the one role. For example, there are different ways in which an individual can contribute to the organization, which isreflected in the items. It is through set tasks that task performance is assessed, which is job specific (e.g., career roles). Anothercontribution is made through organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., the good worker role). Which is ‘Individual behavior that isdiscretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient andeffective functioning of the organization, (Organ, Podsakoff, &Mackenzie, 2006:3). This type of contribution is similar across jobs androles, and supports the social & psychological environment in which task performance takes place (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Thecomplexity of the model should be taken into account when interpreting the model-fit.

11. Implications

11.1. Implications of the CAIT

One of the challenges in constructing identification measures is to prevent the risk that self-serving motives come to dominatethe responses (Robins & John, 1997). The CAIT provides a new way for measuring identification through comparison awareness.When introducing awareness between options, it is thought that chances will diminish for one desirability dimension todominate the mind-set of the respondent. Although we used the CAIT to measure identification with career roles the CAIT can betransferred to other areas of identification measures. Furthermore, we have shown that with this technique, people are free torespond on the items as they would on a normal Likert scale, tackling the problem of forced choice ipsative data. Taking thepresent results and possible future applications into consideration we believe that the CAIT has the potential to make a significantcontribution to research in various domains beyond career role identification.

11.2. Implications of the CRIQ

Within the same job, employees can differ in how they perceive their job. From this perspective, it seems relevant how peopleperceive their roles and how these beliefs influence role behavior (Neale & Griffin, 2006). Although job descriptions might be thesame, how an employee perceives his/her own job can lead to different role orientations and subsequently, different role behavior(Neale & Griffin, 2006; Parker et al., 1997). How people respond to different role expectations will be influenced by expectationsof a role, but also how salient a role is for that person given the context (Neale & Griffin, 2006). Specifically, the CRIQ may giveinsight into how important certain roles are for people and consequences on career role enactment in terms of motivation and/orperformance (Hall, 2002).


Appendix A. CRIQ scoring directions

People are asked to rate to what extent each of the presented words relate to them as a person. Within the item-set, all threeword-items can be rated on an individual 1–7 Likert scale. The item “Know” refers to the Expert-role, “Connect” to the Guide-role,and “Stimulate” to the Inspirer-role, respectively.

Roles Dutch English Dutch English

Maker 1.doen 1.do_2p_3e 61.actie 61.action_62p_63e4.maken 4.make_5p_6g 64.daadkracht 64.resolution_65p_66g7.aanpakken 7.act_8p_9m 67.resultaat 67.result_58p_69i10.uitvoeren 10.execute_11p_12d 70.oplevering 68.realization_71p_72d13.realiseren 13.realise_14e_15g 73.handeling 73deed _74e_75g16.doen 16.do_17e_18i 76.actie 76.action_77e_78i19.maken 19.make_20e_21d 79.daadkracht 79.resolution_80e_81d22.aanpakken 22.act_23g_24i 82.resultaat 82.result_83g_84i25.uitvoeren 25.execute_26g_27d 85.oplevering 85.realization_86g_87d28.realiseren 28.realise_29i_30d 88.handeling 88.deed_89i_90d

Expert 3.analyseren 3.analyse_1m_2p 63.kennis 63.knowledge_61m_62p14.onderzoeken 14.inquire_13m_15g 74.precisie 74.precision_73m_75g17.onderzoeken 17.inquire_16m_18i 77.onderzoek 77.research_76m_78i20.bestuderen 20.study_19m_21d 80.inzicht 80.insight_79m_81d32.weten 32.know_31p_33g 92.inzicht 92.insight_91p_93g35.analyseren 35.analyse_34p_36i 95.specialisme 95.specialism_94p_96i38.denken 38.think_37p_39d 98.onderzoek 98.research_97p_99d49.weten 49.know_50g_51i 109.kennis 109.knowledge_110g_111i52.bestuderen 52.study_53g_54d 112.specialisme 112.specialism_113g_114d55.denken 55.think_56i_57d 115.precisie 115.precision_116i_117d

Presenter 2.vormgeven 2.design_1m_3e 62.stijl 62.style_61m_63e5.presenteren 5.present_4m_6g 65.uitstraling 65.charisma_64m_66g8.indruk maken 8.impress_7m_9i 68.show 68.show_57m_69i11. verleiden 11.entice_10m_12d 71.vorm 71.appearance_70m_72d31.etaleren 31.exhibit_32e_33g 91.uitstraling 91.charisma_92e_93g34.etaleren 34.exhibit_35e_36i 94.vorm 94. appearance _95e_96i37.vormgeven 37.design_38e_39d 97.stijl 97.style_98e_99d40.presenteren 40.present_41g_42i 100.impact 100.impact_101g_102i43.verleiden 42.entice_44g_45d 103.show 103.show_104g_105d46.indruk maken 46.impress_47i_48d 106.impact 106.impact_107i_108d

Guide 6.helpen 6.help_4m_5p 66.feedback 66.feedback_64m_65p15.bemiddelen 15.mediate_13m_14e 75.begrip 75.understanding_73m_74e23.verbinden 23.connect_22.m_24i 83.steun 83.support_82m_84i26.inleven 26.sympathize_25m_27d 86.coaching 86.coaching.85m_87d33.begeleiden 33.assist_31p_32e 93.hulp 93.assistance_91p_92e41.bemiddelen 41.mediate_40p_42i 101.feedback 101.feedback_100p_102i44.inleven 44.sympathize_43p_45d 104.steun 104.support_103p_105d50.verbinden 50.connect_49e_51i 110.coaching 110.coaching_109e_111i53.helpen 53.help_52e_54d 113.begrip 113.understanding_112e_114d58.begeleiden 58/assist_59i_60d 118.hulp 118.assistance.119i_120d

Director 12.reguleren 12.regulate_10m_11p 72.strategie 72.strategy_70m_71p21.beslissen 21.decide_19m_20e 81.overzicht 81.command_79m_80e27.besturen 27.manage_25m_26g 87.sturing 87.steering_85m_86g30.besturen 30.manage_28m_29i 90.regie 90.government_88m_89i39.beslissen 39.decide_37p_38e 99.koers 99.direction_97p_98e45.leiden 45.lead_43p_44g 105.koers 105.direction_103p_104g48.regisseren 48.direct_48p_47i 108.strategie 108.strategy_106p_107i54.reguleren 54.regulate_52e_53g 114.regie 114.government_112e_113g57.leiden 57.lead_55e_56i 117.overzicht 117.command_115e_116i60.regisseren 60.direct_58g_59i 120.sturing 120steering_118g_119i

Inspirer 9.ruimte scheppen 9.emancipate_7m_8p 69. verandering 69.change_67m_68p18.inspireren 18.inspire_16m_17e 78.toekomstvisie 78. vision _76m_77e24.uitdagen 24.challenge_22m_23g 84.waarden 84.values_82m_83g29.vernieuwen 29renew_28m_30d 89.creativiteit 89.creativity_88m_90d36.prikkelen 36.excite_34p_35e 96.creativiteit 96.creativity_94p_95e42.ter discussie stellen 42.debate_40p_41g 102.verbeelding 102.imagination_100p_101g47.inspireren 47.inspire_46p_48d 107. idealen 107.ideals_106p_108d51.ruimte scheppen 51.empancipate_49e_50g 111.toekomstvisie 111. vision _109e_110g56.vernieuwen 56.renew_55e_57d 116.verbeelding 116.imagination_115e_117d59.prikkelen 59.excite_58g_60d 119.verandering 119.change_118g_120d


Translation of the CRIQ word-items paired within item-sets.Note. The original instrument is published in Dutch. Word-items are translated by the first author. The translated word-items

are presented with the two remaining word-items presented in each item-set, coded as the number of the word-item + scaleabbreviation. M = maker, E = expert, P = presenter, G = guide, D = director and I = inspirer-scale. © GITP; Alec Serlie. Thoseinterested in using the CRIQ may contact the copyright-holder ([email protected]) for information and send results of researchwith the CRIQ to him.

References

Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 1–48.Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2011). Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. New York: The Guilford Press.Arthur, M. D., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world.Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 49–56.Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fix indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 101–105.Brisbin, L. A., & Savickas, M. L. (1994). Career indecision scales do not measure fore-closure. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 352–363.Briscoe, J., & Hall, D. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 96, 4–18.Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6),

1518–1542.Cornwell, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1994). On the questionable soundness of factoring ipsative data: A response to Saville & Willson (1991). Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 67(2), 89–100.Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 26, Newbury Park: Sage.Dittrich, R., Francis, B., Hatzinger, R., & Katzenbeisser, W. (2007). A paired comparison approach for the analysis of sets of Likert-scale responses. Statistical

Modelling, 7, 3–28.Fan, X., & Sivo, S. (2007). Sensitivity of Fit Indices to Model Misspecification and Model Types. Multivariate behavioral Research, 42(3), 509–529.Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to

organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 503–527.Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Hoekstra, H. A. (2006). The life-span perspective: Sustainable selection [Dutch: Het levensloopperspectief: duurzame selectie]. In G. N. Smit, H. C. M. Verhoeven, &

A. Driessen (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment (pp. 210–232). Personeelsselectie en assessment (pp. 210–232). Assen: Van Gorcum.Hoekstra, H. A. (2011). A career roles model of career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 159–173.Hoekstra, H. A. & Groen, B. A. C. (2008). Career role fulfillment in relation to performance and work satisfaction. [Dutch:Loopbaanrolvervulling in relatie tot

performance en satisfactie] (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Universiteit Twente, Enschede.Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate of organizations. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Lorenzo-Seva, U., & ten Berge, J. M. F. (2006). Tucker's congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64.March, J. G. (1999). The pursuit of organizational intelligence. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Meade, A. W. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 77, 531–552.Morf, C. C., Horvath, S., & Torchetti, L. (2011). Narcissistic self-enhancement: Tales of (successful?) self-portrayal. In M. D. Alicke, & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Handbook of

self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 399–424). New York: Guilford Press.Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal,

37(6), 1543–1567.

Unlabelled image

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0001-8791(14)00016-5/rf0240


































Neale, M., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A model of self-held work roles and role transitions. Human Performance, 19(1), 23–41.Ogden, J., & Lo, J. (2012). How meaningful are data from Likert scales? An evaluation of howratings are made and the role of the response shift in socially

disadvantaged. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(3), 350–361.Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology,

48(4), 775–802.Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 49, 447–469.Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘That is my job’: How employees' role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations, 60(3), 403–434.Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). ‘That's not my job’: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4),

899–929.Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social

psychological attitudes (pp. 17–60). San Diego: Academic Press.Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique. Intelligence, 32, 297–693.Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic bias in self-perceptions: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of

Personality, 66, 1025–1060.Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York, NY US: McGraw-Hill.Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on the accuracy of self-perceptions. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs

(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit

measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23–74.Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on psychological Science, 3, 102–116.Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 209–269.Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers: An introduction to vocational development. Oxford, England: Harper & Bros.Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282–298.Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary

theories to practice (pp. 197–261) (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.Zickar, M. J., & Gibby, R. E. (2006). Four persistent themes throughout the history of I-O psychology in the United States. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives

in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 61–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
































Documents

CRIQ: An innovative measure using comparison awareness to avoid self-presentation tactics