PSYCHOLOGY - foh-cpd.co.za20).pdf · convenience (Super, 1970). Concomitant rewards are lar- gely related to social values, examples of which are social relationships with coworkers

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001

2 Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly


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 dimensions

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001

${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)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001




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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001

Y.-T. Sung et al., Work Values Assembly 5




(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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001




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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001





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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001




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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001





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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001




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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001





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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001




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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001





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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001




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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001





—

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001




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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001

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

http://www.fohcpd.co.za/

Documents

PSYCHOLOGY - foh-cpd.co.za20).pdf · convenience (Super, 1970). Concomitant rewards are lar- gely related to social values, examples of which are social relationships with coworkers