SummarySubjective or perceived control over job-related activities or events is a frequently measured construct in organizational stress research. Karasek (1985) assessed perceived control as both decision authority and skill discretion at work (job decision latitude). Ganster (1989b;Dwyer and Ganster, 1991) developed a multidimensional or general measure of worker control, as well as a speci®c measure of work predictability. Because little published psychometric data exist for these scales, we investigated the item-level measurement properties of Karasek's and Ganster's measures. We hypothesized two separate, two-factor solutions, decision authority and skill discretion, for the job decision latitude scale, and general control and predictability, for the work control scale. The dimensionality of both measures was assessed in multiple, independent samples using con®rmatory factor analyses (LISREL) with maximum likelihood estimation. Simultaneous solutions across samples were used to determine the ®t of the factor models to the data. The hypothesized two-factor solutions were con®rmed for both Karasek's and Ganster's scales, although item re®nement is indicated. We also investigated the relative independence between Karasek's and Ganster's scales and found a lack of independence between the general control and decision authority items in one sample. #
Two studies examined the relation between job level and job satisfaction. Study 1 was a metaanalysis of the relation between job level and job satisfaction using data drawn from 35 independent samples (N= 18,534). It was found that as job level increased, so did job satisfaction. Several possible moderators of this relation were identified. Study 2 was a primary study of the relation between job level and job satisfaction using 4 measures of job level and 5 facets of job satisfaction (N = 530 in 4 hospitals). There was a high degree of convergence among the measures of job level and a consistently positive relation between the job level and job facet satisfaction measures. These studies suggest that the relation between job level and job satisfaction is positive across most operationalizations of the 2 constructs and that other moderators should be investigated to account for the large residual variance in effect sizes identified.
The measurement properties of the Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970) role conflict and role ambiguity scales have been debated in the research literature for several years. The criticisms are that the scales do not measure separate constructs and are contaminated by method variance. However, some researchers have presented evidence supporting the scales' continued use as independent measures. We attempted to clarify the running debate by re-examining these issues and presenting additional data, which focused on the item level of analysis. Using confirmatory factor analyses and item statistics, we show discriminant validity for the role conflict and ambiguity scales across three diverse samples of workers. We also contend that the evidence for method bias is not as strong as previously argued. also found; one consisted of a mixture of conflict and ambiguity items, Although the criticisms were not totally resolved, House et al. (1983) recommended that researchers continue to use the original scales because the correlations between the new factors and the original scale items were extremely high (0.88 for ambiguity and 0.94 for conflict).The debate over these scales was recently rekindled by McGee et al. (1989). McGee et al. (1989) attempted to establish the dimensionality of the role conflict and role ambiguity scales by using confirmatory factor analysis to compare competing factor models across three independent samples. They tested a null model, a two-factor, oblique solution, a one-factor solution, and a solution that contained one general factor and a negative wordinghole ambiguity factor. The two-factor, oblique solution was included because it represented the traditional conceptualization of role ambiguity and role conflict as two related, although separate, constructs. The one-factor solution was derived from conceptualizing role ambiguity and conflict as a global or unitary measure of role stress (cf. McKelvy and Sekaran, 1977;Tracy and Johnson, 1981). The authors conceived of the general factor and wording factor as a test of Tracy and Johnson's ( I98 1) hypothesis that the two scales primarily reflect wording differences rather than construct differences.The two-factor, oblique solution was created to reflect role ambiguity and conflict as two correlated but separate constructs. Although they allowed the factors to correlate, McGee et al. did n d allow the items to load on both factors. In essence, McGee et al. accomplished partial cross-loading when they tested the general factor and wording factor model. Although the factors were orthogonal in this factor solution, the ambiguity items were specified on both factors to test the wording hypothesis. McGee et d ' s purpose in specifying this type of factor model was to tease out any variance not captured by the single construct (role stress) factor. However, because the constructs (role conflict and role ambiguity) were totally confounded with the wording bias (stress and comfort), the variance due to the wording bias could not be partialled from the const...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.