The gap between actual and desired complexity of work - different ways to assess difference-scores...

The gap between actual and desired complexity of work - different ways to assess difference-scoresRigotti, T., Schyns, B., Mohr, G. & Paul, T.

• Definition

• Theory I: The theory of action regulation

• Theory II: Problems in measuring differences

• Methods

• Results

• Conlusions and Discussion

Definition

I have to produce my own solutions todo my job.

there are always new demands, I haveto learn. (e.g. new tasks).

I can plan the process of my work bymyself.

I am responsible for the results of mywork.

In my place of work

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

In a good place of work

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Actual complexity of work

Desired complexity of work

Willingness to occupational change is defined as the experienced gap between actual complexity of work and the positive rating of complexity. Complexity describes higher regulation demands in the sense of action regulation theory.

• Hierarchic and sequential completeness

Theory I: The action-regulation theory

Levels of action-regulation Sensorimotor level, level of flexible action patterns, intellectual level, heuristic level

• „Action is goal-oriented behavior that is organized in specific ways by goals, information integration, plans, and feedback and can be regulated consciously or via routines.“ (Frese & Zapf, 1994)

General definition of action

Completeness of tasks

Enhancement of personality

Var(X) rXX + Var(Y) rYY - 2COV(XY)

Var(X) + Var(Y) - 2COV(XY)

Horst (1961)

Theory II: Problems in measuring differences

1. „Un”reliability

2. Regression-effect

3. Intervall-niveau of the measures

+2rExEyX Y)1)(1( YYXX rr

Williams & Zimmermann (1977)

• Coefficient Alpha (Cronbach, 1951)

• Kruder-Richardson Formula 8 (Kruder & Richardson, 1937)

rDD‘ =

Methods

1. Sample

Sample size

55 + 29 = 84

Age

42

SD 10.01

Range: 27 to 64

Methods

Analysis of the instrument

= .64

= .65

= .61/ willingness to change

0.794 0.55

0.727 0.46

0.601 0.34

0.686 0.42

39%48%

actual complexity /

Item factors Item-total-corr.

I have to producemay own solutionsto do my job.

0.841 0.60

there are alwaysnew demands. Ihave to learn (e.g.new tasks)

0.690 0.38

I can plan theprocess of my workon my own.

0.584 0.31

I am responsible forthe results of mywork.

0.614 0.33

/ desired complexity

0.794 0.52

0.691 0.42

0.719 0.44

0.557 0.31

36%

Results

Connections to other scales

Partial - Corr.Controllingfor X

Y-X X Y

Selfinitiativ .47** .15 .25* .51**Irritation -.35** -.28* .04 -.31**Occupational selfefficacy .17 -.07 .28* .26*

Subscales AVEMTendency for resignation -.34** -.32** -.04 -.32**Readiness to exhaust one self .13 -.02 .19 .20Occupational ambition .28* .09 .12 .26*

Subscales ABBSuperior -.16 -.32** .38** .05Colleagues -.01 .02 -.13 .00Task -.04 -.46** .61** .18Job Conditions .32** -.08 .39** .39**


Y-X X Y





Y-X X Y





Y-X X Y




Results

The influence of various computational modells on significant scores D1 = Y-X

XrYrD xxyy 2ˆ

)()()(ˆ3 XYrXYXYrD DDDD

YYD ˆˆ4 XY 21

ˆ

)()()(ˆ215 YyXxXYD

aXYD 6ˆ

27)(1

1050ˆ

XY

ZXYZ

r

XrYD

with

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Various Computational models

Perc

enta

ge o

f per

sons

with

si

gnifi

cant

sco

re

Results

Intercorrelation of the modells

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6D2 .97D3 1.00 .97D4 .73 .74 .73D5 .99 .96 .92 .63D6 .87 .87 .87 .97 .81D7 .73 .74 .73 1.00 .64 .97

D1 = Y-X

XrYrD xxyy 2ˆ

)()()(ˆ3 XYrXYXYrD DDDD

YYD ˆˆ4 XY 21

ˆ

)()()(ˆ215 YyXxXYD

aXYD 6ˆ

27)(1

1050ˆ

XY

ZXYZ

r

XrYD

with

Results

D1 D2/ D3 D4/ D7 D5 D6sig N M d N M d N M d N M d N M d

Age 01

6615

42.4540.40

.20 5526

42.2941.62

.06 738

42.1041.88

.02 3447

43.3541.15

.22 3942

43.2640.98

.23

How manycompanys

01

6615

0.420.47

.05 5526

0.400.50

.10 738

0.400.75

.30 3447

0.440.43

.01 3942

0.380.48

.11

Conse-quences ofchange

01

6314

3.062.92

.16 5225

3.152.79

.42 698

3.033.02

.01 3245

3.222.90

.40 3740

3.212.86

.43

Satisfactionwith jobconditions

01

6515

2.462.26

.35 5426

2.472.34

.23 728

2.382.83

.94 3347

2.542.34

.36 3842

2.552.31

.43

Likelinessof change

01

6615

3.492.82

.73 5526

3.443.22

.24 738

3.413.00

.41 3447

3.583.21

.42 3942

3.563.19

.41

.30 .21 .34 .28 .32

T-Tests of variables with the various difference-score modells

Conclusions

• Taking into account that the pre- and posttest are highly linked and

semantically different (not parallel) - the difference can be a reliable measure

• "[...]although the meaning of a given difference score seems obvious, it is impossible to know what a difference score correlation means without looking at the relation between the components of the difference score and

the outcome measure."(Griffin, Murray & Gonzales, 1999).

• willingness to occupational change seems to be inhibited by internal stressors• Positive resources, like selfinitiativ, occupational ambition are connected with a lower experience of discripancy between actual and desired complexity of work

• The various concepts to compute a difference lead to different amounts of persons with a significant score• the simple difference seems to be an unbiased measure

Conclusions

Willingness to occupational change

seems to be more than the difference of its parts

The gap between actual and desired complexity of work - different ways to assess difference-scores...

Documents

Transcript of The gap between actual and desired complexity of work - different ways to assess difference-scores...