Weeblychelseahuttoportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/8/4/... · Web viewPW1 Most people spend too...

1

RUNNING HEAD: Conscientiousness Scale Development Project

19

Conscientiousness Scale Development Project

An analysis and scale development of conscientiousness

Chelsea J. Hutto

Valdosta State University

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to create a scale that measures the psychological construct of conscientiousness. Subsequently, the goal of this scale was to be implemented as a method utilized in the selection process in the workplace. This report documents the processes that took place in this analysis, along with the results found. Results of this analysis show that conscientiousness is significantly associated with Mechanical Ability (r = .70, p < .05) along with Turnover intentions (r = .37, p < .05), and Integrity (r = .35, p < .05). Additionally, when Conscientiousness as a scale is compared to the current scales within the selection method at the electrical company, it accounts for the highest amount of variance of Turnover Intentions (β = .39, p < .05).

Content Analysis

As defined, Conscientiousness is a psychological construct, which is comprised by being industrious and orderly. As a result, I would expect items related to commitment, efficiency, and knowledge along with orderliness, tidiness, completeness, and a personal need for rules and schedules to load very well onto the construct of conscientiousness. Other variables that the items should address include high impulse control, self-motivation, and need for approval. As researchers such the traits mentioned above are often associated with the psychological construct of conscientiousness (Goldberg et al., 2006; Madhavan, 2004; Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Goldberg, 2005; Salgado, Moscoso, & Berges, 2013).

By implementing an operational definition that covers a wide range of traits, but is not to the point of excessiveness, I believe the content validity of the definition to be high. By including traits that apply not only in everyday life, but also traits that transfer to situations apparent in organizational settings also suggest for high content validity.

Based on the content domain, items that were considered to be beneficial items for the construct of conscientiousness include:

C11. I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat.

C13. I plan task according to importance

C22. I double-check tasks for correctness.

C24. When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual.

These items were considered beneficial due to each item including information from more than one trait within the construct of conscientiousness. For example, on item 13 it includes information which encompasses both traits in the industrious and orderly category, such as efficiency and orderliness.

Based on the content domain, items that were considered to be poor items when measuring the construct of conscientiousness include:

C2. I often work after hours to make sure I complete a project on time.

C4. I don’t work as hard as the people around me.

C16. I think before I speak.

C21. I do what I think is right in the workplace.

C23. I am more likely to go to a pre-planned event than a last minute event.

These items were considered poor items due to vagueness, content irrelevant information, or item which only suggest at traits within the construct, rather than including information of the actual traits. For example, on item 23 it is suggesting at a need for schedule which is included under orderly, but the item is making a broad accusation by stating they are more or less likely to go to an event that was or was not scheduled.

Currently, I am not convinced the measure is content valid, although I believe implementing a few major and minor changes could increase it drastically. In the current scale, when the items are categorized by the trait or traits addressed in the question, the majority of items are associated with Orderly, with only a few items addressing Industriousness. Also there are only a few items which encompass both Industriousness and Orderly within the same question. By implementing these few content changes, I believe content validity could be increased.

The limited minor corrections would include changes to the poor items that could be accomplished through rewording of the item. Such changes would make the items less vague and more content relevant rather than using the original versions. Additionally, by making changes to the display of the response options, the participant rating could be easier and more accurate. For example in the current version the ratings of “strongly disagree to strongly agree” are displayed on the diagonal, which makes misinterpretation possible and also could be uncomfortable for the participant when completing the scale.

Factorial Validity

Based on the construct of conscientiousness, I expect to see a three-factor structure, since the nature of the definition is based off of two main traits (Industriousness and Orderly) along with one of the three additional traits included in the definition (Impulse Control). For Industriousness I would expect to see commitment, efficiency, and knowledge to load as sub-facets. For Orderly I would expect to see orderliness, tidiness, completeness, and a personal need for rules and schedules to load as sub-facets. For impulse control, I would expect items related to self-control and thorough evaluation to load as sub-facets.

As indicated by TableA1, the scale of conscientiousness (N of items = 25) has a high reliability estimate (α = .86). Items that would increase alpha level if deleted include: RS4 (increase of .007), item 5 (increase of .003). Others include items 7, 14, and 23 (all of which increased alpha by .002) (See Table A2). Reliability was conducted twice after the initial analysis which included all 25 items, first with items RS4 and 5 eliminated, then secondly with items RS4, 5,7,14, and 23 removed. As indicated by Table A4 reliability is the highest (α = .87) when items 4, 5, 7, 14, and 23 are eliminated as compared to only eliminating items RS4 and 5 (See Table A5). Number of participants included within the analysis (N = 61) also increases as compared to the number of participants included in the original reliability analysis (N = 55) due to participant exclusions.

An exploratory factor analysis was initially conducted without defining the number of factors, then secondly by defining the number of factors. After conducting these analyses, it was determined that the number of factors that best fit the sample of data was three (See Table B2 & B3). By having a three factor structure, this enabled the scale to retain the maximum number of items possible as compared to the other factor structures conducted. The items that loaded on factor one include C18, C19, C21, and C22. The content of these items included a need for rules, ethical behavior, and double checking tasks for correctness. As a result, factor one was termed Need for Rules and Ethics. The items that loaded on factor two include C1, C6, C15, C16, and C17. The content of these items included information on impulse control, detail-orientation, and self-motivation. As a result factor two was termed Self Discipline. The items that loaded on factor three include C9, C10, C11, and C12 (See Table B1). The content of these items included a preference for organization and order. As a result factor three was defined as Orderly.

In regards to homogeneity of the scale, as researchers suggest, homogeneity refers to unidimensionality of a scale (Cortina, 1993). As the nature of the conscientiousness scale is multidimensional, this suggests the conscientiousness scale is not homogeneous.

The factor structure which I expected before conducting any analyses was a three factor structure consisting of Industriousness, Orderly, and Impulse Control. The observed factor structure after conducting a factor analysis was quite different that such initial expectations. Although the factor structure which fit the data most appropriately was a three factor structure, the factors of Industriousness, Orderly, and Impulse Control did not. The only factor out of these expected factors was Orderly. Along with this factor Need for Rules and Ethics, and Self Discipline were the observed factors after analysis. Despite my misinterpretation of the expected factor structure as compared to the actual observed structure, the majority of variables in the observed analyses were expected before such were conducted. For example, the only variables which were not included in the initial expectations were detail oriented and need for ethical behavior. Based on such information along with the high reliability of the scale I still believe the factorial validity to be fairly high. Despite the number of items which were removed due to non-significant factor loadings or cross loading, there are still a substantial amount of items which still adequately measure conscientiousness although the factor loadings may not be as clear cut as initially expected. Additionally I believe this scale of conscientiousness could have vast implications for the interview process at a local electrical company along with various other organizational settings, by further examining and screening potential employees to best fit the position and organization.

Construct Validity

Based on the results displayed in the correlation matrix there are relationships between conscientiousness and other measured variables that are somewhat expected. The variables that I expected conscientiousness to be highly related to include Integrity, CWB, and Turnover Intentions, in addition to being moderately related to OCB and Task Performance. These variables could be included as within the scale to measure evidence of convergent validity. In contrast I would expect conscientiousness to be highly unrelated to variables such as Interview and GMA, in addition to being moderately unrelated to Mechanical Ability. Variables such as these could be included with in the scale as measures of discriminant validity.

In comparison to the expected relationship between conscientiousness and related variables, the observed relationship between conscientiousness and related variables include Mechanical Ability (r = .70*), Turnover Intentions (r = .37*), Integrity (r = .35*), CWB (r = .33*), OCB (r = .29*), Task Performance (r = .26*), and GMA (r = .25*), which vary somewhat from my original expectations. The only variable included within the measure that was relatively unrelated to conscientiousness was Interview (r = .12*), which was consistent with my original expectation. The main association which I did not expect, but was observed was that of Conscientiousness and Mechanical Ability (r = .70*). Surprisingly, this particular variable had the highest correlation (r = .70*) as compared to the other variables included within the measure. Although the relationship theoretically makes sense, I would not have expected it to have the strongest association between conscientiousness when compared to other variables such as Turnover Intentions (r = .37*) or Integrity (r =.35*), both of which I expected stronger associations. Additionally I would have expected that CWB (r = .33*) and Task Performance (r = .26*) to have a stronger association. With these observed associations in mind and despite the intention of generalizability of this measure, I do not feel confident with generalizing the results of this measure to other professions especially ones which require little mechanical ability. Using the measure in such professions could not only affect employee scores but also work behavior. Although I trust this measure could be highly beneficial for use in a local electrical company and other organizational settings that require a high amount of mechanical ability.

Criterion-Related Validity

In regards to the regression analysis conducted on Job Performance with GMA, Integrity, Interview, and Conscientiousness as predictors, 45% of the variance in Job Performance was accounted for by the predictor variables. The two predictor variables that accounted for the most variance (as indicated by the β values) were GMA (β = .39*) and Interview (β = .25*). Additionally, Conscientiousness as a predictor variable (β = .09*) accounted for the least amount of variance as compared to the other variables. Note. * p < .05.

The regression analysis conducted on Turnover Intentions with GMA, Integrity, Interview, and Conscientiousness as predictor variables, as displayed by, 60% of the variance of Turnover Intentions was accounted for by the predictor variables. The two predictor variables which accounted for the highest amount of variance (as indicated by the β values) were Conscientiousness (β = .39*) and Integrity (β = .29*). Additionally, GMA as a predictor variable (β =.15*) accounts for the least amount of variance in Turnover Intentions as compared to the other variables included. Note. * p < .05.

Our measure of conscientiousness fared extremely well either as a 25 item scale (α = .86) as a 20 item scale (α = .87), as compared to other scales measuring conscientiousness; as demonstrated by IPIP scales such as the AB5C 12 item scale (α = .75), NEO domain 10 item scale (α = .81), Big Five Domain as a 10 item scale (α = .79) and as a 20 item scale (α = .88) (Goldberg et al., 2006).

With conscientiousness having such a low beta value (β = .09*) I believe there is little unique variance accounted for by conscientiousness within the criterion domain of Job Performance. In contrast, conscientiousness has a much higher beta value (β = .39*) on the criterion domain of Turnover Intentions. As a result, I believe there a moderate amount unique variance accounted for by conscientiousness within Turnover Intentions. Note. * p < .05.

The results of the regression analysis on Job Performance indicate that 45% of the variance is accounted for by the four predictor variables (R² = .45, F = 32.5, p < .05). Additionally the results of the regression analysis on Turnover Intentions indicated that 60% of the variance is accounted for by the four predictor variables (R² = .60, F = 30.03, p < .05). Based on the moderately high variance value as compared to a high amount of variance accounted for, I do not feel that multicollinearity is an issue that we should be worried about.

Based on the results reported in the regression analysis, I feel our measure of conscientiousness would be most appropriately used in the selection process when trying to determine a level of Turnover Intentions rather than a level Job Performance or both Turnover Intentions and Job Performance. Additionally, with results in the regression analysis, the correlation among constructs also suggests conscientiousness is a better predictor of turnover intentions rather than job performance.

Recommendation

It is my official recommendation, given the results of the current form of the conscientiousness scale and the internal problem of turnover within the electrical company, to implement the conscientiousness scale within the selection method process. The different sources of evidence that influenced my decision include the reliability of the conscientiousness scale, the correlation among constructs, and the regression analyses conducted on Job Performance and Turnover Intentions. Not only is the conscientiousness scale highly reliable (α = .86) but when compared to other conscientiousness scales it also fares well. As indicated by the regression analyses, along with the correlation of constructs, conscientiousness is also significantly associated with constructs such as Mechanical Ability and Turnover Intention. Both of these constructs apply specifically to the organizational setting of the electrical company. More specifically, when compared to other selection methods (GMA, Integrity, and Interview), conscientiousness accounts for the highest amount of variance in Turnover Intentions. By including this scale within the current selection methods, I feel confident that it will help solve the issues with high turnover, especially when compared to solely relying on the current methods of selection.

In comparison of base rates of the current selection method (.70) with the predicted base rate once the conscientiousness scale is added (.90), it may not initially seem like much of a difference, although it is suggested the higher the value of a base rate the higher the probability those selected will be good performers. Additionally, when comparing adverse impact between selection methods, there are disparities it both tables. By implementing the conscientiousness scale the overall hiring ratio decreases, which could have the possibility to be beneficial by having a higher probability of hiring employees that are better fit, although this probability also affects the instances of adverse impact which are projected to increase as compared to the original assessment. Adverse impact in the current scale, when comparing ethnicity, the percentage of employees hired through external and internal means are 50% for white applicants as compared to only 30% of African American applicants. In contrast, when this hiring percentage is examined after implementing the Conscientiousness scale, the percentage of employees hired though external and internal means (when comparing ethnicity) is 48% for white applicants as compared to 20% of African American applicants.

Adding the conscientiousness scale to the current selection method is financially and practically feasible. Since this scale only takes roughly ten minutes to complete and can be distributed to a large group at once or through the use of secure online portals, it eliminates the need for someone to physically administer the measure in cases of online distribution, or in the case of mass administration it eliminates the need to administer the measure on an individual basis. With the elimination or at least a decrease in cost of scale administration this measure is financially feasible, even with the limited budget of the electrical company. Along with most scales measuring a psychological construct, there is always a possibility for participant response error whether it occur for social desirability reasons, careless or random responding, or just flat out answers without regard to item content. In our case, especially if a participant feels the results of the measure could negatively affect their well-being, the conscientiousness scale could very well be interpreted as such. I do not feel concerned with faking on this scale although if it ever does become an issue, by managing the testing context it is possible to prevent or minimize the existence of such bias.

Raw data Interpretation

As displayed in Table A10 the only significant correlation between scales is between Protestant Work Ethic and Conscientiousness (r = .44, p <.01) along with a correlation between Protestant Work Ethic and Turnover Intentions (r = .11) and a correlation between Conscientiousness and Turnover Intentions (r = -.17). Theoretically the observed correlations between scales do make sense. For instance, items on the PW scale include traits such as ethics and self-disciple which also load very highly on Conscientiousness. Additionally, the negative relationship between Conscientiousness and Turnover Intentions makes sense; these results suggest if one is highly conscientious they are less likely to have high turnover intentions or vice versa. With conscientiousness as a trait, it is suggested that individuals are more likely to aware and concerned about the well-being of the organization and in turn less likely to have high turnover intentions.

When initially screening participants, the criterion used for eliminating participants was based on employment status and employee tenure. In regards to employment status, participants were eliminated if the occupation was either left blank, if they indicated they unemployed, if they indicated they were a student, or if they indicated a part time/as needed or seasonal job as their occupation. Thus by eliminating participants based on these criterion, although it decreases the participant sample size, I feel by doing so the data will be a more accurate representation of the sample, in addition to making the sample size more generalizable to various organizational settings.

Reliability was conducted for all scales used within the conscientiousness measure. Using this particular analysis, on the Protestant Work Ethic scale (α = .67) along with the values displayed within Cronbach’s Alpha if deleted table is the criterion for determining item retention of the scale (See Table A 7 & 9). Due to the limited number of items within the original scale (N = 8), the moderately high reliability value (α = .67), along with none of the items loading on the Alpha if deleted, it was decided to keep all the items of the original scale. Reliability was conducted on the Turnover Intentions Scale as well (α = .87). This analysis along with the values displayed within the Cronbach’s Alpha if deleted table, is the criterion used for determining item retention of the scale (See Table 8 & 10). Similarly to the PW scale, due to the limited number of items (N = 3) in the original TI scale, the high reliability value (α = .87), along with only one of the items (TI2) loading on the Alpha if deleted (with α = .03 increase), it was decided to keep all of the items included with in the original scale. As discussed previously, reliability was conducted on the conscientiousness scale (α = .86) (N = 25) due to the values displayed within the Cronbach’s Alpha if deleted table items C4, C5, C7, C14, and C23 were eliminated (See Table A1 & 4). Additionally, the reliability was conducted following item elimination, although there is an increase in reliability (α = .87) (N = 20) it is extremely small. Based on these results, the elimination of said items is up for personal interpretation of the researcher using the scale.

In addition to these analyses, the demographics of the sample were also conducted (N = 87). As indicated by Table C2, the majority of participants were white (65.5%), were between the age of 20 and 24 (62.1%), were single (67.8 %), and had been at their current job roughly for 12 months (8%). In comparison of occupational groups, the vast majority of the sample was either employed by the service sector (33%) or by an academic sector (31%) (See Table C3). Additionally when comparing participants due position as indicated by Table C4, the majority of participants indicated themselves as other (47.1%) or at an entry level (33%).

Based on the sample population, the highest numbers of participants were employed within the service sector (N = 29), although the sample size of this study could have real implications regarding the generalizability of the scale. Additionally, the participants that indicated they were in a service sector position, does not specifically indicate they were in a customer service position, which could also influence the generalizability of this scale. I do believe the Conscientiousness scale to be a reliable and valid measure, although I would be cautious when interpreting the results of this study and generalizing them to a specific occupation.

References

Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Madhavan, P. (2004). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the facets of conscientiousness. North American Journal Of Psychology, 6(2), 309-326.

Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103-139. Doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x

Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Berges, A. (2013). Conscientiousness, its facets, and the prediction of job performance ratings: Evidence against the narrow measures. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 21(1), 74-84. Doi:10.1111/ijsa.12018

Appendix A

Table A1

Reliability Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale

Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha Based on

Standardized Items

N of Items

0.86

0.87

25

Table A2

Item-Total Statistics for Conscientiousness Scale

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted

I practice self-discipline in my work and personal life.

93.8727

111.150

.418

.600

.853

I often work after hours to make sure I complete a project on time.

94.3818

107.944

.333

.564

.855

I can control my impulses.

94.5818

104.211

.563

.627

.846

C4RS

94.1091

115.469

-.001

.438

.864

I strive for recognition when completing a task.

95.4364

110.028

.207

.498

.860

I feel accomplished when I conquer my daily task list.

93.8727

110.335

.460

.574

.852

In my free time, I am constantly looking for things to do to challenge myself.

95.0000

109.815

.232

.661

.859

I am always striving to better myself.

94.1455

107.941

.530

.624

.849

I prefer organization in my life.

94.0000

105.074

.585

.850

.846

I become annoyed when things around me are disorganized.

94.3273

103.558

.591

.905

.845

I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat.

94.2727

105.165

.526

.821

.848

I hate when people are unorganized.

94.5818

108.470

.339

.750

.854

I plan tasks according to importance.

94.0909

111.455

.302

.598

.855

I always have a plan.

94.6364

109.384

.233

.707

.859

I carefully evaluate a situation before I take action.

94.3636

106.902

.519

.752

.849

I think before I speak.

94.7636

105.591

.441

.735

.851

I believe it is important to pay close attention to details.

94.1636

108.880

.470

.823

.851

It is not okay to break company rules.

94.6727

99.854

.629

.866

.843

Rules are made to be followed.

94.5091

102.847

.640

.836

.844

C20RS

94.6909

107.736

.366

.811

.853

I do what I think is right in the workplace.

94.0909

110.973

.354

.589

.854

I double check tasks for correctness.

94.2545

108.267

.453

.708

.851

I am more likely to go to a pre-planned event than a last minute event.

94.5455

111.327

.192

.674

.859

When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual.

94.7455

104.378

.501

.721

.848

It is better to make sure something is done correctly than quickly.

94.1818

106.300

.637

.782

.846

Table A3

Scale Statistics of Conscientiousness

Mean

Variance

Std. Deviation

N of Items

98.35

116.19

10.78

25

Table A4

Reliability Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale After Items Removed

Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items

N of Items

.87

.88

20

Table A5

Item Total Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale After Items Removed







75.5738

81.449

.402

.491

.869


76.0492

78.348

.355

.532

.871


76.2131

75.804

.551

.496

.863


75.5574

80.617

.484

.521

.867

I am always stricing to better myself.

75.7705

79.513

.473

.481

.867


75.6721

75.891

.622

.781

.861


75.9672

75.499

.586

.831

.862


75.9344

76.362

.518

.704

.865


76.2459

79.355

.341

.629

.871


75.8033

81.994

.252

.398

.873


76.0164

78.016

.536

.698

.864


76.4098

77.213

.430

.645

.868


75.8525

79.595

.477

.699

.867


76.3443

71.996

.639

.808

.859


76.1639

74.939

.620

.741

.861

C20RS

76.4098

78.579

.350

.651

.872


75.7705

81.480

.357

.430

.870


75.9508

78.981

.463

.553

.867


76.4426

76.651

.444

.470

.868


75.8525

77.428

.665

.706

.861

Table A6

Scale Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale After Items Removed

Mean

Variance

Std.

Deviation

N of

Items

80.0000

85.833

9.26463

20

Table A7

Reliability Statistics of PW Scale

Cronbach’s Alpha


N of Items

.67

.68

8

Table A8

Reliability Statistics of Turnover Intentions

Cronbach’s Alpha


N of Items

.87

.87

3

Table A9

Item-Total Statistics for PW Scale






Most people spend too much time in useless amusement.

25.5949

16.859

.198

.097

.678

The self-made man is likely to be more ethical than the man born to wealth.

25.2658

15.710

.365

.221

.637

Any man who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding.

24.7975

15.882

.378

.334

.634

People who fail at a job have usually not tried hard enough.

26.0380

16.268

.264

.134

.663

Life would have very little meaning if we never had to suffer.

25.1646

15.473

.439

.240

.620

PW6RS

25.1519

15.951

.274

.193

.662

If one works hard enough he is likely to make a good life for himself.

25.0380

15.037

.554

.457

.596

A distates for hard work usually reflects a weakness of character.

25.4177

14.939

.464

.263

.612

Table A10

Item-Total Statistics For TI Scale






I often think about quitting my job with my present organization.

5.76

6.52

.73

.66

.83

I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

5.19

6.13

.66

.51

.90

I am considering leaving my job.

5.83

6.08

.86

.76

.71

Appendices B

Table B1

Pattern Matrix as Displayed In EFA Output

Factor

1

2

3


-.178

.599

.173


.381

.005

.121


.318

.347

.058


-.095

.546

.235

I am always stricing to better myself.

.190

.243

.223


-.043

.363

.621


.002

.050

.891


-.042

.014

.846


.009

-.190

.727


.212

.117

-.013


.055

.727

-.009


.006

.768

-.143


.201

.673

-.230


.815

.066

-.012


.787

.113

-.085

C20RS

.672

-.442

.260


.499

.120

-.175


.747

-.091

-.073


.248

.223

.146


.435

.308

.168

Table B2

Scree Plot from EFA Output

Table B3

Total Variance Explained as displayed in EFA Output

Factor

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadingsa

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

1

6.226

31.132

31.132

5.749

28.745

28.745

4.278

2

2.393

11.965

43.097

1.975

9.875

38.620

4.275

3

2.034

10.169

53.266

1.553

7.767

46.387

3.810

4

1.361

6.806

60.072

5

1.190

5.950

66.022

6

1.131

5.653

71.676

7

.915

4.575

76.251

8

.740

3.698

79.949

9

.651

3.253

83.202

10

.590

2.952

86.154

11

.536

2.682

88.836

12

.448

2.238

91.074

13

.355

1.774

92.848

14

.338

1.689

94.537

15

.322

1.611

96.148

16

.234

1.171

97.319

17

.186

.931

98.250

18

.154

.772

99.022

19

.108

.539

99.561

20

.088

.439

100.000

Appendices C

Table C1

Correlation Matrix of Scales

PWMEAN

TIMEAN

CONSCMEAN

PWMEAN

Pearson Correlation

1

.115

.443**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.288

.000

N

87

87

87

TIMEAN

Pearson Correlation

.115

1

-.017

Sig. (2-tailed)

.288

.876

N

87

87

87

CONSCMEAN

Pearson Correlation

.443**

-.017

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.876

N

87

87

87

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table C2

Statistics of Demographic Information

Ethnicity

in years

Married

TenureMonths

Position

OccupationGroup

Occupation

CodedKeepLoose

Valid

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

87

Missing

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mean

1.53

28.99

1.37

55.00

2.70

2.3793

1.0000

Median

1.00

23.00

1.00

24.00

3.00

2.0000

1.0000

Mode

1

21

1

12

4

2.00

1.00

Table C3

Occupation as Defined by Group

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Academics

27

31.0

31.0

31.0

Service

29

33.3

33.3

64.4

Retail

13

14.9

14.9

79.3

Medical

7

8.0

8.0

87.4

Administration

11

12.6

12.6

100.0

Total

87

100.0

100.0

Table C4

Position

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Entry-level

29

33.3

33.3

33.3

Supervisor

9

10.3

10.3

43.7

Manager

8

9.2

9.2

52.9

Other

41

47.1

47.1

100.0

Total

87

100.0

100.0

Appendices D

Table D

Items Included on the Conscientiousness Scale, Protestant Work Ethic, and Turnover Intentions

Conscientiousness

C1 I practice self-discipline in my work and personal life. C2 I often work after hours to make sure I complete a project on time.C3 I can control my impulses. C4 REVERS SCORED I don't work as hard as the people around me. C5 I strive for recognition when completing a task. C6 I feel accomplished when I conquer my daily task list. C7 In my free time, I am constantly looking for things to do to challenge myself.C8 I am always striving to better myself.C9 I prefer organization in my life.C10 I become annoyed when things around me are disorganized.C11 I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat.C12 I hate when people are unorganized. C13 I plan tasks according to importance. C14 I always have a plan.C15 I carefully evaluate a situation before I take action.C16 I think before I speak.C17 I believe it is important to pay close attention to details.C18 It is not okay to break company rules.C19 Rules are made to be followed.C20REVERSED When the deadline is coming close and I am running behind, I feel it is okay to go around the rules if no harm is done.C21 I do what I think is right in the workplace.C22 I double check tasks for correctness.C23 I am more likely to go to a pre-planned event than a last minute event.C24 When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual. C25 It is better to make sure something is done correctly than quickly.

Protestant Work Ethic PW1 Most people spend too much time in useless amusement.PW2 The self-made man is likely to be more ethical than the man born to wealth.PW3 Any man who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding.PW4 People who fail at a job have usually not tried hard enough.PW5 Life would have very little meaning if we never had to suffer.PW6REVERSED Hard work offers little guarantee of success.PW7 If one works hard enough he is likely to make a good life for himself.PW8 A distaste for hard work usually reflects a weakness of character.

Turnover Intentions TI1 I often think about quitting my job with my present organization.TI2 I will probably look for a new job in the next year.TI3 I am considering leaving my job.

Weeblychelseahuttoportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/8/4/... · Web viewPW1 Most people spend too...

Documents

Transcript of Weeblychelseahuttoportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/4/7/8/4/... · Web viewPW1 Most people spend too...