Spanish-language adaptation of morgeson and humphrey’s work design questionnaire (WDQ)

  1. Manuel Fernández Ríos 1
  2. Raúl G. Ramírez Vielma 2
  3. José Carlos Sánchez García 3
  4. Mariana Bargsted Aravena 4
  5. Jean David Polo Vargas 5
  6. Miguel Ángel Ruiz Díaz 6
  1. 1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

  2. 2 Universidad de Concepción
    info

    Universidad de Concepción

    Concepción, Chile

    ROR https://ror.org/0460jpj73

  3. 3 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

  4. 4 Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
    info

    Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez

    Santiago de Chile, Chile

    ROR https://ror.org/0326knt82

  5. 5 Universidad del Norte
    info

    Universidad del Norte

    Barranquilla, Colombia

    ROR https://ror.org/031e6xm45

  6. 6 Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (Spain)
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 20

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2017.24 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

Since work organizations became the subject of scientific research, how to operationalize and measure dimensions of work design has been an issue, mainly due to concerns about internal consistency and factor structure. In response, Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) built the Work Design Questionnaire –WDQ–, an instrument that identifies and measures these dimensions in different work and organizational contexts. This paper presents the instruent’s adaptation into Spanish using reliability and validity analysis and drawing on a sample of 1035 Spanish workers who hold various jobs in an array of occupational categories. The total instrument’s internal consistency was Cronbach’s alpha of .92 and the various scales’ reliability ranged from .70 to .96, except for three dimensions. There was initially a difference in the comparative fit of the two versions’ factor structures, but the model with 21 work characteristics (motivational -task and knowledge-, social, and work context) showed the highest goodness of fit of the various models tested, confirming previous results from the U.S. version as well as adaptations into other languages and contexts. CFA results indicated goodness of fit of factor configurations corresponding to each of the four major categories of work characteristics, with CFI and TLI around .90, as well as SRMR and RMSEA below .08. Thus it brings to the table a reliable, valid measure of work design with clear potential applications in research as well as professional practice, applications that could improve working conditions, boost productivity, and generate more personal and professional development opportunities for workers.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arbuckle J. L. (2013). IBM SPSS Amos 22 user’s guide. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation.
  • Bliese P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Campion M. A., & Thayer P. W. (1985). Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 29–43. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.29
  • Chen F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  • Cheung G. W., & Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  • Chiou H. J., Chou J., & Lin P. F. (2010). Validation of the Work Design Questionnaire and latent class analysis of work structure. 測驗學刊, 57, 139–179.
  • Clegg C., & Spencer C. (2007). A circular and dynamic model of the process of job design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 321–339. https://doi. org/10.1348/096317906X113211
  • Fernández Ríos M. (1996). Re-creando el trabajo a medida del individuo: De los puestos estándar a los casos únicos [Recreating work tailored to the individual: From standard jobs to unique cases]. In M. de Juan-Espinosa, B. R. Colom, & M. A. Quiroga (Eds.), La práctica de la psicología diferencial en industria y organizaciones [Differential psychology practice in industry and organizations] (pp. 83–126). Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.
  • Fernández Ríos M., Rico R., & San Martín R. (2004). Organizations as meaning systems: Time for clarity. Psicothema, 16, 222–228.
  • Fernández Ríos M., & Sánchez J. C. (1997). Eficacia organizacional. Concepto, desarrollo y evaluación [Organizational efficacy. Concept, development, and assessment]. Madrid, Spain: Díaz de Santos.
  • Fernández Ríos M., San Martín Castellanos R., & de Miguel Calvo J. M. (2008). Dimensiones básicas en el diseño del trabajo: Nuevos aportes a la flexibilidad funcional [Basic dimensions of work design: New inputs to functional flexibility]. Psicothema, 20, 773–779.
  • Fried Y., & Ferris G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x
  • Grant A. M., Fried Y., & Juillerat T. (2010). Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1., pp. 417–453). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/12169-013
  • Hackman J. R., & Oldham G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Massachusetts, MA: Addison-Wesley Reading.
  • Hair J. F., Black W. C., Babin B. J., & Anderson R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Hauk M. (2014). Kwestionariusz Cech Pracy Opracowanie Polskiej Wersji Narzędzia Do Badania Cech Pracy I Środowiska Zawodowego. Wstępne Wyniki Badań [Work Design Questionnaire – Creating Polish versions of tools to assess job characteristics and work environment. Preliminary research results]. Folia Psychologica, 18, 129–145.
  • Hu L., & Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Humphrey S. E., Nahrgang J. D., & Morgeson F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.92.5.1332
  • Idaszak J. R., & Drasgow F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69–74. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.69
  • Ilgen D. R., & Hollenbeck J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2., pp. 165–208). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • International Test Commission (2010). International Test Commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests. Retrieved from International Test Commission Website http://www.intestcom.org
  • James L. R., Demaree R. G., & Wolf G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
  • Karasek R., Brisson C., Kawakami N., Houtman I., Bongers P., & Amick B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessment of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 322–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322
  • Mardia K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis for testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhyã: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B (1960–2002), 36, 115–128.
  • Morgeson F. P. (2011, May). Who is responsible for good work? Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  • Morgeson F. P., & Campion M. A. (2003). Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12., pp. 423–452). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Morgeson F. P., & Humphrey S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
  • Morgeson F. P., & Humphrey S. E. (2008). Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 27., pp. 39–92). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Parker S. K., & Ohly S. (2008). Designing motivating jobs: An expanded framework for linking work characteristics and motivation. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present and future (pp. 233–284). New York, NY: LEA/Psychology Press.
  • Parker S. K., Wall T. D., & Cordery J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 096317901167460
  • Rico R., & Fernández Ríos M. (2002). Diseño de organizaciones como proceso simbólico [Organizational design as a symbolic process]. Psicothema, 14, 415–425.
  • Roberts K. H., & Glick W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to job design: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.66.2.193
  • Schriesheim C. A., Solomon E., & Kopelman R. E. (1989). Grouped versus randomized format: An investigation of scale convergent and discriminant validity using LISREL confirmatory factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 014662168901300103
  • Shipp F., Burns G. L., & Desmul C. (2010). Construct validity of ADHD-IN, ADHD-HI, ODD toward adults, academic and social competence dimensions with teacher ratings of Thai adolescents: Additional validity for the Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology Behavior Assessment, 32, 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10862-010-9185-6
  • Sims Jr, H. P., Szilagyi A. D., & Keller R. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/255772
  • Smith V. (1997). New forms of work organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.soc.23.1.315
  • Stegmann S., van Dick R., Ullrich J., Egold N., Wu T. T. C., Charalambous J., & Menzel B. (2010). Der Work Design Questionnaire Vorstellung und erste Validierung einer deutschen Version [The Work Design Questionnaire – Introduction and validation of a German version]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsund Organisationspsychologie, 54, 1–28.
  • Taber T. D., & Taylor E. (1990). A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the job diagnostic survey. Personnel Psychology, 43, 467–500. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02393.x
  • Trist E. L. (1981). The sociotechnical perspective. In A. H. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 19–75). New York, NY: Wiley.
  • U.S. Department of Commerce (2000). Standard occupational classification system manual. Lanham, MD: Bernan Associates.
  • U.S. Department of Labor (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
  • Wall T. D., Jackson P. R., & Mullarkey S. (1995). Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 431–455. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/job.4030160505
  • Williams L. J., Ford L. R., & Nguyen N. (2004). Basic and advanced measurement models for confirmatory factor analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 366–389). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470756669.ch18
  • Wrzesniewski A., & Dutton J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201. https://doi. org/10.2307/259118
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet