Printer Friendly

Validacion de una version modificada del cuestionario de capital psicologico (PCQ12) en Espana.

Validation of a Modified Version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ12) in Spain

Introduction

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) emerges from the field of Positive Psychology, which emphasizes the importance of focusing on positive constructs in the workplace (Bakker, Rodriguez-Munoz, & Derks, 2012). PsyCap consists of four of these positive constructs: self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism. Self-efficacy is a belief in one's ability to carry out the necessary tasks to achieve a certain goal. Hope means having the will to persevere towards a goal and the agency to plan ways to achieve the goal. Optimism is defined as making a positive attribution about succeeding now and in the future, and resilience refers to being able to bounce back and even beyond after facing adversity (Youssef & Lu Bakker thans, 2007, p.778).

The four PsyCap components are considered "state--like" constructs, which places them in the middle of the state-trait continuum (Luthans et al., 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). This means that the four dimensions are not as easily changeable as pure states (for example moods), but at the same time they are more malleable than traits or trait--like concepts (e.g. core self-evaluations) (Luthans et al., 2007; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).

According to the PsyCap framework self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism are combined in the latent multidimensional construct of PsyCap, defined as "a positive appraisal of circumstances and probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance" (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007, p. 550). PsyCap as a latent factor represents the variance shared by the four sub-dimensions--it captures the communality among them. The synergy created by the four constructs is what gives PsyCap its main value (Youssef & Luthans, 2007).

PsyCap is linked to key organizational outcomes, such as financial and manager-rated performance (Avey, Nimnicht, & Graber Pigeon, 2010), increased engagement, and less burnout (Moreno-Jimenez, Carrosa, Corso, Boada & Rodriguez-Carvajal, 2012). These benefits of PsyCap are important, especially in the Spanish context, where organizations are experiencing socioeconomic uncertainty. To create evidence-based PsyCap interventions in Spanish organizations, it is vital to have reliable and valid measurement tools. This study focuses on the short version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ12) (Avey, Avolio, & Luthans, 2011)

A general literature review on the PCQ12 revealed some problems of the scale in terms of factor structure and item functioning. Simultaneously, we identified other aspects of the original PCQ12 that can be improved, such as the number of items per dimension. In addition, although there are previous validations in Spanish of the PCQ12 (Leon-Perez, Antino, & Leon-Rubio, 2017, Lopez-Nunez, de Jesus, Viseu & Santana-Cardenas, 2017, Santana-Cardenas, Viseu, Nunez & De Jesus, 2018) there is a lack of validated instruments in Spanish to map PsyCap and its consequences for individuals) u2019 well-being. Consequently, the goal of this study is to adapt the 12-item short version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12, we identified some limitations which the present study aims to overcome. Thus, the objective of this study is to validate a modified version of the PCQ12 in Spain, testing it in a heterogeneous sample from different regions of Spain and all three economic sectors. We analyze the factorial, convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity, as well as the reliability, of the modified PCQ12.

PsyCap Measurement. The most common PsyCap measure is the 24-item PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ24), where each dimension is represented by six items. The short version is composed of twelve items: three items for self-efficacy, 4 for hope, 3 for resilience, and 2 for optimism (Avey et al., 2011).

The process of choosing the items from the PCQ24 to be included in the PCQ12 was carried out in a single sample from a single study, mostly based on factor loading values (Avey et al., 2011). This approach is risky because the optimal set of items may differ across samples, and there is not enough evidence to support the existing short version as the best one (Widaman, Little, Preacher, & Sawalani, 2011). In fact, previous studies have revealed some inconsistencies in the functioning of the original PCQ12. We reviewed previous validations and studies that have used the PCQ12, and we identified two problematic areas: factor structure and item functioning.

Factor structure. The original factor structure of the PCQ consists of four factors (hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism) and a second-order latent PsyCap factor (Luthans et ah, 2007). To provide evidence of factorial validity, this original structure should be compared to alternative models, testing which one best fits the data. Most previous PCQ validations compare the second-order model to a one-factor model (all items load in a single PsyCap dimension) and to a four-factor model (four inter-correlated first-order factors).

Various studies have found support for the original second-order structure and reported no issues with item cross-loadings or error covariance (e.g. Avey et ah, 2008; Fu, Sun, Wang, Yang, & Wang, 2013; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010).

However, some of these studies did not compare the second-order model to alternative ones, or they omitted possible alternatives (e.g. Azanza, Dominguez, & Molero, 2014; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). A commonly omitted alternative is a four-factor model, for example, in the previous Spanish PCQ12 validation (Leon-Perez et ah, 2017) there is a lack of validated instruments in Spanish to map PsyCap and its consequences for individuals\u2019 well-being. Consequently, the goal of this study is to adapt the 12-item short version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12).

Furthermore, there are also some PCQ validations where alternative models fit the data better than the original model. For instance, one study revealed that a three-factor model, where self-efficacy and hope are combined in one dimension, fits the data best (Du Plessis & Barkhuizen, 2012)economic and political challenges facing South Africa since 1994, organisational managers/leaders should adopt a positive approach, based on sound organisational behaviour. This study administered the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ. Two studies from Portugal, a country similar to Spain in terms of linguistics and socio-economic context, found

that a four-factor model is a better fit than the original model (Rego, Marques, Leal, Sousa, & Pina e Cunha, 2010; Viseu, Jesus, Rus, Nunes, & Lobo, 2012). What is more, two studies of the PCQ12 in Spanish also reveal that the four-factor, rather than the second-order model is the best fit for their data (Lopez-Nunez, de Jesus, Viseu & Santana-Cardenas, 2017, Santana-Cardenas, Viseu, Nunez & De Jesus, 2018).

These findings highlight the need to more thoroughly analyze the factorial structure of the PCQ12 in Spain, as a review of the literature clearly shows inconsistencies in PsyCap's structure according to context.

Item analysis. In addition to the factor structure, our review also identified items that appear to be problematic (with low factor loadings or cross-loadings) in more than one study. Most of the issues stemmed from item 4 from the Hope dimension and item 9 from Resilience.

Item 4 (If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it) was problematic in a psychometric analysis by Rus et al. (2012) because it cross-loaded on self-efficacy. In the previous Spanish validation, item 4 cross-loaded on resilience (Leon-Perez et al., 2017), and in an international study of the PCQ scale, this item had to be eliminated to improve model fit (Wernsing, 2014).

Item 9 (I usually take stressful things at work in stride) was also problematic: it had a higher loading on optimism than on resilience in the previous Spanish validation, and it had a low factor loading (.32) in the Portuguese validation by Viseu et al., (2012).

Cross-loadings indicate issues with discriminant validity (Rus et al., 2012) (Rus et al., 2012), but the discriminant validity of the PCQ12 in Spain has not been tested.

Modifications of the PCQ12. In addition to exploring the factorial validity and item functioning from previous studies, we considered it necessary to make certain modifications to the original scale, as mentioned in the introduction.

First, one problematic aspect of the original PCQ is that optimism only has two items. Kline (2005) recommends a minimum of three items per factor to avoid inflated factor loadings and overestimated inter-factor correlations. Therefore, we added another item to the optimism dimension. We chose item 19 from the PCQ24 ('When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best') because the other items either contained an idiomatic expression or were reversed (which can lower scale reliability). This item was added as item 13 in the present study. For the purpose of clarity, we maintained the numbering of the other items as they appear in the original PCQ12.

Second, the PsyCap authoring team emphasized the importance of having an equal number of items per dimension when creating the PCQ24 (Luthans et al., 2007, p.14), but this rule was not applied to the PCQ12. Therefore, we removed one item from Hope in order to obtain a more balanced measurement scale (i.e., with an equal number of items per dimension while maintaining the total number of items).

Although item 4 had been problematic in previous studies, we decided not to remove it right away, but rather to analyze it along with the other Hope items and then remove the item least representative of Hope. Hence, we administered a questionnaire with a total of 13 items, even though our final aim was a 12-item version.

Method

Procedure and Participants

We applied the standard translation/back-translation procedure by Brislin (1970). The research team reached out to various companies to ask for their participation, and they organized meetings to clarify the logistics of the study. The data was gathered either with paper questionnaires administered at participants' workplaces, or online via a link. Participation in the study was voluntary and data confidentiality was guaranteed.

The sample consisted of 792 employees from 42 organizations in Barcelona, Almeria, Valencia, and Palma de Mallorca, predominantly from the service sector- -69.3%, and 30.7% from the secondary sector. The organizations carried out different activities: public administration, finance, chemistry, consultancies, leisure, logistics, personal image services, health, social and sports activities, hostelry, real estate development, cleanliness. Of these employees, 53.2% were women, 44.3% were men, and 20 did not identify their gender. In terms of age, 24% were younger than 35 years, 56.7% were between 35 and 50, and 13.6 were over 50. Regarding education, 63.6% had a University degree, 13.6 had vocational education, 10.1% had a high school diploma, 8.5% had a middle school diploma, and 3% had no studies.

Data Analysis. For factorial validity, we performed a cross-validation by randomly splitting the sample in half and applying exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to one sample and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to the other. For the EFA, we used SPSS v.21, principal axis extraction, and Promax rotation (Jarvis, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2003), and considered factor loadings of over .40 (Hinkin, 1998). For the CFA, we used Mplus 6.12 and Robust Maximum Likelihood estimation.

We then compared the established second-order PsyCap structure to a one-factor model and a four-factor model. We assessed model fit with the fit indices as follows: RMSEA [less than or equal to] .08; SRMR [less than or equal to] .08; TLI and CFI [greater than or equal to] 0.90 indicate acceptable fit; TLI and CFI [greater than or equal to] 0.95 indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To compare the different models, we used the BIC index--the preferable model would have a lower BIC value (Raftery, 1995).

Afterwards, we tested internal consistency using Cronbach's [alpha] and the Composite Reliability coefficient (Rho). The minimum value indicating acceptable reliability for both coefficients is .70 (Bernstein & Nunnally, 1994).

We also tested convergent validity using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) index, which requires a value higher than .50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). For discriminant validity, we used the square root of the AVE: for each factor, it should have a greater value than the correlations between the factors (Alarcon, Sanchez, & Olavide, 2015).

Finally, we examined the criterion validity of the modified PCQ12. PsyCap has consistently been linked to positive employee attitudes, desirable employee behaviors, and performance (Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). Therefore, we chose criteria representative of each of these categories: job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and performance (in-role and creative).

Measurement

Job satisfaction was measured with 10 items from the reduced version of the Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979). Subjects rate the items on a Likert scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). Cronbach's Alpha was .86.

In-role performance was measured with 3 items from Williams & Andersons scale (1991), rated from 1(strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Cronbach's Alpha for this scale was .85.

Organizational citizenship behavior was measured with 3 items based on Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff (2011). Agreement with the items was rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Cronbach's Alpha for this scale was .72.

Creative performance was measured with 3 items from the measure by Oldham & Cummings (1996). Agreement with the items was rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a very great extent). Cronbach's Alpha was .81.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and inter-item correlations for the total sample. All the items were significantly and positively correlated, ranging between .24 and .69.

EFA. First, we carried out an EFA with the 13 items we included in the PCQ. All the items loaded on their respective factors, with the exception of item 4, which loaded on self-efficacy instead of hope (.41). This issue is consistent with findings from previous studies where item 4 was also found to be problematic; therefore, we decided to eliminate it and repeat the EFA without it. The results from both EFAs can be seen in Table 2.

In the second EFA, all the items loaded on their corresponding factors. Hope explained the most variance in the data, with 47%; self-efficacy explained 12%, resilience 10%, and optimism 7%. The four factors together explained 63% of the common variance.

CFA. We proceeded to test these results with CFA using the other half of the sample. First, we tested our modified version of the scale (with item 4 excluded and item 13 included) and obtained fit indices. Then, we decided to compare our modified version to the original PCQ by carrying out another CFA using the same items as in the original scale. Table 3 shows the factor loadings.

In our modified PCQ and the original PCQ, we compared three models: a second-order model, a one-factor model, and a four-factor model. Table 4 shows fit indices for all the models.

CFA results indicated a slightly better fit for our modified version than for the original. RMSEA confidence intervals contain lower values, and TLI and CFI are higher. In addition, the modified version does not contain the problematic item 4.

In terms of factor structure, the one-factor model demonstrated poor fit and was therefore rejected. Both the second-order and four-factor models showed good fit to our data.

However, the BIC index demonstrated significant differences between the two models in favor of the four-factor model (Table 4).

Internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity. Table 5 contains Cronbach's [alpha], Rho, and AVE, as well as the mean of the factor loadings for each dimension of our modified scale.

Cronbach's alpha for the overall PsyCap scale was .89. For the self-efficacy subscale, it was .83, for hope .78, for resilience .79, and for optimism .81. Rho was also above the .70 threshold for all the PsyCap dimensions, indicating acceptable reliability.

Good convergent validity was indicated by factor loadings greater than .60 and the AVE, which was higher than .50 for all four subscales.

As for discriminant validity, Table 6 contains the correlations between the PsyCap factors and, diagonally, the square root of the AVE. The square root of the AVE has a greater value than the correlations for all the dimensions, indicating good discriminant validity.

Criterion validity. We correlated the modified PCQ12 measure with the criterion measures-job satisfaction, performance, and organizational citizenship behavior, using Pearson's correlations to test the strength of the relationships (Table 7).

All the criterion variables correlated significantly with the composite PsyCap score. The highest correlation was with creative performance (.54), and the lowest with in-role performance. In terms of the separate dimensions, hope and optimism correlated the most with job satisfaction (respectively .56 and .49), self-efficacy with citizenship behavior (.55), and resilience with creative performance (.36).

Discussion

The objective of the current study was to validate a modified version of the PCQ12 in Spain by testing its psychometric properties in a heterogeneous socioeconomic sample. We performed a cross-validation to test for factorial validity and refine our scale. We then tested the reliability and discriminant, convergent, and criterion validity of the modified PCQ12.

The results obtained from the EFA revealed that item 4 from hope (If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it) was a better indicator of self-efficacy than hope. This result is similar to those from previous validations, including the one in Spain, where item 4 also cross-loaded, but on resilience. Because the item contains the idiomatic expression 'in a jam', it is difficult to achieve idiomatic equivalence to transmit the underlying concept of hope accurately. Our decision to eliminate the item increases the validity of the modified scale.

Furthermore, the rest of the psychometric properties of the modified version were satisfactory: reliability and discriminant, convergent, and criterion validity obtained good results, providing evidence for the quality of the instrument. In addition, when compared to the original PCQ12, the results favored our modified version.

In the CFAs, we compared the original second-order PsyCap model to a four-factor model, and although both models fit our data well, the four-factor model demonstrated a better fit than the original one. As we saw in the introduction, this is a recurrent results with Spanish-translations of the PCQ and it is consistent with evidence from Portugal (Viseu et al., 2012), where the four-factor model for the PCQ12 also showed better fit. Our results contribute additional evidence supporting the notion that PsyCap's structure fluctuates across countries and is likely to be influenced by language. The four PsyCap dimensions emerge as more independent from one another in Spanish samples, in comparison to American samples. This has been empirically shown in previous works as well (e.g. Santana-Cardenas, Viseu, Nunez & De Jesus, 2018). Future research should therefore asses the measurement equivalence of the PCQ as well as check for language differential item functioning (English versus Spanish). This could be done through Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) where increasingly restrictive models are tested to determine whether the fit is similar across groups.

Thus, the main implication of our results has to do with the structure of the scale. Although our data showed the four-factor model to be preferable, the second-order model also had good fit. Therefore, our results provide evidence that both PCQ12 structures can be used flexibly by researchers depending on their objectives and theoretical perspectives.

From a practical point of view, a multidimensional concept is more useful because it allows generalizability and simplifies empirical and practical work. In fact, as a second-order factor, PsyCap has been shown to be a better predictor of employees' work performance and wellbeing than its constitutive elements (Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, 2010). It may be more convenient to conceptualize the real world as shaped by multiple factors simultaneously; it may not be accurate to attribute cause to one or other dimension alone (Thelen, 2005). In other words, it is possible that PsyCap is a dynamic construct that arises out of a particular balance between the four elements it consists of. In this sense, more practical and prediction-oriented research should probably examine PsyCap as an overall construct, because it is more parsimonious to conceptualize it as a single state, and it also simplifies statistical analyses. For example, it is more parsimonious to study the link between PsyCap and wellbeing or PsyCap and performance than the links between each one of the four dimensions and these outcomes.

However, PsyCap elements can also operate somewhat independently from each other; individuals could score higher on some PsyCap dimensions and lower on others. Indeed, the results from the current study point more in this direction, showing empirically that there is less communality than expected between hope, self-efficacy, resilience and optimism within our sample, and our findings corroborate previous results from the Spanish context. Focusing on separate variables through statistical techniques is a key element of scientific analysis, especially when looking for practical conclusion which directly link one characteristic or variable to an outcome.

Researchers might want to analyze whether some of the four dimensions are more strongly related to certain outcomes than others. In this case, using the four-factor model is more appropriate because the overall PsyCap score does not reflect differences in scores across dimensions (it is possible that some people score higher on one or two PsyCap dimensions and lower on the others). In fact, to our knowledge very little empirical research has been done to analyze how PsyCap functions at a more detailed level and it is a proposal for future research for which we recommend using the four-factor model of the PsyCap scale.

In addition, future research should analyze PsyCap functioning in greater depth and detail and also explore the predictive validity of the modified PCQ12, using informants from different sources to prevent common-method variance, which is a limitation of this work. Nevertheless, this is a common practice in studies that analyze and validate these types of variables.

In sum, this study expands the existing evidence for the PCQ12 in Spain by testing a modified version in a heterogeneous sample and analyzing a four-factor structure as a possible alternative to the original second-order structure. Overall, our results support the modified PCQ12 as an improved context-relevant instrument that adds value to further applications of PsyCap in Spanish-speaking countries.

Funding. This research has been supported by the Spanish Government with projects DGICYT (PSI2012-36557) and PSI2015-64862-R (MINECO/FEDER).

References

Alarcon, D., Sanchez, J. A., & De Olavide, U. P. (2015). Assessing convergent and discriminant validity in the ADHD-R IV rating scale: User-written commands for Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Composite Reliability (CR), and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). Spanish STATA Meeting. Composite Reliability (CR), and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), 1-39.

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B., & Luthans, F. (2011). Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 282-294.

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The Additive Value of Positive Psychological Capital in Predicting Work Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(2), 430-452.

Avey, J. B., Nimnicht, J. L., & Graber Pigeon, N. (2010). Two field studies examining the association between positive psychological capital and employee performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 384-401.

Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152.

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant Attitudes and Behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48-70.

Azanza, G., Dominguez, A. J., & Molero, J. a M. F. J. (2014). Capital psicologico positivo. Validacion del cuestionario PCQ en Espana Introduccion Los componentes del capital psicologico positivo. Anales De Psicologia, 30, 294-301.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.

Bakker, A. B., Rodriguez-Munoz, A., & Derks, D. (2012). La emergencia de la psicologia de la salud ocupacional positiva. Psicothema, 24(1), 66-72.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.

Caza, A., Bagozzi, R. P., Woolley, L., Levy, L., & Caza, B. B. (2010). Psychological capital and authentic leadership: Measurement, gender, and cultural extension. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 2(1), 53-70.

Du Plessis, Y, & Barkhuizen, N. (2012). Psychological capital, a requisite for organisational performance in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 15(1), 16-30.

Fu, J., Sun, W., Wang, Y., Yang, X., & Wang, L. (2013). Improving job satisfaction of Chinese doctors: The positive effects of perceived organizational support and psychological capital. Public Health, 127(10), 946-951.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218.

Kline, R. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation (2nd ed., p. 366). New York: Guilford.

Leon-Perez, J. M., Antino, M., & Leon-Rubio, J. M. (2017). Adaptation of the short version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12) into Spanish. International Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 196-213.

Lopez-Nunez, M. I., de Jesus, S. N., Viseu, J., & Santana-Cardenas, S. (2017) Capital Psicologico de los Trabajadores en Espana. Analisis Factorial Confirmatorio del PCQ-12. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnostico y Evaluacion--e Avallando Psicologica. RIDEP x No .48 x Vol. 3 x 67-79 2018. https://doi.org/10.21865/ RIDEP48.3.06

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21 (1), 41-67.

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Clapp-Smith, R., & Li, W. (2008). More evidence on the value of Chinese workers' psychological capital: A potentially unlimited competitive resource? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(5), 818-827.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541-572.

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293-334.

Moreno-Jimenez, B., Garrosa, E., Corso, S., Boada, M., & Rodriguez-Carvajal, R. (2012). Personalidad resistente y capital psicologico: Las variables personales positivas y los procesos de agotamiento y vigor. Psicothema, 24(1), 79-86.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. A. (1996). Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.

Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research. Sociological Methodology'.

Rego, A., Marques, C., Leal, S., Sousa, F., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2010). Psychological capital and performance of Portuguese civil servants: exploring neutralizers in the context of an appraisal system. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21 (9), 1531-1552.

Rus, C. L., Baban, A., Jesus, S. N. de, & Andrei, D. (2012). An analysis of the psychometric properties of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire-12. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 11(1), 110-122.

Santana-Cardenas, S., Viseu, J., Nunez, M. I. L., & De Jesus, S. N. (2018). Validity and reliability evidence of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire-12 in a sample of Mexican workers. Anales de psicologia, 34(3), 562-570.

Viseu, J., Jesus, S. N., Rus, C., Nunes, H., Lobo, R, & Cara-Linda, I. (2012). Capital Psicologico e sua avaliacao com o PCQ-12. ECOS-Estudios Contemporaneos da Subjetividade, 2(1), 4-16.

Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Occupational Psychology>, 52(2), 129-148.

Wernsing, T. (2014). Psychological Capital: A Test of Measurement Invariance Across 12 National Cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21 (2), 179-190.

Widaman, K. R, Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan, & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39-61). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors.. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.

Woolley, L., Caza, A., & Levy, L. (2011). Authentic Leadership and Follower Development: Psychological Capital, Positive Work Climate, and Gender. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 438-448.

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive Organizational Behavior in the Workplace: The Impact of Hope, Optimism, and Resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774-800.

Nia Djourova (1), Isabel Rodriguez (2), & Laura Lorente-Prieto (3)

Recibido: 30/07/2018 Aceptado: 11/02/2019

DOI: 10.21772/ripo.v37n2a02

(1) Dra. en Psicologia de los Recursos Humanos. Investigadora. Universitat de Valencia. E-mail: Nia.djourova@gmail.com

(2) Department of Social Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Av. Blasco Ibanez 21, IDOCAL, 46010, Valencia, Spain. E-mail: isabel.rodriguez@uv.es

(3) Department of Social Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. Av. Blasco Ibanez 21, IDOCAL, 46010, Valencia, Spain. E-mail: laura.Lorente- Prieto@uv.es
Table 1. Inter-item correlations

            M         SD        1         2         3         4

SE
Item 1      4.5       1.0
Item 2      4.7       .81       .65 **
Item 3      4.8       .93       .60 **    .62 **

HOPE
Item 4      4.7       .81       .44 **    .54 **    .47 **
Item 5      4.4       .88       .38 **    .44 **    .37 **    .44 **
Item 6      4.5       .85       .43 **    .50 **    .45 **    .54 **
Item 7      4.6       1.0       .36 **    .42 **    .36 **    .34 **

RES.
Item 8      4.7       1.0       .27 **    .30 **    .27 **    .36 **
Item 9      4.5       1.1       .25 **    .30 **    .33 **    .36 **
Item 10     4.8       .93       .34 **    .35 **    .40 **    .45 **

OPT.
Item 11     4.8       .93       .27 **    .28 **    .30 **    .40 **
Item 12     4.8       1.0       .27 **    .31 **    .29 **    .31 **
Item 13     4.4       .98       .29 **    .29 **    .24 **    .35 **

            5         6         7         8         9         10

SE
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3

HOPE
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6      .58 **
Item 7      .57 **    .62 **

RES.
Item 8      .27 **    .34 **    .25 **
Item 9      .36 **    .38 **    .30 **    .43 **
Item 10     .37 **    .41 **    .32 **    .55 **    .69 **

OPT.
Item 11     .39 **    .47 **    .33 **    .27 **    .51 **    .50 **
Item 12     .49 **    .46 **    .57 **    .22 **    .40 **    .40 **
Item 13     .37 **    .46 **    .40 **    .24 **    .42 **    .39 **

Note. ** The correlations are significant at the 0.01 level
(2-tailed).

Tabla 2. EFA Factor loadings

                                        First EFA

                                        F1     F2     F3     F4

SELF-EFFICACY

1. I feel confident in representing my   .87
work area in meetings with management

2. I feel confident contributing to      .76
discussions about the company's
strategy

3. I feel confident presenting           .77
information to a group of colleagues

HOPE

4. If I should find myself in a jam     .41
at work, I could think of many ways
to get out of it

5. Right now 1 see myself as being             .70
pretty successful at work

6. I can think of many ways to reach           .73
my current work goals

7. At this time, 1 am meeting the              .84
work goals that I have set for myself

RESILIENCE

8. I can be "on my own" so to speak                   .61
at work if I have to

9. I usually take stressful things at                 .65
work in stride

10. I can get through difficult times                 .92
at work because I've experienced
difficulty before

OPTIMISM

11. I always look on the bright side                         .84
of things regarding my job

12. I'm optimistic about what will                           .62
happen to me in the future as it
pertains to work

13. When things are uncertain for me                         .57
at work, I usually expect the best

                                        Second EFA

                                        F1     F2     F3     F4

SELF-EFFICACY

1. I feel confident in representing my          .87
work area in meetings with management

2. I feel confident contributing to             .72
discussions about the company's
strategy

3. I feel confident presenting                  .72
information to a group of colleagues

HOPE

4. If I should find myself in a jam
at work, I could think of many ways
to get out of it

5. Right now 1 see myself as being      .68
pretty successful at work

6. I can think of many ways to reach    .70
my current work goals

7. At this time, 1 am meeting the       .85
work goals that I have set for myself

RESILIENCE

8. I can be "on my own" so to speak                   .59
at work if I have to

9. I usually take stressful things at                 .64
work in stride

10. I can get through difficult times                 .92
at work because I've experienced
difficulty before

OPTIMISM

11. I always look on the bright side                         .85
of things regarding my job

12. I'm optimistic about what will                           .61
happen to me in the future as it
pertains to work

13. When things are uncertain for me                         .58
at work, I usually expect the best

Table 3. CFA factor loadings of the modified PCQ12

                   Four-factor model         Second-order model

Factors               Items       [lambda]      Items       [lambda]

Self-efficacy        PsyCap1        .80        PsyCap1        .80
                     PsyCap2        .84        PsyCap2        .84
                     PsyCap3        .76        PsyCap3        .76

Hope                 PsyCap5        .69        PsyCap5        .69
                     PsyCap6        .78        PsyCap6        .80
                     PsyCap7        .74        PsyCap7        .74

Resilience           PsyCap8        .61        PsyCap8        .62
                     PsyCap9        .80        PsyCap9        .79
                     PsyCap10       .85        PsyCap10       .86

Optimism             PsyCap11       .76        PsyCap11       .75
                     PsyCap12       .77        PsyCap12       .77
                     PsyCap13       .76        PsyCap13       .77

PsyCap                  --                     Efficacy       .74
                        --                       Hope         .90
                        --                    Resilience      .70
                        --                     Optimism       .75

Table 4. Model fit for the modified and original PCQ12

Scale version    Model type      RMSEA     SRMR   TLI   CFI    BIC
                               (90% CI)

Original PCQ    Second-order      .08      .06    .88   .91   10972
                               (.07-.09)

                Four-factor       .07      .05    .90   .93   10942
                               (.06-.09)

                 One-factor       .13      .09    .67   .73   11313
                               (.12-.15)

Modified PCQ    Second-order      .08      .06    .90   .92   11043
                               (.06-.09)

                Four-factor       .07      .04    .92   .94   11011
                               (.05-.08)

                 One-factor       .15      .10    .62   .69   11409
                               (.14-.16)

Table 5. Factor loadings ([lambda]), AVE, Rho and Cronbach's [alpha]

                    Mean X    AVE      RhO     [alpha]

Self-efficacy        .80      .64      .84      .83
Hope                 .74      .55      .78      .78
Resilience           .76      .58      .80      .79
Optimism             .76      .58      .81      .81

Note. AVE-Average Variance Extracted. RhO-Composite Reliability
Index.

Table 6. Correlations between factors and [square root of AVE]

                         M          SD       Range        1

1. Self-efficacy        4.69       0.79       1-6        0.80
2. Hope                 4.46       0.77       1-6       .57 **
3. Resilience           4.65       0.87       1-6       .46 **
4. Optimism             4.67       0.83       1-6       .35 **

                         2          3          4

1. Self-efficacy
2. Hope                 0.74
3. Resilience          44 **       0.76
4. Optimism            .55 **     51 **       0.76

Table 7. Correlations with criterion variables

                          Hope        Self-       Res.        Opt.
                                    efficacy
Hope                       --
Self-efficacy            .55 **
Resilience               .46 **      .43 **
Optimism                 .60 **      .38 **      .52 **
PsyCap                   .83 **      .75 **      .77 **      .80 **
Job Satisfaction         .56 **      .32 **      .24 **
OCB                      .42 **      .55 **      .27 **      .34 **
In-role performance      .33 **      .29 **      .32 **      .26 **
Creative performance     .50 **      .52 **      .36 **      .37 **

                         PsyCap        Job         OCB       In-role
                                      Sat.                    Perf.
Hope
Self-efficacy
Resilience
Optimism
PsyCap
Job Satisfaction         .51 **
OCB                      .50 **      .30 **
In-role performance      .38 **      .22 **      .83 **
Creative performance     .54 **      .33 **      .41 **      .26 **

Note. ** p <.01
COPYRIGHT 2018 Centro de Investigacion en Comportamiento Organizacional
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Djourova, Nia; Rodriguez, Isabel; Lorente-Prieto, Laura
Publication:Revista Interamericana de Psicologia Ocupacional
Date:Jul 1, 2018
Words:5832
Previous Article:Practicas de gestion humana y perfil motivacional. Analisis en una empresa mediana del sector transporte de la ciudad de medellin.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters