Equivalence between direct and indirect measures of psychological capital

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT International Journal of Selection and Assessment Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1111/ijsa.12488
Guido Alessandri, L. Filosa
{"title":"Equivalence between direct and indirect measures of psychological capital","authors":"Guido Alessandri, L. Filosa","doi":"10.1111/ijsa.12488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychological Capital (PsyCap) represents an individual's positive and resourceful state, defined by high levels of self‐efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency. Since its inception, extensive research has focused on exploring the factors influencing and outcomes associated with PsyCap within organizational contexts. Consequently, there has been a growing demand for reliable assessment tools to measure PsyCap accurately. The present multi‐study investigation aimed to examine whether the two main measures of Psychological Capital, namely the Psychological Capital Questionnaire and the Implicit‐Psychological Capital Questionnaire, show convergence in measuring the same underlying construct. In Study 1, using data from 327 employees from whom we obtained both self‐ and coworker reports on both explicit and implicit Psychological Capital, we evaluated the degree of convergence between measures using a Multitrait‐Multimethod approach. In Study 2, we used six‐wave longitudinal data from 354 employees, gathered every week for 6 consecutive weeks, to test a series of STARTS models, to decompose the proportions of variance of all the components (i.e., trait, state and error) of both Psychological Capital measures, and to compare their magnitude and similarity. In this second study, we also compared their longitudinal predictive power with respect to important organizational outcomes (i.e., work engagement and emotional exhaustion). All in all, results provided empirical evidence for the high degree of convergence of explicit and implicit measures of Psychological Capital. Implications and potential applications of our findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51465,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Selection and Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12488","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) represents an individual's positive and resourceful state, defined by high levels of self‐efficacy, optimism, hope, and resiliency. Since its inception, extensive research has focused on exploring the factors influencing and outcomes associated with PsyCap within organizational contexts. Consequently, there has been a growing demand for reliable assessment tools to measure PsyCap accurately. The present multi‐study investigation aimed to examine whether the two main measures of Psychological Capital, namely the Psychological Capital Questionnaire and the Implicit‐Psychological Capital Questionnaire, show convergence in measuring the same underlying construct. In Study 1, using data from 327 employees from whom we obtained both self‐ and coworker reports on both explicit and implicit Psychological Capital, we evaluated the degree of convergence between measures using a Multitrait‐Multimethod approach. In Study 2, we used six‐wave longitudinal data from 354 employees, gathered every week for 6 consecutive weeks, to test a series of STARTS models, to decompose the proportions of variance of all the components (i.e., trait, state and error) of both Psychological Capital measures, and to compare their magnitude and similarity. In this second study, we also compared their longitudinal predictive power with respect to important organizational outcomes (i.e., work engagement and emotional exhaustion). All in all, results provided empirical evidence for the high degree of convergence of explicit and implicit measures of Psychological Capital. Implications and potential applications of our findings are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理资本的直接和间接衡量标准之间的等效性
心理资本(PsyCap)是指个人的积极和机智状态,由高水平的自我效能、乐观、希望和复原力所定义。自其诞生以来,大量研究都集中在探索组织环境中影响心理资本的因素以及与心理资本相关的结果。因此,人们越来越需要可靠的评估工具来准确测量心理适应能力。本项多研究调查旨在考察心理资本的两种主要测量方法,即心理资本问卷和内隐心理资本问卷,在测量相同的基本构念时是否表现出趋同性。在研究 1 中,我们使用了 327 名员工的数据,并从他们那里获得了关于显性和隐性心理资本的自我报告和同事报告。在研究 2 中,我们使用了连续 6 周每周收集的 354 名员工的六波纵向数据,对一系列 STARTS 模型进行了测试,分解了两种心理资本测量的所有组成部分(即特质、状态和误差)的方差比例,并比较了它们的大小和相似性。在第二项研究中,我们还比较了它们对重要组织结果(即工作投入和情感衰竭)的纵向预测能力。总之,研究结果为心理资本的显性和隐性测量的高度趋同提供了经验证据。我们还讨论了研究结果的意义和潜在应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
31.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Selection and Assessment publishes original articles related to all aspects of personnel selection, staffing, and assessment in organizations. Using an effective combination of academic research with professional-led best practice, IJSA aims to develop new knowledge and understanding in these important areas of work psychology and contemporary workforce management.
期刊最新文献
Sourcing algorithms: Rethinking fairness in hiring in the era of algorithmic recruitment Issue Information Exploring the role of cognitive load in faking prevention using the dual task paradigm Personality development goals at work: Would a new assessment tool help? Reality or illusion: A qualitative study on interviewer job previews and applicant self‐presentation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1