Assignment Paper: Application Methods

This week, you complete the second part of the Methods Section for your Final Project. This Methods Section will serve as a road map for measuring job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement. In your role as a consultant for Walden Sports, it is important to select appropriate variables and items to assess and to understand the psychometric properties of the instrument you select to measure those variables. Assignment Paper: Application Methods

· Submit Part 2 of your Methods section.

· From the Job Attitudes Survey Codebook document located in this week’s Learning Resources, select three variables that you think will best predict job attitudes at Walden Sports.

Note: The document contains variables that have not been covered in this course, but research has shown that they predict job attitudes.

· Explain why you selected the variables you did and provide evidence showing the relationships between these variables and job attitudes (i.e., justify your selections).

· Select an instrument to measure each of the three variables you selected.

· Explain why the instrument you selected is appropriate for measuring the antecedent variables you selected.

· Provide an example item from the scale you selected and describe the scale anchors used to score the instrument.

· Describe the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the instrument.

Submit your Assignment by Day 7.

Readings

· Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 491–509. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

· Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J., & Roman, P. (2005). Organizational justice and job satisfaction: A test of three competing models. Social Justice Research, 18(4),391–409. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

· Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

· Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leader-member exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104–1120. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

· Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 321–330. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

· Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C., & Rich, B. L. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 157–167. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

· Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

· Stoner, J. S., & Gallagher, V. C. (2010). Who cares? The role of job involvement in psychological contract violation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1490–1514. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Job Attitudes Survey Codebook

Variable Label SPSS Variable Name Coding Instructions

JOB ATTITUDES

Global Job Satisfactiona JS01 to JS03 7-point scale

(3 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

aCammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Organizational Commitmentb 7-point scale

1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

Affective Commitment AC01 to AC06

(6 items)

Normative Commitment NC01 to NC06

(6 items)

Continuance Commitment CC01 to CC06

(6 items)

bMeyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.

Job Involvement (short version)c JI 01 to JI06 7-point scale

(6 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

cLodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 24–33.

ANTECEDENTS

Person-Organization Fitd POFit01 to POFit03 7-point scale

(3 items) 1 = not at all to

7 = completely

dCable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311.

Person Job-Fite PJF01 to PJF05 7-point scale

(5 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

eAbdel-Halim, A. A. (1981). A reexamination of ability as a moderator of role perception-satisfaction relationship. Personnel Psychology, 34(3), 549–561.

Perceived Organizational f POS01 to POS09 7-point scale

Support (9 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

Items POS05 and POS07 are reverse scored

fShort version: Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

Trustg Trust01 to Trust09 7-point scale

(7 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

Note: Items Trust3, Trust5, and Trust7 are reverse scored.

gRobinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.

Leader-Member Exchangeh LMX01 to LMX12 7-point scale

(12 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

An overall LMX scale can be created by taking the sum or the mean of all 12 items.

Subscales can also be created as follows (scored separately)

Affect LMX01 – LMX03

Loyalty LMX04 – LMX06

Contribution LMX07 – LMX09

Professional Respect LMX10 – LMX12

hLiden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.

.

Overall Organizational Justicei OOJ01 to OOJ10 7-point scale

(20 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

Subscales:

Distributive justice OOJ01 to OOJ05

Procedural justice OOJ06 to OOJ10

i Adapted from Niefoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556.

Job Diagnostic Surveyj JDS01 to JDS18 7-point scale

(3 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

Subscales (scored separately):

Skill Variety: JDS01-JDS03

Task Identity: JDS04-JDS06

Task Significance: JSD07-JDS09

Autonomy: JDS10-JDS12

Feedback from task: JDS13-JDS15

Feedback from others: JDS16-JDS18

JDS03 and JDS18 are reverse scored

An overall scale of Job Scope can be created by combining the scores from the different dimension.

jAdapted from: Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects (Tech. Rep. No. 4) New Have, CT: Yale University.

Job Stressors

Role Ambiguityk RA01 to RA06 7-point scale

(6 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

Note: All items are reverse scored; High scores indicate high levels of role ambiguity.

kRizzo, J., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.

Role Conflictl RC01 to RA07 7-point scale

(7 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

lHouse, R. J., Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifacts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 334–337.

Role Overloadm RO01 to RO0 7-point scale

(5 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

mPeterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Adande, A., Ayestaran, S. Bochner, S., Callan, . . . Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 429–452. Assignment Paper: Application Methods

Work Demandsn WD01 to WD06 7-point scale

(6 items) 1 = never

7 = extremely often

nKarasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.

Job Decision Latitudeo JDL01 to JDL03 7-point scale

(3 items) 1 = never

7 = extremely often

oAdapted from Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.

PERSONALITY CONSTRUCTS

Negative Affectivityp NA01 to NA20 7-point scale

(20 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

pFortunato, V. J., & Goldblatt, A. M. (2002). Construct validation of a revised Strain-Free Negative Affectivity scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(1), 45–63. Assignment Paper: Application Methods

Positive Affectivityq PA01 to PA22 7-point scale

(22 items) 1 = strongly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

3 = slightly disagree

4 = neither agree nor disagree

5 = slightly agree

6 = moderately agree

7 = strongly agree

qFortunato, V. J., & Mincy, M. D. (2003). The interactive effects of dispositional affectivity, sex, and a positive mood induction on student evaluation of teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(9), 1945–1972.