a validity study of the salter environmental type assessment

7/29/2019 A Validity Study of the Salter Environmental Type Assessment

1/13

A Validity Study of the SalterEnvironmental Type Assessment

Daniel W. SalterPennsylvania State University

The Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA) was designed to be a com-mensurate measure for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument. To test itsutility in the workplace, this study of the SETA was conducted with the WorkEnvironment Scale and a sample of 202 college students. The results appeared

consistent with previous research with both assessments and theoretical assump-tions behind the two approaches to workplace measurement. The preliminary cor-relational analysis revealed multiple correlations that supported concurrent valid-ity. To further examine the convergence between the assessments, a principalcomponents factor analysis of the correlational results revealed three factors thataccounted for 70% of the variance. Factor 1 appeared related to positive work set-tings (Extraversion, Intuition, and Feeling with Autonomy, Involvement,Innovation, Peer Cohesion, Supervisor Support, and inversely with Control). Thesecond factor concerned structure in work settings (Judgment with Clarity, TaskOrientation, and Physical Comfort). A third factor included Work Pressure andTask Orientation.

Keywords: Person-environment fit, work environments, Jungian psychology,

validity, career development

Achieving some manner of fit between people and their work environmentshas historically been an underlying goal of the career counseling profession(Herr, 2001). Due to its inherent complexity, however, the potential of the person-environment interaction (PEI) model does not seem to have been fully realizedin workplace applications (Schneider, 2001; Tinsley, 2000). The notable excep-tion may be John Hollands pivotal work, the success of which could be easilyattributed to its PEI characteristics (Gottfredson & Richards, 1999). Consistentwith Hollands effort, perhaps, two common threads have emerged regardingways to improve the PEI paradigm in practice, both generally (Gifford, 1997;Little, 1987; Winkel, 1985) and specifically to vocational applications (Tinsley,

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT, Vol. 10 No. 4, November 2002 428440DOI: 10.1177/1069072702238405 2002 Sage Publications

428

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel W. Salter, 330 CEDAR Building,University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: [email protected]. The Web site for the Salter Environmental Type

Assessment is http://www.ed.psu.edu/seta/.


2/13

Salter / VALIDITY STUDY OF SETA 429

2000). First, professionals need commensurate measures of the person and the

setting to understand behavior more fully. Second, personality theories thataddress individual differences in adaptation seem to be a key to understandingthe process of fit. One response to these two admonitions was the SalterEnvironmental Type Assessment (SETA) (Salter, 2000b), the validity of which isaddressed in this study.

Rather than starting from scratch, the SETA was designed to gauge environ-mental dispositions related to an established and recognized approach to per-sonality functioning (Salter, 2000c). Jungs (1921/1971) theory of psychologicaltypes and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument continue to holda prominent place in the spheres of vocational counseling (Myers, McCaulley,Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), organizational development (Hirsh & Kummerow,1998), and academic/educational advising (Evans, Forney, & Guido-Dibrito,1998). The SETA works in conjunction with the MBTI tool to provide a snap-shot of type congruence/incongruence (Salter, 2000c, p. 4) within the PEI par-adigm. Such a goal would seem consistent with MBTI-based career counselingstrategies and interventions that strive to help clients obtain some degree of fit inthe workplace (McCaulley & Martin, 1995).

Because a primary use of Jungian-type constructs has concerned vocationalapplications, the ability of the SETA to assess work settings has been emphasizedfrom early in its development (Salter, 2000c). To that end, the WorkEnvironment Scale (WES) (Insel & Moos, 1974) was originally chosen for con-current validity studies of the SETA for both theoretical and practical reasons.The two assessments attempt to capture the systematic differences in psychoso-

cial presses on individual functioning, or in other words, the personalities ofbehavioral settings. Both measurement techniques rely on the assumption thatthe best way to gauge differences among behavioral environments is by assess-ment of the perceptions of individuals in the setting. Pragmatically, in the mid-1980s when this project began, the WES was about the only published environ-mental assessment for work environments. Tables 1 and 2 provide brief descrip-tions of the scales of the WES and the SETA (adapted from Moos, 1981, andSalter, 2000c).

The purpose of this study was to examine the nascent SETA with the estab-lished WES in a concurrent validity study of individuals from a population thattakes many career-related assessments, including the MBTIcollege students.From a theoretical standpoint, multiple correlational relationships between the

two environmental assessments might be foreseen. The Relationships domain inMooss (1981) theory concerns job commitment and the relationships amongemployees and supervisors in a workplace. Higher levels of these three WESscales (Involvement, Peer Cohesion, and Supervisor Support) would be expect-ed to be related to both environmental Extraversion and Feeling, which are con-sistent with presses toward affiliation and interpersonal involvement as outlinedin environmental type theory. The three scales in the Personal Growth domainmeasure different aspects of goal orientation in the work setting and appear related


3/13

430 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / November 2002

Table 1

Salter Environmental Type Assessment ScaleDescriptions and Sample Items

Extraversion-Introversion (E-I) Scale

Extraverted Environment

Requires attention and participation of the people in it. Openly manages the exchanges in thesetting. Serves as a catalyst for a broad array of events and actions. May be loud, noisy, bright,and/or social.

Introverted Environment

Allows individuals to regulate the extent of interactions. Facilitates private actions and individ-ual functioning. May be described as subdued, quiet, sedate, and reserved.

Sample E-I Items

1. The atmosphere of this environment is typically 21. (A) individuals groups (B)(A) hushed(B) noisy

Sensing-Intuition (S-N) Scale

Sensing Environment

Primarily focuses on existent environmental elements (people, things, rules, values). Elementsare identified for their immediate, practical applications and honed to the task.

Intuitive Environment

Diverges from the existent elements in setting. Diversity and experimentation would be con-spicuous, as well as presses toward creativity and/or discovery.

Sample S-N Items

2. Within this environment, which is rewarded 38. (A) facts imagination (B)more often?(A) creativity(B) efficiency

Thinking-Feeling (T-F) Scale

Thinking Environment

Contains objective sets of logical operations that are based on a central, depersonalized truthor science. Although detached appraisal can often guide and advance the work of the think-ing setting, competition, skepticism, and distrust might also be conspicuous.

Feeling Environment

Emphasizes connectiveness and stresses values and interpersonal interactions. Basic trust andwarmth might be evidenced, although the setting could seem coercive and manipulative at

a negative extreme. May be labeled as socially oriented, humanistic, or sentimental.Sample T-F Items

7. The usual tone of this environment is 31. (A) logic values (B)(A) businesslike(B) friendly

(continued)


4/13


Table 1 (continued)

Judging-Perceiving Scale

Judging Environment

Manifests orderliness and/or plannedness of the setting, both in operation and organization.Environmental systems (e.g., policies or customs) would function to maintain a coherent,collective reality but may become fixed and stagnant.

Perceiving Environment

Accentuates the elements in the setting. In some perceiving settings, the t ask of establishing arepertoire of elements could be sufficiently challenging as to thwart any efforts at maintain-ing a consistent reality. Disorder and change may be conspicuous.

Sample J-P Items

10. When a decision must be made, 24. (A) consistent changing (B)

this environment offers mostly(A) alternatives(B) guidelines

Source. Adapted from Salter (2000b, 2000c).

Table 2Work Environment Scale Descriptions

Relationships domain

Involvement The extent to which employees are concerned about andcommitted to their jobs.

Peer Cohesion The extent to which employees are friendly and supportive of

one another.Supervisor Support The extent to which management is supportive of employees

and encourages employees to be supportive of one another.

Personal Growth domain

Autonomy The extent to which employees are encouraged to be self-sufficient and to make their own decisions.

Task Orientation The degree of emphasis on good planning, efficiency, andgetting the job done.

Work Pressure The degree to which the press of the work and time urgencydominate the job milieu.

Systems Maintenance andSystems Change domain

Clarity The extent to which employees know what to expect in their

daily routine and how explicitly rules and policies arecommunicated.

Control The extent to which management uses rules and pressures tokeep employees under control.

Innovation The degree of emphasis on variety, change, and new approaches.

Physical Comfort The extent to which the physical surroundings contribute to apleasant work environment.

Source. Adapted from Moos (1981).


5/13


to combinations of the four functions of environmental typesSensing,

Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling. Autonomy in a workplace, or the allowance forself-sufficiency, would seem to correspond to a more unstructured openness(Intuition) that respects individual differences (Feeling). On the other hand,Work Pressure and Task Orientation would seem to be focused on the details ofwork (Sensing) and their logical and effective execution (Thinking). The scalesof the Systems Maintenance and Systems Change (SMSC) domain address theorder and organization of work settings social climates, constructs that parallelenvironmental Judging and Perceiving. Specifically, the fluidity and change-ability suggested by the Innovation scale would seem related to Perception,where Clarity, Control, and Physical Comfort would all seem to be maintenanceor management aspects, which parallel the structured nature of Judging.

Both approaches to describing and measuring work settings assume dynamicrelationships among the scales constructs, however. In Mooss (1981) approach,various scales comprise one of three domains, which are indicative of the overallsocial ecology of a work setting. And, much like the MBTI tool, SETA scalesmeasure constructs that are hypothesized to interact and produce environmentaltype profiles (Salter, 2000c). Such interactions have been suggested in examina-tions of the influences of contextual presses on the psychological experiences ofworkers. Using the MBTI and an earlier version of the SETA, Karras (1990)found that the Extraverted, Intuitive, and Feeling characteristics of some univer-sity work settings were predictive of decreased state anxiety on the part of all psy-chological types, even for introverts, who tended to show more trait anxiety. In asimilar vein, research with the WES (Constable & Russell, 1986; Turnipseed,

1994) identified a few social climate dimensions that also appeared related toanxiety and burnout. Work settings high in Autonomy, Peer Cohesion, andSupervisor Support have tended to be negatively associated with worker stress. Inaddition, negative psychological outcomes have been found to be related to WorkPressure.

Moving beyond simple scale-by-scale correlations between the WES and theSETA, a factor analytic strategy was used to examine these multiple relationshipssimultaneously. This approach was similar to one used by Saggino and Kline(1995) for a concurrent validity study of the MBTI with the Sixteen PersonalityFactor Questionnaire and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Althoughexploratory, the goal of this factor analysis (FA) was to locate these various envi-ronmental constructs in factor space. Mooss (1981) theory outlines three

domains that are suggestive of these higher order factors: Relationships, PersonalGrowth, and SMSC. If concurrent validity between the two assessments exists,these domains might be anticipated to share factor space with related SETAdimensions, as discussed above (e.g., Extraversion-Introversion [E-I] andThinking-Feeling [T-F] with Involvement, Peer Cohesion, and SupervisorSupport). In addition, based on previous research with the SETA and the WES,a latent factor relating to worker stress might also be anticipated. Specifically,


6/13


scales from the Relationships (Peer Cohesion and Supervisor Support) and

Personal Growth (Autonomy and Work Pressure) domains might be containedwithin a factor with E-I, Sensing-Intuition (S-N), and T-F.

METHOD

Participants

The 202 participants in this study were identified in two ways. The majority ofindividuals (n = 167) were college students with previous work experience whovolunteered to participate in ongoing research as part of their academic experi-

ence. Of this group, 94 were attending a community college, and 73 wereenrolled at a research university. These students ranged from sophomore to doc-toral level and were studying for careers in fields related to human services (e.g.,counseling, nursing, social work). The remaining participants (n = 35) were stu-dent members of three different staff groups from student affairs settings. Theirinvolvement was also voluntary. Of the larger sample, 63% were women and 37%were men. No attempt was made to ascertain this convenience samples general-izability to all workers and work environments, however.

Instrumentation

SETA. SETA items were rationally produced by examining behavioral corre-lates of the psychological types and theoretical constructs from the emerging tax-onomy of environmental types (see Salter, 2000c, for more discussion). Table 1provides brief descriptions of each scale and sample items. Each SETA scale iscomposed of 15 response pairs, for a total of 60, in both phrase question (33%)and word pair (67%) formats. Respondents must pick the item responses that bet-ter describe the setting being assessed. A differential between the subtotals of thetwo types of the responses is computed for each scale. These scores range from15 to +15. Like the MBTI tools ipsative approach, the differentials are used tosort scores into four dichotomous type categories (E-I, S-N, T-F, and Judging-Perceiving [J-P]). Using a generalizability theory approach (Brennan, 1983;

Shavelson & Webb, 1991), reliability estimates (E2) have been generated forSETA scales (n = 1,757, E-I = .85, S-N = .80, T-F = .87, J-P = .70) and werefound to be comparable to similar estimates for the WES and earlier versions ofthe MBTI instrument (Salter, 2000c). In conjunction with the MBTI to studytype congruence, the SETA has been used in work settings (Karras, 1990; vanRooyen, 1997), educational settings (Salter, 2000a), and living environments(Salter, 2000c). The SETA is still in development, however.


7/13


WES. The WES was designed to measure the relevant dimensions of the

social climates in various work settings. It was created through a FA of a largerpool of items. From those results, Moos (1981) outlined three domains of socialclimates (Relationships, Personal Growth, and SMSC) in which the 10 WESscales are nested (see Table 2). Nine true/false items comprise each of the 10scales on the WES for a total of 90 items. A score on a scale is the summation ofthe total number of items answered toward the positive side of the construct,ranging from 0 to 9. A low score indicates a deficit or lack of that environmentaltrait in the setting. Moos found internal consistencies that ranged from .69 to .86and 1-month retest reliabilities from .69 to .83. Research with the WES hasinvolved a range of work settings, including health care environments, the mili-tary, factories, and fire stations (Moos, 1981). The continued use of the WESover the past couple of decades probably speaks best to its ability to measure worksettings, however.

Procedure

The WES and the SETA were administered together to participants as pertheir respective protocols (Moos, 1981; Salter, 2000c). Respondents were placedon their own recognizance to complete the assessments. These students wereasked to assess a work setting with which they were familiar, from either a currentor previous job. Although in-class participants were not required to reveal theexact work settings that they referenced for their assessments, 103 respondentsdid. The 35 paraprofessionals provided information on their immediate work set-ting in student affairs. The known work settings fell into the following categories:college student services (40), food service and restaurant (19), medical and nurs-ing (17), factories (2), schools (8), business and finance (9), customer service (6),retail (15), and counseling and social work (8). The generic term office wasused by 17 additional individuals. The SETA profiles from the 202 respondentsare listed in Table 3.

Data Analysis

Pearson product-moment (PPM) correlations were generated among the dif-ferential scores of the four SETA scales and the 10 WES scale scores. Expectedsignificant correlations (p < .05) were assumed to be supportive of concurrentvalidity. For example, a positive correlation between Peer Cohesion on the WESand the T-F scale on the SETA would suggest that an increased level of cama-raderie among work peers corresponded to a clearer inclination toward the posi-tive interpersonal interactions of the feeling function. Of note, because of howthe SETA differential scores are computed (ranging from 15 to +15), negativecorrelations would be associated with tendencies toward Extraversion, Sensing,Thinking, and Judging.


8/13


Working from this matrix of correlations, the SETA and WES results were fac-tor analyzed using a principal components analysis. There were no missing val-ues. Using the bootstrapping technique outlined by Thompson and Daniel(1996), which in this case was consistent with the simpler eigenvalues-greater-than-one approach, three latent factors were identified and subsequently rotatedwith the varimax procedure. Structure coefficients greater than or equal to .500were considered salient for interpretation, in light of the distinct gap in loadingsbetween .400 and .500. Latent factors composed of multiple scales from the twoassessments were considered indicative of concurrent validity.

RESULTS

Means and standard deviations for the SETA and WES scales are reported inTable 4. The entire range of scores (0 to 9 for the WES and 15 to +15 for theSETA) was observed for all but one scale. The J-P scale had a range of 13 to+13. The PPM correlation coefficients among the SETA differential scores andthe WES scale scores are presented in Table 5. Consistent with hypotheses out-lined above, the three Relationships domain scales (Involvement, PeerCohesion, and Supervisor Support) each correlated strongly with bothExtraversion and Feeling. As expected for the SMSC domain scales, Judgingseemed associated with Clarity, Control, and Physical Comfort, and to a lesserextent, Perception seemed associated with Innovation. Higher levels ofAutonomy were consistent with both Intuition and Feeling and Control withSensing and Thinking. Task Orientation did not correlate with either Sensing orThinking, however.

When examining the higher order interactions among the SETA and WESscales, the FA revealed a three-factor solution that accounted for 69.9% of thevariance (see Table 6). Factor 1 appeared consistent with the set of positive char-

Table 3

Salter Environmental Type Assessment Type Table (N = 202)

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

23 2 0 0

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP

19 4 3 1

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP

19 30 26 2

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

22 36 13 2

Note. E (Extraversion) = 152; I (Introversion) = 53; S (Sensing) = 153; N (Intuition) = 52;

T (Thinking) = 87; F (Feeling) = 118; J (Judging) = 109; P (Perceiving) = 96.


9/13


Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for the Salter Environmental TypeAssessment (SETA) and Work Environment Scale (N = 202)

M SD

SETA scalesa

Extraversion-Introversion 6.455 6.807

Sensing-Intuition 4.851 7.176

Thinking-Feeling 1.267 7.819

Judging-Perceiving 0.104 6.339

Work Environment Scales

Involvement 5.218 2.651

Peer Cohesion 5.832 2.272Supervisor Support 5.055 2.478

Autonomy 5.455 2.462

Task Orientation 6.040 2.318

Work Pressure 4.951 2.566

Clarity 5.173 2.134

Control 5.163 1.959

Innovation 3.658 2.794

Physical Comfort 5.168 2.572

a. Direction of positive is toward Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and Perception.

Table 5Pearson ProductMoment Correlation CoefficientsAmong the Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA)

and the Work Environment Scale (WES) (N = 202)

SETA Scalesa

WES Scales E-I S-N T-F J-P

Involvement .409** .407** .614** .078

Peer Cohesion .423** .246** .544** .133

Supervisor Support .355** .407** .588** .087

Autonomy .389** .488** .586** .146*

Task Orientation .258** .013 .266** .376**

Work Pressure .122 .306** .238** .113

Clarity .171* .067 .292** .494**

Control .175* .387** .341** .191**

Innovation .414** .512** .468** .161*

Physical Comfort .148* .138* .158* .262**

Note. E-I = Extraversion-Introversion; S-N = Sensing-Intuition; T-F = Thinking-Feeling; J-P =Judging-Perceiving.

a. Direction of positive is toward Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, and Perception.*p < .05. **p < .01. (two tailed)


10/13


acteristics for work settings from previous research with the SETA and WES.Specifically, Extraversion, Intuition, and Feeling were contained in a latent fac-tor with higher levels of all three Relationships domain scales (Involvement, PeerCohesion, and Supervisor Support), Autonomy, and Innovation and with lowerlevels of Control. For the second latent factor, Judging and Task Orientation,Clarity, and Physical Comfort were all located in the same factor space. Thethird factor was composed of two WES scales that appeared to have a relation-ship in this study, Work Pressure and Task Orientation.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study appeared to document convergence between thesetwo approaches to assessing work setting characteristics, thereby supporting thevalidity of SETA. As anticipated from a theoretical standpoint, the threeRelationships domain scales (Involvement, Peer Cohesion, Supervisor Support)each correlated with both Extraversion and Feeling on the SETA. Two of the

Table 6

Three-Factor Varimax Rotation of Principal ComponentsSolution for the Salter Environmental Type Assessment (SETA)

and the Work Environment Scale (WES) (N = 202)

Factor

Variable I II III

WES Autonomy .824 .108 .110

SETA Thinking/ Feeling .799 .156 .122

WES Innovation .768 .034 .045

WES Involvement .766 .355 .187

SETA Sensing/ Intuition .696 .179 .291

WES Supervisor Support .684 .306 .322WES Peer Cohesion .652 .383 .018

SETA Extraversion/Introversion .628 .104 .070

WES Control .539 .221 .389

WES Clarity .223 .808 .014

SETA Judging/Perception .254 .799 .059

WES Task Orientation .315 .671 .517

WES Physical Comfort .167 .580 .144

WES Work Pressure .123 .190 .891

Eigenvalue 5.289 2.313 1.313

Percentage of variance 37.776 16.520 9.375

Note. Bold numbers indicate structure coefficients that were considered salient for interpretation(>.500) and direction of environmental type dimensions.


11/13


Personal Growth scales followed expectations as well. Autonomy seemed related

to both Intuition and Feeling, and Work Pressure with Sensing and Thinking. AllSMSC scales correlated with their parallel J-P processes: Judging with Clarity,Control, and Physical Comfort and Perceiving with Innovation.

The anomalous finding in the correlational study concerned the significantrelationship between Feeling and Task Orientation. A specific focus on efficientexecution of a task might be anticipated to be associated with the Thinking andSensing functions, which was not the case for this sample. An informal exami-nation of the work settings reported by these students showed that many were inthe broader human services area. Perhaps the task of these settings was relatedto maintaining structured relationships with people (e.g., clients, patrons,patients). Furthermore, Task Orientation seemed more associated with Judgingin the FA. Feeling may be one way of maintaining a focus on the task, withThinking being the other.

As expected, many of the SETA and WES scales were intercorrelated in thisstudy. The multiple correlations between the two instruments were suggestive ofthe propositions that the climates of work settings are complex and that theseconstructs may interact to produce personalities, as it were. To uncover these pat-terns, FA was used. Rather than observing two separate factors related to theRelationships and Personal Growth domains, as theorized, one factor emergedthat seemed to combine them and to echo previous research on stress and anxi-ety in the workplace. A high interpersonal component (Extraversion and Feelingon the SETA and the three Relationships domain scales on the WES) with a cer-tain amount of creative freedom (as indicated by Intuition and Autonomy,

Innovation, and lack of Control) appeared to encompass a complex set of condi-tions that could be labeled as a positive work setting. In light of the previousapplied research, not only does this finding suggest further convergence betweenthe two assessments, it could serve as the basis to strategies to improve workplaceclimate.

Two other latent factors emerged from this analysis. Aspects revolving aroundstructure in the work setting comprised a second factor in the data. That is,maintaining a shared reality appeared to require clarity of purpose, a focus on thetask, and a physically comfortable work environment. Such notions are also con-sistent with the judging process as described in environmental type theory. Thisparticular result was especially meaningful to the ongoing development of theSETA. The J-P scale has presented a significant challenge to constructing the

Assessment due to its latency to the S-N and T-F scales and the fact that Jung didnot discuss this particular dichotomy in his psychological-type theory (Salter,2000c). The third factor, combining Task Orientation and Work Pressure, did notcontain any SETA scales and was probably indicative of the nature of the posi-tions that these college students had experienced (e.g., fast-food restaurants, basicpatient care).

This study may have been limited in at least a few ways. The sample size wassmall and was composed entirely of college students. Although these participants


12/13


may have had somewhat limited views of work environments, they were certain-

ly part of a large population of individuals who receive countless career assess-ments every year, including the MBTI and WES. In addition, no attempt wasmade to ascertain the exact work settings of all respondents or the length of timein these settings, either of which may have affected the results. Still, a studentsview of a work setting, whether naive or not, would seem to be important to knowin the career-advising process. Hopefully, continued study of the SETA with dif-ferent individuals from different domains will help to identify the range of work-ers experiences.

Of note, some SETA profiles were underrepresented in this sample, especial-ly those with Introversion and with the NT (Intuition/Thinking) combination.More than likely, these students may not have had an opportunity to work in set-tings with those dispositions (e.g., low interpersonal involvement and expecta-tions toward critical analysis of broader issues). Besides, although intuitivelyappealing, no theoretical reason exists to expect all SETA profiles among anysample of work settings, especially those that typify the jobs that college studentshold. Finally, work environments are only one of many behavioral settingsencountered by individuals. As a matter of fact, Moos and his associates have cre-ated additional domain-specific assessments for residential, small group, class-room, and family environments. Because the SETA was crafted to functionacross these domains, continued research with it and the MBTI instrument mayfurther reveal the complexities of behavioral settings and how they interact withthe variety of people in them.

SUMMARY

The SETA was designed as a commensurate measure for the MBTI tool toprovide a fuller view of person/environment fit within the Jungian paradigm. Theworld of work is one area where the use of these two measures would seem to beindicated. In light of the relationships with the WES found in this study, theSETA may be tapping some of the same personality characteristics of work set-tings that are found in Mooss (1981) social climate theory and that seem relevantto worker success. Future research with other types of workers and with compa-rable instruments that have emerged since this project began (e.g., the PositionClassification Inventory; Gottfredson & Richards, 1999) would seem to be indi-cated to gauge the SETAs overall utility to career assessment.

REFERENCES

Brennan, R. L. (1983). Elements of generalizability theory. Iowa City, IA: American College TestingProgram.


13/13


Constable, J. F, & Russell, D. W. (1986). The effect of social support and the work environment

upon burnout among nurses. Journal of Human Stress, 12(1), 20-26.Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-Dibrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory,

research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.Gottfredson, L. S., & Richards, J. M. (1999). The meaning and measurement of environments in

Hollands theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 57-73.Herr, E. L. (2001). Career development and its practice: A historical perspective. Career

Development Quarterly, 49, 196-211.Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (1998). Introduction to type in organizations (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Insel, R., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Work Environment Scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. (H. G. Baynes, Trans., revised by R.F.C. Hull). Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921)Karras, J. E. (1990). Psychological and environmental types: Implications of degrees of congruence in

work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.Little, B. R. (1987). Personality and the environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook

of environmental psychology (pp. 205-244). New York: John Wiley.McCaulley, M. H., & Martin, C. R. (1995). Career assessment and the Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 219-239.Moos, R. H. (1981). Work Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). Manual: A guide to the

development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Saggino, A., & Kline, P. (1995). The location of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in personality fac-tor space. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 591-597.

Salter, D. W. (2000a). Gender bias issues in the college classroom: A study of the interactionsbetween psychological and environmental types. Initiatives: The Journal of the National

Association of Women in Education, 59(2). Retrieved November 13, 2000, fromhttp://www.nawe.org

Salter, D. W. (2000b). The Salter Environmental Type AssessmentExperimental Form B. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Salter, D. W. (2000c). SETA manual: A users guide to the Salter Environmental Type Assessment.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Schneider, B. (2001). Fits about fit.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 141-152.Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. C. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores:

A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56,197-208.

Tinsley, H.E.A. (2000). The congruence myth: An analysis of the efficacy of the person-environ-ment fit model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 147-179.

Turnipseed, D. L. (1994). An analysis of the influence of work environment variables and moder-ators on the burnout syndrome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 782-800.

van Rooyen, J.H.P. (1997). Organisation character and managerial team type. Unpublished mas-ters thesis. University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Winkel, G. H. (1985). Ecological validity issues in field research settings. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer(Eds.),Advances in ecological psychology, Volume 5: Methods and environmental psychology (pp.1-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

a validity study of the salter environmental type assessment

Documents