chelseahuttoportfolio.weebly.com · web viewby implementing an operational definition that covers a...

RUNNING HEAD: Conscientiousness Scale Development Project

An analysis and scale development of conscientiousness

Chelsea J. Hutto

Valdosta State University

1

2Conscientiousness Scale Development Project

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to create a scale that measures the psychological construct of conscientiousness. Subsequently, the goal of this scale was to be implemented as a method utilized in the selection process in the workplace. This report documents the processes that took place in this analysis, along with the results found. Results of this analysis show that conscientiousness is significantly associated with Mechanical Ability (r = .70, p < .05) along with Turnover intentions (r = .37, p < .05), and Integrity (r = .35, p < .05). Additionally, when Conscientiousness as a scale is compared to the current scales within the selection method at the electrical company, it accounts for the highest amount of variance of Turnover Intentions (β = .39, p < .05).


Content Analysis

As defined, Conscientiousness is a psychological construct, which is comprised by being

industrious and orderly. As a result, I would expect items related to commitment, efficiency, and

knowledge along with orderliness, tidiness, completeness, and a personal need for rules and

schedules to load very well onto the construct of conscientiousness. Other variables that the

items should address include high impulse control, self-motivation, and need for approval. As

researchers such the traits mentioned above are often associated with the psychological construct

of conscientiousness (Goldberg et al., 2006; Madhavan, 2004; Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, &

Goldberg, 2005; Salgado, Moscoso, & Berges, 2013).

By implementing an operational definition that covers a wide range of traits, but is not to

the point of excessiveness, I believe the content validity of the definition to be high. By including

traits that apply not only in everyday life, but also traits that transfer to situations apparent in

organizational settings also suggest for high content validity.

Based on the content domain, items that were considered to be beneficial items for the

construct of conscientiousness include:

C11. I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat.

C13. I plan task according to importance

C22. I double-check tasks for correctness.

C24. When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual.

These items were considered beneficial due to each item including information from

more than one trait within the construct of conscientiousness. For example, on item 13 it includes


information which encompasses both traits in the industrious and orderly category, such as

efficiency and orderliness.

Based on the content domain, items that were considered to be poor items when

measuring the construct of conscientiousness include:

C2. I often work after hours to make sure I complete a project on time.

C4. I don’t work as hard as the people around me.

C16. I think before I speak.

C21. I do what I think is right in the workplace.

C23. I am more likely to go to a pre-planned event than a last minute event.

These items were considered poor items due to vagueness, content irrelevant information,

or item which only suggest at traits within the construct, rather than including information of the

actual traits. For example, on item 23 it is suggesting at a need for schedule which is included

under orderly, but the item is making a broad accusation by stating they are more or less likely to

go to an event that was or was not scheduled.

Currently, I am not convinced the measure is content valid, although I believe

implementing a few major and minor changes could increase it drastically. In the current scale,

when the items are categorized by the trait or traits addressed in the question, the majority of

items are associated with Orderly, with only a few items addressing Industriousness. Also there

are only a few items which encompass both Industriousness and Orderly within the same

question. By implementing these few content changes, I believe content validity could be

increased.


The limited minor corrections would include changes to the poor items that could be

accomplished through rewording of the item. Such changes would make the items less vague and

more content relevant rather than using the original versions. Additionally, by making changes to

the display of the response options, the participant rating could be easier and more accurate. For

example in the current version the ratings of “strongly disagree to strongly agree” are displayed

on the diagonal, which makes misinterpretation possible and also could be uncomfortable for the

participant when completing the scale.

Factorial Validity

Based on the construct of conscientiousness, I expect to see a three-factor structure, since

the nature of the definition is based off of two main traits (Industriousness and Orderly) along

with one of the three additional traits included in the definition (Impulse Control). For

Industriousness I would expect to see commitment, efficiency, and knowledge to load as sub-

facets. For Orderly I would expect to see orderliness, tidiness, completeness, and a personal need

for rules and schedules to load as sub-facets. For impulse control, I would expect items related to

self-control and thorough evaluation to load as sub-facets.

As indicated by TableA1, the scale of conscientiousness (N of items = 25) has a high

reliability estimate (α = .86). Items that would increase alpha level if deleted include: RS4

(increase of .007), item 5 (increase of .003). Others include items 7, 14, and 23 (all of which

increased alpha by .002) (See Table A2). Reliability was conducted twice after the initial analysis

which included all 25 items, first with items RS4 and 5 eliminated, then secondly with items

RS4, 5,7,14, and 23 removed. As indicated by Table A4 reliability is the highest (α = .87) when

items 4, 5, 7, 14, and 23 are eliminated as compared to only eliminating items RS4 and 5 (See


Table A5). Number of participants included within the analysis (N = 61) also increases as

compared to the number of participants included in the original reliability analysis (N = 55) due

to participant exclusions.

An exploratory factor analysis was initially conducted without defining the number of

factors, then secondly by defining the number of factors. After conducting these analyses, it was

determined that the number of factors that best fit the sample of data was three (See Table B2 &

B3). By having a three factor structure, this enabled the scale to retain the maximum number of

items possible as compared to the other factor structures conducted. The items that loaded on

factor one include C18, C19, C21, and C22. The content of these items included a need for rules,

ethical behavior, and double checking tasks for correctness. As a result, factor one was termed

Need for Rules and Ethics. The items that loaded on factor two include C1, C6, C15, C16, and

C17. The content of these items included information on impulse control, detail-orientation, and

self-motivation. As a result factor two was termed Self Discipline. The items that loaded on

factor three include C9, C10, C11, and C12 (See Table B1). The content of these items included

a preference for organization and order. As a result factor three was defined as Orderly.

In regards to homogeneity of the scale, as researchers suggest, homogeneity refers to

unidimensionality of a scale (Cortina, 1993). As the nature of the conscientiousness scale is

multidimensional, this suggests the conscientiousness scale is not homogeneous.

The factor structure which I expected before conducting any analyses was a three factor

structure consisting of Industriousness, Orderly, and Impulse Control. The observed factor

structure after conducting a factor analysis was quite different that such initial expectations.

Although the factor structure which fit the data most appropriately was a three factor structure,


the factors of Industriousness, Orderly, and Impulse Control did not. The only factor out of these

expected factors was Orderly. Along with this factor Need for Rules and Ethics, and Self

Discipline were the observed factors after analysis. Despite my misinterpretation of the expected

factor structure as compared to the actual observed structure, the majority of variables in the

observed analyses were expected before such were conducted. For example, the only variables

which were not included in the initial expectations were detail oriented and need for ethical

behavior. Based on such information along with the high reliability of the scale I still believe the

factorial validity to be fairly high. Despite the number of items which were removed due to non-

significant factor loadings or cross loading, there are still a substantial amount of items which

still adequately measure conscientiousness although the factor loadings may not be as clear cut

as initially expected. Additionally I believe this scale of conscientiousness could have vast

implications for the interview process at a local electrical company along with various other

organizational settings, by further examining and screening potential employees to best fit the

position and organization.

Construct Validity

Based on the results displayed in the correlation matrix there are relationships between

conscientiousness and other measured variables that are somewhat expected. The variables that I

expected conscientiousness to be highly related to include Integrity, CWB, and Turnover

Intentions, in addition to being moderately related to OCB and Task Performance. These

variables could be included as within the scale to measure evidence of convergent validity. In

contrast I would expect conscientiousness to be highly unrelated to variables such as Interview

and GMA, in addition to being moderately unrelated to Mechanical Ability. Variables such as

these could be included with in the scale as measures of discriminant validity.


In comparison to the expected relationship between conscientiousness and related

variables, the observed relationship between conscientiousness and related variables include

Mechanical Ability (r = .70*), Turnover Intentions (r = .37*), Integrity (r = .35*), CWB (r

= .33*), OCB (r = .29*), Task Performance (r = .26*), and GMA (r = .25*), which vary

somewhat from my original expectations. The only variable included within the measure that

was relatively unrelated to conscientiousness was Interview (r = .12*), which was consistent with

my original expectation. The main association which I did not expect, but was observed was that

of Conscientiousness and Mechanical Ability (r = .70*). Surprisingly, this particular variable had

the highest correlation (r = .70*) as compared to the other variables included within the measure.

Although the relationship theoretically makes sense, I would not have expected it to have the

strongest association between conscientiousness when compared to other variables such as

Turnover Intentions (r = .37*) or Integrity (r =.35*), both of which I expected stronger

associations. Additionally I would have expected that CWB (r = .33*) and Task Performance (r =

.26*) to have a stronger association. With these observed associations in mind and despite the

intention of generalizability of this measure, I do not feel confident with generalizing the results

of this measure to other professions especially ones which require little mechanical ability. Using

the measure in such professions could not only affect employee scores but also work behavior.

Although I trust this measure could be highly beneficial for use in a local electrical company and

other organizational settings that require a high amount of mechanical ability.

Criterion-Related Validity

In regards to the regression analysis conducted on Job Performance with GMA, Integrity,

Interview, and Conscientiousness as predictors, 45% of the variance in Job Performance was

accounted for by the predictor variables. The two predictor variables that accounted for the most


variance (as indicated by the β values) were GMA (β = .39*) and Interview (β = .25*).

Additionally, Conscientiousness as a predictor variable (β = .09*) accounted for the least amount

of variance as compared to the other variables. Note. * p < .05.

The regression analysis conducted on Turnover Intentions with GMA, Integrity,

Interview, and Conscientiousness as predictor variables, as displayed by, 60% of the variance of

Turnover Intentions was accounted for by the predictor variables. The two predictor variables

which accounted for the highest amount of variance (as indicated by the β values) were

Conscientiousness (β = .39*) and Integrity (β = .29*). Additionally, GMA as a predictor variable

(β =.15*) accounts for the least amount of variance in Turnover Intentions as compared to the

other variables included. Note. * p < .05.

Our measure of conscientiousness fared extremely well either as a 25 item scale (α = .86)

as a 20 item scale (α = .87), as compared to other scales measuring conscientiousness; as

demonstrated by IPIP scales such as the AB5C 12 item scale (α = .75), NEO domain 10 item

scale (α = .81), Big Five Domain as a 10 item scale (α = .79) and as a 20 item scale (α = .88)

(Goldberg et al., 2006).

With conscientiousness having such a low beta value (β = .09*) I believe there is little

unique variance accounted for by conscientiousness within the criterion domain of Job

Performance. In contrast, conscientiousness has a much higher beta value (β = .39*) on the

criterion domain of Turnover Intentions. As a result, I believe there a moderate amount unique

variance accounted for by conscientiousness within Turnover Intentions. Note. * p < .05.

The results of the regression analysis on Job Performance indicate that 45% of the

variance is accounted for by the four predictor variables (R² = .45, F = 32.5, p < .05).


Additionally the results of the regression analysis on Turnover Intentions indicated that 60% of

the variance is accounted for by the four predictor variables (R² = .60, F = 30.03, p < .05). Based

on the moderately high variance value as compared to a high amount of variance accounted for, I

do not feel that multicollinearity is an issue that we should be worried about.

Based on the results reported in the regression analysis, I feel our measure of

conscientiousness would be most appropriately used in the selection process when trying to

determine a level of Turnover Intentions rather than a level Job Performance or both Turnover

Intentions and Job Performance. Additionally, with results in the regression analysis, the

correlation among constructs also suggests conscientiousness is a better predictor of turnover

intentions rather than job performance.

Recommendation

It is my official recommendation, given the results of the current form of the

conscientiousness scale and the internal problem of turnover within the electrical company, to

implement the conscientiousness scale within the selection method process. The different sources

of evidence that influenced my decision include the reliability of the conscientiousness scale, the

correlation among constructs, and the regression analyses conducted on Job Performance and

Turnover Intentions. Not only is the conscientiousness scale highly reliable (α = .86) but when

compared to other conscientiousness scales it also fares well. As indicated by the regression

analyses, along with the correlation of constructs, conscientiousness is also significantly

associated with constructs such as Mechanical Ability and Turnover Intention. Both of these

constructs apply specifically to the organizational setting of the electrical company. More

specifically, when compared to other selection methods (GMA, Integrity, and Interview),


conscientiousness accounts for the highest amount of variance in Turnover Intentions. By

including this scale within the current selection methods, I feel confident that it will help solve

the issues with high turnover, especially when compared to solely relying on the current methods

of selection.

In comparison of base rates of the current selection method (.70) with the predicted base

rate once the conscientiousness scale is added (.90), it may not initially seem like much of a

difference, although it is suggested the higher the value of a base rate the higher the probability

those selected will be good performers. Additionally, when comparing adverse impact between

selection methods, there are disparities it both tables. By implementing the conscientiousness

scale the overall hiring ratio decreases, which could have the possibility to be beneficial by

having a higher probability of hiring employees that are better fit, although this probability also

affects the instances of adverse impact which are projected to increase as compared to the

original assessment. Adverse impact in the current scale, when comparing ethnicity, the

percentage of employees hired through external and internal means are 50% for white applicants

as compared to only 30% of African American applicants. In contrast, when this hiring

percentage is examined after implementing the Conscientiousness scale, the percentage of

employees hired though external and internal means (when comparing ethnicity) is 48% for

white applicants as compared to 20% of African American applicants.

Adding the conscientiousness scale to the current selection method is financially and

practically feasible. Since this scale only takes roughly ten minutes to complete and can be

distributed to a large group at once or through the use of secure online portals, it eliminates the

need for someone to physically administer the measure in cases of online distribution, or in the

case of mass administration it eliminates the need to administer the measure on an individual


basis. With the elimination or at least a decrease in cost of scale administration this measure is

financially feasible, even with the limited budget of the electrical company. Along with most

scales measuring a psychological construct, there is always a possibility for participant response

error whether it occur for social desirability reasons, careless or random responding, or just flat

out answers without regard to item content. In our case, especially if a participant feels the

results of the measure could negatively affect their well-being, the conscientiousness scale could

very well be interpreted as such. I do not feel concerned with faking on this scale although if it

ever does become an issue, by managing the testing context it is possible to prevent or minimize

the existence of such bias.

Raw data Interpretation

As displayed in Table A10 the only significant correlation between scales is between

Protestant Work Ethic and Conscientiousness (r = .44, p <.01) along with a correlation between

Protestant Work Ethic and Turnover Intentions (r = .11) and a correlation between

Conscientiousness and Turnover Intentions (r = -.17). Theoretically the observed correlations

between scales do make sense. For instance, items on the PW scale include traits such as ethics

and self-disciple which also load very highly on Conscientiousness. Additionally, the negative

relationship between Conscientiousness and Turnover Intentions makes sense; these results

suggest if one is highly conscientious they are less likely to have high turnover intentions or vice

versa. With conscientiousness as a trait, it is suggested that individuals are more likely to aware

and concerned about the well-being of the organization and in turn less likely to have high

turnover intentions.


When initially screening participants, the criterion used for eliminating participants was

based on employment status and employee tenure. In regards to employment status, participants

were eliminated if the occupation was either left blank, if they indicated they unemployed, if

they indicated they were a student, or if they indicated a part time/as needed or seasonal job as

their occupation. Thus by eliminating participants based on these criterion, although it decreases

the participant sample size, I feel by doing so the data will be a more accurate representation of

the sample, in addition to making the sample size more generalizable to various organizational

settings.

Reliability was conducted for all scales used within the conscientiousness measure. Using

this particular analysis, on the Protestant Work Ethic scale (α = .67) along with the values

displayed within Cronbach’s Alpha if deleted table is the criterion for determining item retention

of the scale (See Table A 7 & 9). Due to the limited number of items within the original scale (N

= 8), the moderately high reliability value (α = .67), along with none of the items loading on the

Alpha if deleted, it was decided to keep all the items of the original scale. Reliability was

conducted on the Turnover Intentions Scale as well (α = .87). This analysis along with the values

displayed within the Cronbach’s Alpha if deleted table, is the criterion used for determining item

retention of the scale (See Table 8 & 10). Similarly to the PW scale, due to the limited number of

items (N = 3) in the original TI scale, the high reliability value (α = .87), along with only one of

the items (TI2) loading on the Alpha if deleted (with α = .03 increase), it was decided to keep all

of the items included with in the original scale. As discussed previously, reliability was

conducted on the conscientiousness scale (α = .86) (N = 25) due to the values displayed within

the Cronbach’s Alpha if deleted table items C4, C5, C7, C14, and C23 were eliminated (See

Table A1 & 4). Additionally, the reliability was conducted following item elimination, although


there is an increase in reliability (α = .87) (N = 20) it is extremely small. Based on these results,

the elimination of said items is up for personal interpretation of the researcher using the scale.

In addition to these analyses, the demographics of the sample were also conducted (N =

87). As indicated by Table C2, the majority of participants were white (65.5%), were between

the age of 20 and 24 (62.1%), were single (67.8 %), and had been at their current job roughly for

12 months (8%). In comparison of occupational groups, the vast majority of the sample was

either employed by the service sector (33%) or by an academic sector (31%) (See Table C3).

Additionally when comparing participants due position as indicated by Table C4, the majority of

participants indicated themselves as other (47.1%) or at an entry level (33%).

Based on the sample population, the highest numbers of participants were employed

within the service sector (N = 29), although the sample size of this study could have real

implications regarding the generalizability of the scale. Additionally, the participants that

indicated they were in a service sector position, does not specifically indicate they were in a

customer service position, which could also influence the generalizability of this scale. I do

believe the Conscientiousness scale to be a reliable and valid measure, although I would be

cautious when interpreting the results of this study and generalizing them to a specific

occupation.


References

Cortina, J.M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &

Gough, H. C. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-

domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.

Madhavan, P. (2004). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the facets of

conscientiousness. North American Journal Of Psychology, 6(2), 309-326.

Roberts, B. W., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The structure of

conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality

questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103-139. Doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2005.00301.x

Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Berges, A. (2013). Conscientiousness, its facets, and the

prediction of job performance ratings: Evidence against the narrow measures.

International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 21(1), 74-84. Doi:10.1111/ijsa.12018


Appendix A

Table A1

Reliability Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale

Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha Based on

Standardized Items

N of Item

s

0.86 0.87 25


Table A2

Item-Total Statistics for Conscientiousness Scale

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Squared Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha if

Item Deleted

I practice self-discipline in my work and personal life. 93.8727 111.150 .418 .600 .853

I often work after hours to make sure I complete a project on time.

94.3818 107.944 .333 .564 .855

I can control my impulses. 94.5818 104.211 .563 .627 .846C4RS 94.1091 115.469 -.001 .438 .864I strive for recognition when completing a task. 95.4364 110.028 .207 .498 .860

I feel accomplished when I conquer my daily task list. 93.8727 110.335 .460 .574 .852

In my free time, I am constantly looking for things to do to challenge myself.

95.0000 109.815 .232 .661 .859

I am always striving to better myself. 94.1455 107.941 .530 .624 .849

I prefer organization in my life. 94.0000 105.074 .585 .850 .846I become annoyed when things around me are disorganized. 94.3273 103.558 .591 .905 .845

I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat. 94.2727 105.165 .526 .821 .848

I hate when people are unorganized. 94.5818 108.470 .339 .750 .854

I plan tasks according to importance. 94.0909 111.455 .302 .598 .855

I always have a plan. 94.6364 109.384 .233 .707 .859I carefully evaluate a situation before I take action. 94.3636 106.902 .519 .752 .849

I think before I speak. 94.7636 105.591 .441 .735 .851I believe it is important to pay close attention to details. 94.1636 108.880 .470 .823 .851


It is not okay to break company rules. 94.6727 99.854 .629 .866 .843

Rules are made to be followed. 94.5091 102.847 .640 .836 .844C20RS 94.6909 107.736 .366 .811 .853I do what I think is right in the workplace. 94.0909 110.973 .354 .589 .854

I double check tasks for correctness. 94.2545 108.267 .453 .708 .851

I am more likely to go to a pre-planned event than a last minute event.

94.5455 111.327 .192 .674 .859

When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual.

94.7455 104.378 .501 .721 .848

It is better to make sure something is done correctly than quickly.

94.1818 106.300 .637 .782 .846

Table A3

Scale Statistics of Conscientiousness

Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items

98.35 116.19 10.78 25

Table A4

Reliability Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale After Items Removed

Cronbach’s Alpha


Standardized Items

N of Items


.87 .88 20

Table A5

Item Total Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale After Items Removed

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation


Item Deleted

I practice self-discipline in my work and personal life.

75.5738 81.449 .402 .491 .869


76.0492 78.348 .355 .532 .871

I can control my impulses. 76.2131 75.804 .551 .496 .863I feel accomplished when I conquer my daily task list.

75.5574 80.617 .484 .521 .867

I am always stricing to better myself.

75.7705 79.513 .473 .481 .867

I prefer organization in my life. 75.6721 75.891 .622 .781 .861I become annoyed when things around me are disorganized.

75.9672 75.499 .586 .831 .862

I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat.

75.9344 76.362 .518 .704 .865

I hate when people are unorganized.

76.2459 79.355 .341 .629 .871

I plan tasks according to importance.

75.8033 81.994 .252 .398 .873

I carefully evaluate a situation before I take action.

76.0164 78.016 .536 .698 .864

I think before I speak. 76.4098 77.213 .430 .645 .868I believe it is important to pay close attention to details.

75.8525 79.595 .477 .699 .867

It is not okay to break company rules.

76.3443 71.996 .639 .808 .859

Rules are made to be followed. 76.1639 74.939 .620 .741 .861C20RS 76.4098 78.579 .350 .651 .872


I do what I think is right in the workplace.

75.7705 81.480 .357 .430 .870

I double check tasks for correctness.

75.9508 78.981 .463 .553 .867

When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual.

76.4426 76.651 .444 .470 .868


75.8525 77.428 .665 .706 .861

Table A6

Scale Statistics of Conscientiousness Scale After Items Removed

Mean VarianceStd.

DeviationN ofItems

80.0000 85.833 9.26463 20

Table A7

Reliability Statistics of PW Scale

Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha Based

on Standardized

Items N of Items


.67 .68 8

Table A8

Reliability Statistics of Turnover Intentions

Cronbach’s Alpha


Standardized Items N of Items

.87 .87 3

Table A9


Table A10

Item-Total Statistics For TI ScaleScale Mean

if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation


Item Deleted

Item-Total Statistics for PW ScaleScale Mean

if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted


Squared Multiple

Correlation


Item Deleted

Most people spend too much time in useless amusement.

25.5949 16.859 .198 .097 .678

The self-made man is likely to be more ethical than the man born to wealth.

25.2658 15.710 .365 .221 .637

Any man who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding.

24.7975 15.882 .378 .334 .634

People who fail at a job have usually not tried hard enough.

26.0380 16.268 .264 .134 .663

Life would have very little meaning if we never had to suffer.

25.1646 15.473 .439 .240 .620

PW6RS 25.1519 15.951 .274 .193 .662

If one works hard enough he is likely to make a good life for himself.

25.0380 15.037 .554 .457 .596

A distates for hard work usually reflects a weakness of character.

25.4177 14.939 .464 .263 .612


I often think about quitting my job with my present organization.

5.76 6.52 .73 .66 .83

I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

5.19 6.13 .66 .51 .90

I am considering leaving my job.

5.83 6.08 .86 .76 .71


Appendices B

Table B1

Pattern Matrix as Displayed In EFA OutputFactor

1 2 3I practice self-discipline in my work and personal life.

-.178 .599 .173


.381 .005 .121

I can control my impulses. .318 .347 .058I feel accomplished when I conquer my daily task list.

-.095 .546 .235

I am always stricing to better myself. .190 .243 .223I prefer organization in my life. -.043 .363 .621I become annoyed when things around me are disorganized.

.002 .050 .891

I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat.

-.042 .014 .846

I hate when people are unorganized. .009 -.190 .727I plan tasks according to importance. .212 .117 -.013I carefully evaluate a situation before I take action.

.055 .727 -.009

I think before I speak. .006 .768 -.143I believe it is important to pay close attention to details.

.201 .673 -.230

It is not okay to break company rules. .815 .066 -.012Rules are made to be followed. .787 .113 -.085C20RS .672 -.442 .260I do what I think is right in the workplace. .499 .120 -.175I double check tasks for correctness. .747 -.091 -.073When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual.

.248 .223 .146


.435 .308 .168


Table B2

Scree Plot from EFA Output


Table B3

Total Variance Explained as displayed in EFA Output

FactorInitial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadingsa

Total% of

VarianceCumulative

%Total

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Total

1 6.226 31.132 31.132 5.749 28.745 28.745 4.2782 2.393 11.965 43.097 1.975 9.875 38.620 4.2753 2.034 10.169 53.266 1.553 7.767 46.387 3.8104 1.361 6.806 60.0725 1.190 5.950 66.0226 1.131 5.653 71.6767 .915 4.575 76.2518 .740 3.698 79.9499 .651 3.253 83.20210 .590 2.952 86.15411 .536 2.682 88.83612 .448 2.238 91.07413 .355 1.774 92.84814 .338 1.689 94.53715 .322 1.611 96.14816 .234 1.171 97.31917 .186 .931 98.25018 .154 .772 99.02219 .108 .539 99.56120 .088 .439 100.000


Appendices C

Table C1

Correlation Matrix of Scales

PWMEAN TIMEAN CONSCMEAN

PWMEANPearson Correlation 1 .115 .443**

Sig. (2-tailed) .288 .000N 87 87 87

TIMEANPearson Correlation .115 1 -.017Sig. (2-tailed) .288 .876N 87 87 87

CONSCMEANPearson Correlation .443** -.017 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .876N 87 87 87

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table C2

Statistics of Demographic Information

Ethnicity

in year

s

Married

TenureMonths

Position

OccupationGroup

Occupation

CodedKeepLoose

Valid 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87Missing

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 1.5328.9

91.37 55.00 2.70 2.3793 1.0000

Median 1.0023.0

01.00 24.00 3.00 2.0000 1.0000

Mode 1 21 1 12 4 2.00 1.00


Table C3

Occupation as Defined by Group

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid Academics 27 31.0 31.0 31.0Service 29 33.3 33.3 64.4Retail 13 14.9 14.9 79.3Medical 7 8.0 8.0 87.4Administration 11 12.6 12.6 100.0Total 87 100.0 100.0

Table C4

Position

Frequency PercentValid

PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid

Entry-level

29 33.3 33.3 33.3

Supervisor 9 10.3 10.3 43.7Manager 8 9.2 9.2 52.9Other 41 47.1 47.1 100.0Total 87 100.0 100.0


Appendices D

Table D

Items Included on the Conscientiousness Scale, Protestant Work Ethic, and Turnover Intentions

Conscientiousness

C1 I practice self-discipline in my work and personal life.

C2 I often work after hours to make sure I complete a project on time.

C3 I can control my impulses.

C4 REVERS SCORED I don't work as hard as the people around me.

C5 I strive for recognition when completing a task.

C6 I feel accomplished when I conquer my daily task list.

C7 In my free time, I am constantly looking for things to do to challenge myself.

C8 I am always striving to better myself.

C9 I prefer organization in my life.

C10 I become annoyed when things around me are disorganized.

C11 I like to keep my surroundings organized and neat.

C12 I hate when people are unorganized.

C13 I plan tasks according to importance.

C14 I always have a plan.

C15 I carefully evaluate a situation before I take action.

C16 I think before I speak.

C17 I believe it is important to pay close attention to details.

C18 It is not okay to break company rules.

C19 Rules are made to be followed.


C20REVERSED When the deadline is coming close and I am running behind, I feel it is okay to

go around the rules if no harm is done.

C21 I do what I think is right in the workplace.

C22 I double check tasks for correctness.

C23 I am more likely to go to a pre-planned event than a last minute event.

C24 When given a task, I always complete the task in an efficient and precise manner rather than

procrastinating or pushing the task off to another individual.

C25 It is better to make sure something is done correctly than quickly.

Protestant Work Ethic

PW1 Most people spend too much time in useless amusement.

PW2 The self-made man is likely to be more ethical than the man born to wealth.

PW3 Any man who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding.

PW4 People who fail at a job have usually not tried hard enough.

PW5 Life would have very little meaning if we never had to suffer.

PW6REVERSED Hard work offers little guarantee of success.

PW7 If one works hard enough he is likely to make a good life for himself.

PW8 A distaste for hard work usually reflects a weakness of character.

Turnover Intentions

TI1 I often think about quitting my job with my present organization.

TI2 I will probably look for a new job in the next year.

TI3 I am considering leaving my job.

chelseahuttoportfolio.weebly.com · web viewby implementing an operational definition that covers a...

Documents