Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T07:01:40.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factorial Validity of the Job Expectations Questionnaire in a Sample of Mexican Workers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Fabiola Itzel Villa-George ,
Bernardo Moreno-Jiménez ,
Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz  and
Jessica Villalpando Uribe
Fabiola Itzel Villa-George*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Bernardo Moreno-Jiménez
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Alfredo Rodríguez-Muñoz
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
Jessica Villalpando Uribe
Affiliation:
Servicios de Salud del Estado de Puebla (Mexico)
*
Corresponding concerning this article should be addressed to Fabiola Itzel Villa-George. Departamento de Psicología Biológica y de la Salud. Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Campus Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid (Spain). Phone: +34-914974579. Fax: +34-914975215. E-mail: villageorge.fabiola@uam.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the factorial validity of the Job Expectations Questionnaire (Cuestionario de Expectativas Laborales CEL) in a sample of Mexican workers. Following a cross validation approach, two samples were used in the study. The first sample consisted of 380 professionals who mainly performed administrative work in the Health Services in Puebla-Mexico. The second sample comprised 400 health professionals from the Hospital de la Mujer in Puebla-Mexico. Exploratory factor analysis yielded a three-factor solution, accounting for 51.8% of the variance. The results of confirmatory factorial analysis indicate that the three-factor model provided the best fit with the data (CFI = .96, GFI = .95, NNFI = .95, RMSEA = .04), maintaining the structure with 12 items. The reliability of the questionnaire and the diverse subscales showed high internal consistency. Significant correlations were found between job expectations and autonomy, vigor, dedication, and absorption, providing evidence of its construct validity. The evaluation of the psychometric qualities confirms this questionnaire as a valid and specific instrument to measure job expectations.

El objetivo de este estudio consistió en analizar las propiedades psicométricas y la validez del Cuestionario de Expectativas Laborales (CEL) en trabajadores mexicanos. Con el objetivo de realizar una validación cruzada se emplearon dos muestras en el estudio. La primera está compuesta por 380 profesionales que realizaban principalmente tareas administrativas en el sector salud del estado de Puebla-México. La segunda fueron 400 profesionales de la salud del Hospital de la Mujer Puebla-México. El análisis factorial exploratorio mostró una solución de tres factores que explican el 51,8% de la varianza total. Los resultados del análisis factorial confirmatorio indican que el modelo de tres factores, con una estructura de 12 ítems, se ajusta satisfactoriamente a los datos (CFI=0,96, GFI=095, NNFI= 0,95, RMSEA=0,04). El nivel de fiabilidad del cuestionario global y de las diferentes sub escalas muestra una alta consistencia interna. Se encontraron correlaciones significativas entre el CEL y diversas variables como: percepción de apoyo del supervisor, autonomía, vigor, dedicación y absorción, lo que apoya su validez convergente. La evaluación de las propiedades psicométricas confirma al CEL como un instrumento válido y específico de las expectativas laborales y se sugiere para poder ser utilizado en futuras investigaciones.

Keywords

job expectations questionnaireMexicocross validationfactorial validitycuestionario de expectativas laboralesMéxicovalidación cruzadavalidez factorial
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 2011 , pp. 1010 - 1017
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, J. (1990). Predictors of career commitment: A test of three theoretical models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 285–302. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(90)90046-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aron, A., & Aron, E. (2003). Statistics for psychology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39–53. doi:10.1002/job. 4030120104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, M.S, (1950). Periodogram analysis and continuous. Biometrika, 37, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cherniss, C. (1980). Professional burnout in the human service organizations. New York, NY: Preger.Google Scholar
Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cliff, N., & Hamburger, C.D. (1967). The study of sampling errors in factor analysis by means of artificial experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 430–445. doi:10.1037/h0025178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E.C. (1974). When is a correlation appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 358–361. doi:10.1037/h0036316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelwich, J., & Brodsky, A., (1980). Burnout: Stages of disillusionment in the helping professions. New York, NY: Human Science Press.Google Scholar
Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62–72. doi:10.1080/1070551960 9540030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–244.Google Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–416. doi:10.1007/BF02291817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, H. J., & Wright, P. M. (1994). Antecedents of goal commitment: An empirical examination of personal and situational factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 95–114. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00560.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828–847. doi:10.2307/256317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, S. T. (1983). Toward a theory of burnout. Human Relations 36, 899–910. doi:10.1177/001872678303601003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, B. (2007). Evaluación, medidas, & diagnostico del síndrome de burnout [Assessment, Measures and Diagnostic of Burnout Síndrome]. In Monte, P. R. Gil & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (Eds.), El síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (Burnout). Grupos Profesionales de riesgo (pp. 43–71). Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Moreno-Jiménez, B., Gálvez Herrer, G., & Rodríguez-Carvajal, R. (2003). Análisis de la relación entre los ajustes de expectativas laborales y burnout en médicos [Analysis of the relationship between met job expectations and burnout in medicals]. Research Project. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Moreno-Jiménez, B., Villa-George, ., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., & Villalpando, U. (2009). Consecuencias positivas y negativas en el trabajo: el rol de las expectativas laborales en el proceso de desgaste profesional [Positive and negative consequences in the job: The role of job expectations in the burnout process] Ciencia y Trabajo, 11, 32, 80–84.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pines, A. M. (1993). Burnout: An existential perspective. In Schaufeli, W. B. Maslach, C., & Marek, T. (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 33–51). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Porter, L. W., & Steers, M. R. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 161–176. doi:10.1037/h0034829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaubroeck, J. M., Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Mitra, A. (2008). An under-met and over-met expectations model of employee reactions to merit raises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 424–434. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.424CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2003). Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and theorizing. In Schabracq, W. B. Winnubst, J. A. M., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 383–425). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). The MBI-General Survey. In Maslach, C. Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (Eds.), Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual (3rd ed.) (pp. 19–26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.113.1.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, T. P., & Hendrix, W. H. (1991). Modeling the role of pay equity perceptions: A field study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, S. I. (1991). Meeting trainees' expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self efficacy and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759–769. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.6.759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, C.A., & Prottas, D. (2005). Relationship among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 4, 100–118. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.100Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 35, 417–437. doi:10.1007/BF02291170Google Scholar
Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398–412. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00028.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vroom, V. H. (1995). Work and Motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288–297. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.77.3.288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zabel, R. H., Boomer, L. W., & King, T. R. (1984). A model of stress and burnout among teachers of behaviorally disordered students. Behavior Disorders, 9, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar