The Dimensionality of Work-Related Needs and Work Reinforcers

Abstract

Even though there have been many approaches to the study of the person-environment (P-E) fit, little research is available that makes it possible to systematically compare work-related needs and work-reinforcers across various instruments. Research suggests that the traditional concept of commensurate measurement may not be feasible at the item or scale level (Shubsachs, Round, & Lofquist, 1978; Rounds, Dawis, & Lofquist, 1987). This study investigated and compared the factor structures of four self-report inventories (measuring work-related needs) and three job-rating inventories (measuring work reinforcers) in a search for some common dimensionality among instruments. The underlying structures of the self-report and job-rating inventories were established and compared through three groups of analyses. In the first group, multitrait-multimethod analyses of correlation coefficients offered support for the convergent and discriminant validity of eight matched factors common to two or more self-report inventories. In the second group, multitrait-multimethod analyses of congruence coefficients supported three common constructs among the job-rating inventories. In the final group of comparative analyses, six common factors were identified across the self-report and job-rating inventories.Although the number of factors differed among the analyses, subsequent categorical groupings of factors seemed to offer a parsimonious and meaningful model for comparing self-report and job-rating inventories. The three identified categories were Existence, Relatedness, and Growth, as presented in Alderfer's (1969) E.R.G. theory of work motivation. In the future, these categories could prove useful in commensurate measurement and P-E fitting. Practical implications and suggestions for future research are addressed.