| According to Ilgen and Pulakos (1999) and Campbell (1999) there is increasing importance being placed on the role of stress management capabilities in promoting adjustment and effectiveness at work. Consistent with this theme, the primary goals of the current thesis were to (a) develop a set of structurally valid (see Loevinger, 1978) and reliable scales to measure the work-relevant dimensions of coping efficacy, (b) examine whether the newly developed scales are non-redundant with existing, conceptually similar constructs, and most centrally, (c) investigate the validity of the newly developed scales in predicting important quality of work-life and performance-related variables. Given the novelty of this area of research, a synthesis of the existing coping literature was first undertaken to identify useful themes that would help to define relevant approach-coping efficacy dimensions. On the basis of a thorough literature review, five approach-coping efficacy dimensions were identified and defined: direct action efficacy, positive refraining efficacy, physiological regulation efficacy, emotional processing efficacy, and instrumental support-seeking efficacy. Study 1 addressed preliminary questions concerning the degree of situational-specificity required in the measurement of approach-coping efficacy using a field sample of 60 employees. Results of Study 1 provided evidence that appraisals of approach-coping efficacy would likely generalize across common work stress situations.;Deductive scale construction procedures were then undertaken in Study 2 using a university student sample of 208. Detailed item selection procedures were used to choose only the best items for each approach-coping efficacy scale from an initial item pool. Using the chosen items, confirmatory factor analyses showed strong support for the hypothesized five-dimension model. The means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of the approach-coping efficacy scales were also found to be satisfactory.;Study 3 was conducted with a sample of 200 employees in order to cross-validate the factor structure of the approach-coping efficacy scales (ACES), and to investigate the uniqueness and predictive capacity of the ACES. Using CFA, the factor structure of the ACES was cross-validated. The scale means, standard deviations, and reliabilities were largely found to be satisfactory, and were similar to those found in Study 2. Evidence of criterion-related validity was found as individual approach-coping efficacy scales were related to a variety of important quality of work-life and performance-related criteria such as cognitive job satisfaction, job affect, affective commitment, and adaptability behaviours. Analyses of discriminant validity were undertaken with the purpose of demonstrating the distinctiveness of the ACES relative to similar measures; specifically work locus of control (WLOC), dispositional optimism (DO), and self-esteem (SE). Results suggested that the ACES were largely non-redundant with WLOC, DO, and SE. Because past research has found WLOC, DO, and SE to be predictive of many of the criteria used in Study 3, WLOC, DO, and SE were also used to test the incremental prediction, and thereby the practical utility, of the ACES. Results showed that, as a set, the ACES predicted unique, non-trivial proportions of variance in the criteria that was not predicted by a predictor block containing WLOC, DO, and SE. Overall, the current research provided evidence that the ACES (a) have a relatively stable factor structure, (b) are psychometrically sound instruments, (c) predict variance in several important organizational outcomes, (d) are non-redundant with conceptually similar measures, and (e) predict variance in organizational outcomes not predicted by similar measures. |
PDF Full Text Request