Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:31:23.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spanish-Language Adaptation of Morgeson and Humphrey’s Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2017

Manuel Fernández Ríos ,
Raúl G. Ramírez Vielma ,
José Carlos Sánchez García ,
Mariana Bargsted Aravena ,
Jean David Polo Vargas  and
Miguel Ángel Ruiz Díaz
Manuel Fernández Ríos
Affiliation:
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (Spain)
Raúl G. Ramírez Vielma*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Concepción (Chile)
José Carlos Sánchez García
Affiliation:
Universidad de Salamanca (Spain)
Mariana Bargsted Aravena
Affiliation:
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez (Chile)
Jean David Polo Vargas
Affiliation:
Universidad del Norte (Colombia)
Miguel Ángel Ruiz Díaz
Affiliation:
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Raúl Gonzalo Ramírez Vielma. Universidad de Concepción. Departamento de Psicología. Concepción (Chile). Phone: +56–412203951. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since work organizations became the subject of scientific research, how to operationalize and measure dimensions of work design has been an issue, mainly due to concerns about internal consistency and factor structure. In response, Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) built the Work Design Questionnaire –WDQ–, an instrument that identifies and measures these dimensions in different work and organizational contexts. This paper presents the instruent’s adaptation into Spanish using reliability and validity analysis and drawing on a sample of 1035 Spanish workers who hold various jobs in an array of occupational categories. The total instrument’s internal consistency was Cronbach’s alpha of .92 and the various scales’ reliability ranged from .70 to .96, except for three dimensions. There was initially a difference in the comparative fit of the two versions’ factor structures, but the model with 21 work characteristics (motivational -task and knowledge-, social, and work context) showed the highest goodness of fit of the various models tested, confirming previous results from the U.S. version as well as adaptations into other languages and contexts. CFA results indicated goodness of fit of factor configurations corresponding to each of the four major categories of work characteristics, with CFI and TLI around .90, as well as SRMR and RMSEA below .08. Thus it brings to the table a reliable, valid measure of work design with clear potential applications in research as well as professional practice, applications that could improve working conditions, boost productivity, and generate more personal and professional development opportunities for workers.

Keywords

design dimensionsdesign questionnairejob designwork designwork/job characteristics
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 20 , 2017 , E28
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2017 

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

Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). IBM SPSS Amos 22 user’s guide. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. (1985). Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 Google Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, H. J., Chou, J., & Lin, P. F. (2010). Validation of the Work Design Questionnaire and latent class analysis of work structure. 測驗學刊, 57, 139–179.Google Scholar
Clegg, C., & Spencer, C. (2007). A circular and dynamic model of the process of job design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906X113211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Ríos, M. (1996). Re-creando el trabajo a medida del individuo: De los puestos estándar a los casos únicos [Recreating work tailored to the individual: From standard jobs to unique cases]. In de Juan-Espinosa, M., Colom, B. R., & Quiroga, M. A. (Eds.), La práctica de la psicología diferencial en industria y organizaciones [Differential psychology practice in industry and organizations] (pp. 83–126). Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Fernández Ríos, M., Rico, R., & San Martín, R. (2004). Organizations as meaning systems: Time for clarity. Psicothema, 16, 222–228.Google Scholar
Fernández Ríos, M., & Sánchez, J. C. (1997). Eficacia organizacional. Concepto, desarrollo y evaluación [Organizational efficacy. Concept, development, and assessment]. Madrid, Spain: Díaz de Santos.Google Scholar
Fernández Ríos, M., San Martín Castellanos, R., & de Miguel Calvo, J. M. (2008). Dimensiones básicas en el diseño del trabajo: Nuevos aportes a la flexibilidad funcional [Basic dimensions of work design: New inputs to functional flexibility]. Psicothema, 20, 773–779.Google Scholar
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2010). Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives. In Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1., pp. 417–453). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-013 Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Massachusetts, MA: Addison-Wesley Reading.Google Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7 th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hauk, M. (2014). Kwestionariusz Cech Pracy - Opracowanie Polskiej Wersji Narzędzia Do Badania Cech Pracy I Środowiska Zawodowego. Wstępne Wyniki Badań [Work Design Questionnaire – Creating Polish versions of tools to assess job characteristics and work environment. Preliminary research results]. Folia Psychologica, 18, 129–145.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.69 Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2., pp. 165–208). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
International Test Commission (2010). International Test Commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests. Retrieved from International Test Commission Website http://www.intestcom.org Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessment of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 322–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis for testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhyã: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B (1960–2002), 36, 115–128.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P. (2011, May). Who is responsible for good work? Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. In Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12., pp. 423–452). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 Google Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. In Martocchio, J. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 27., pp. 39–92). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Parker, S. K., & Ohly, S. (2008). Designing motivating jobs: An expanded framework for linking work characteristics and motivation. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present and future (pp. 233–284). New York, NY: LEA/Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico, R., & Fernández Ríos, M. (2002). Diseño de organizaciones como proceso simbólico [Organizational design as a symbolic process]. Psicothema, 14, 415–425.Google Scholar
Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to job design: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriesheim, C. A., Solomon, E., & Kopelman, R. E. (1989). Grouped versus randomized format: An investigation of scale convergent and discriminant validity using LISREL confirmatory factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168901300103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipp, F., Burns, G. L., & Desmul, C. (2010). Construct validity of ADHD-IN, ADHD-HI, ODD toward adults, academic and social competence dimensions with teacher ratings of Thai adolescents: Additional validity for the Child and Adolescent Disruptive Behavior Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology Behavior Assessment, 32, 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-010-9185-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, H. P. Jr, Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/255772 Google Scholar
Smith, V. (1997). New forms of work organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.315 Google Scholar
Stegmann, S., van Dick, R., Ullrich, J., Egold, N., Wu, T. T. C., Charalambous, J., & Menzel, B. (2010). Der Work Design Questionnaire - Vorstellung und erste Validierung einer deutschen Version [The Work Design Questionnaire – Introduction and validation of a German version]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 54, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, T. D., & Taylor, E. (1990). A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the job diagnostic survey. Personnel Psychology, 43, 467–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02393.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trist, E. L. (1981). The sociotechnical perspective. In Van de Ven, A. H. & Joyce, W. F. (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 19–75). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce (2000). Standard occupational classification system manual. Lanham, MD: Bernan Associates.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Labor (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles (4 th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. (1995). Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160505 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. J., Ford, L. R., & Nguyen, N. (2004). Basic and advanced measurement models for confirmatory factor analysis. In Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 366–389). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756669.ch18 Google Scholar
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/259118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar