University of Central Florida University of Central Florida

STARS STARS

Retrospective Theses and Dissertations

Summer 1979

Employee Attitude Invariance: A Guide for Personnel Practitioners Employee Attitude Invariance: A Guide for Personnel Practitioners

Robert A. Cohen University of Central Florida

Part of the Engineering Commons, and the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons

Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/rtd

University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu

This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information,

please contact STARS@ucf.edu.

STARS Citation STARS Citation Cohen, Robert A., "Employee Attitude Invariance: A Guide for Personnel Practitioners" (1979). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 405. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/rtd/405

EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE INVARIANCE: A GUIDE FOR PERSONNEL PRACTITIONERS

BY

ROBERT A. COHE~J B.S. University of Missouri, 1977

THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science: Industrial Psychology

in the Graduate Studies Program·of the College of Social Sciences at the University of Central Florida; Orlando, Florida

Summer Quarter 1979

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

To my parents, Jacqueline and Ed Cohen, and my sister and

brother-in-law, Barbara and Donald Shettlesworth, for all they

have done for me throughout the years.

Thanks to Dr. Wayne Burroughs, Dr. Charles Dzuiban, and

Dr. Edwin Shirkey for their guidance and support.

Thanks to Hughette Crumpler and Richard Dillard for their

assistance in the collection of the data.

; i;

INTRODUCTION .

METHOD . .

Measure . . . Sample ..... . Procedure . . . .

RESULTS .

DISCUSSION

COHEN STRATEGY . .

COtJCLUS I ON .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: Employee Attitude Survey

References

iv

Page

1

9

9 9

10

12

25

30

32

33

36

INTRODUCTION

Assessment of employee's attitudes is of great concern to

organizations (Erdos, 1974). Knowledge of employee's attitudes can

help the organization to improve communication, to motivate as well

as educate management and to diagnose, prescribe and treat problems

that exist (Pritchett, 1975). Due to the importance attributed to

the understanding of job satisfaction, more than 3300 articles and

studies on the subject have been published (Lawler, 1971; Locke,

1976). Despite the voluminous research on satisfaction, or pos­

sibly because of it, the results are often in conflict, causing

critics to complain that our understanding of the causes of job

satisfaction has not substantially increased during the last 30

years (Locke, 1969).

Landy and Tru~bo (1976) stated that the conflicting results

are due, in part, to the unwillingness of one researcher to make

use of the satisfaction questionnaire developed by another research­

er. Since different methods have been used to measure job satisfac­

tion (i.e. interviews, observation, various questionnaires) it is

open to question whether the results from one study can legitimately

be compared to those of another.

In an experiment designed to investigate the extent to which

various measures of job satisfaction actually measured the same

thing, Lawler and Wanous (1972) identified nine operational

2

definitions/measures of overall job satisfaction that were used by

previous researchers. The authors concluded that the results

obtained from one measure of job satisfaction may correlate low

with those obtained by a different measure. In addition, it appears

quite likely that some of the conflicting results reported in the

studies are, in fact, due to the different measures of job satisfac­

tion that have been used.

In a review of the research on pay satisfaction, Lawler (1971)

stated that because of the many methodological problems involved it

is not particularly helpful to extensively review the literature.

Some of the problems identified were: the nonindependence of the

questionnaire items, differences in the number of items studied

(they ranged from 5 to 71), differences in the populations sampled

and differences in the wording used to describe the factors. Lawler

concluded that a strong case can be made from a research design

point of view that the only legitimate conclusions and comparisons

about the importance of pay are those which involve group differ­

ences on the same instrument.

Other researchers (Locke, 1976; Smith, 1976) stated that the

understanding of job satisfaction could be improved through the

use of longitudinal studies (studies conducted over time). Smith,

Roberts and Hulin (1976) pointed out that most of the studies on job

satisfaction have assessed respondents at only one point in time.

They went on to state that because of the expense involved in con­

ducting a truly longitudinal study (repeated measures on the same

3

respondents, using the same instrument, over time), it probably will

not be done, but that a quasi-longitudinal study (the group sampled

remains constant, even though the individual respondents may differ)

by work units could be done. In their own quasi-longitudinal study,

Smith, Roberts and Hulin (1976) surveyed a large sample of subjects

(n = over 23,000) representing a variety of job levels and

classifications. The authors administered the same questionnaire,

to the same group of workers, during three separate time intervals:

1963-1966, 1966-1970 and 1970-1972. They concluded regardless of

tensure, job function or geographical location that job satisfac­

tion in this single organization had declined over the 10 year

period. In another quasi-longitudinal study, they one by Smith,

Scott and Hulin (1977), the managers of one company were surveyed

at two separate times, once in 1971 and once in 1974. The authors

again concluded that, in general, these individuals had become less

satisfied with their job aspects, over time.

Whereas other quasi-longitudinal studies (Special, 1973; Job

Satisfaction, 1973) have also found a decrease in job satisfaction.

Other studies (Quinn, Mangionne & Baldi de Mandilovitch, 1973) have

reported that there is no conclusive evidence of a decline in job

satisfaction. One problem in interpreting these quasi-longitudinal

studies has been that the conclusions were drawn only from com­

parisons of the attitudinal intensities, without regard to whether

the attitudes being measured remained the same over time (factor

pattern invariance). This causes problems in interpretation,

4

because the differences in attitudinal intensities between criterion

groups rna- be due to the differences in factor pattern among the

criterion groups (Cascio, 1976; Katzenmeyer & Stenner, 1977).

Katzenmeyer and Stenner (1977) investigated the factor pattern

invariance of four criterion groups (while males, black males,

white females and black females) and the effect of the factor

pattern upon the group's attitudinal intensity score. They con­

cluded that structural differences in the factor patterns between

criterion groups represents a threat to the validity of inferences

made from differences in the attitudinal intensity levels between

the groups. The method of factor analysis can be used to determine

whether, in fact, the factor pattern has remained invariant

(Royce, 1966; Weiss, 1976).

According to Pollane and Schnittjer (1977) and Reynolds and

Nichols (1977) the purpose for using factor analysis is to summarize

the interrelationships among the variables in a concise but accurate

manner (accurate in that relevant information is not lost because

of the method of summarizing). Factor analysis accomplishes this

by including the largest amount of information possible from the

original variables (items) in as few derived factors as possible

(Gorusch, 1974). Katzenmeyer and Stenner (1977) explained that the

factor pattern is the matrix of correlations of the items with the

factors identified, and that 11 factor invariance" refers to the

extent to which this pattern remains the same when it is derived

5

from different criterion groups. Various researchers have used the

factor analytic method to test pattern invariance among different

criterion groups, with conflicting results being obtained.

Ash (1954) and Baehr (1954) both administered the SRA employee

inventory to different groups of industrial employees and found

empirical support for pattern invariance. In another study,

Harrison (1961) administered an attitude survey to two groups of

manufacturing employees and also found support for the concept of

factor invariance. Aleamoni (1973) demonstrated the existence of

factor invariance between samples representing n=400 and the total

population of N=2322.

Support for factor variance also exists. Cascio (1976) com­

pared the individual factor analyses of the scores on the same

attitude survey for three groups of managers and reported that the

factors did not remain invariant.

Roach (1972) pointed out that while many studies frequently

employ the factor-analytic technique to develop attitude patterns

and tnen use these patterns to construct subscales (as did the

above mentioned studies), rarely is the stability of the attitude

pattern assessed over time. When a longitudinal, or quasi-longitu­

dinal study is conducted, the researcher assumes, either implicitly

or explicitly, the concept of factor pattern invariance (Thurstone,

1974). In other words, the author assumes that the observed

differences are due to changes in attitudinal intensity, and not to

changes in the factor pattern. A better understanding of job

6

attitudes would be attained by using quasi-longitudinal studies in

conjunction with factor analysis.

Roach and Davis (1973) conducted a quasi=longitudinal, factor

analytic study to test for changes in the factor pattern. They

compared the results of two independent factor analyses of the same

survey, given to the same sample, at the same company, 10 years

apart in time. The results of their study showed that the factor

pattern did remain invariant, but that the organization of the

attitudes into a hierarchial system did not remain stable over time.

An attitude heirarchial system refers to the organization of the

factor analyzed items into a priority, or importance, ranking. In

developing an attitude hierarchy system, the factors which emerged

from the original factor analysis, considered to be first-order

factors, are ranked according to the amount of variance each

accounts for. The factor which accounts for the greatest amount of

variance is ranked first, the next largest amount second, etc.

Three problems exist in interpreting the results of the Roach

and Davis study: (a) the time span of 10 years was too long, making

it impossible to know whether the factor pattern changed, and how

often it may have changed, before returning to its original

pattern 10 years later, (b) the authors did not report on the

employee's attitude intensity, making it impossible to determine

whether the intensities changed, over time, even though the factor

pattern did not, and (c) although the authors concluded that the

attitude hierarchy did not remain invariant, they did not comment

7

on what the implications of this might be. A change in the

hierarchial system means that the importance associated with the

factors has changed. The knowledge of this information can be of

great value to the researcher.

Cascio (1976) also conducted a factor analytic, quasi-longi­

tudinal study. He administered the same attitude questionnaire to

three groups of managers from the same company, over a two-year

time span. Cascio•s findings were contradictory to those of

Roach and Davis (1973), in that he reported that the factor pattern

did not remain invariant. This is particularly interesting because

the author also monitored the employee•s attitude intensities,

and found that even though the factor pattern did not remain

invariant, the attitude intensities did. One problem with the

interpretation of the Cascio study was that it only measured one

attitude, specifically, the manager•s attitude toward blacks in

the working environment. It is possible, according to Cascio

(1976), that certain types of attitudes may be more susceptible to

change, due to increased societal awareness, than other types of

attitudes.

The purpose of the following study is to more thoroughly

investigate the question of factor pattern invariance by integrating

the findings and suggestions of previous researchers into one study.

The present study, which is quasi-longitudinal by work units, as

suggested by Smith, Roberts and Hulin (1976), employed the use of

factor analysis to investigate factor pattern invariance over time

8

as suggested by Roach (1972). In imporving upon the studies of

Cascio (1976) and Roach and Davis (1973), both of whom utilized the

above methodology, the present study will examine job satisfaction

data of three consecutive years for (a) factor invariance, defined

as the existence of the same factors for the three time periods,

(b) factor hierarchy invariance, defined as each factor having its

same priority ranking for all three time periods, when ranked

according to amount of accountable variance, and (c) attitudinal

intensity invariance, defined as insignificant changes in the

overall attitude intensity score over the three time periods.

The null hypotheses are:

1. The factor pattern will remain invariant over time

2. The attitudinal hierarchy will remain invariant over time

3. The attitude intensities will remain invariant over time

METHOD

Measure: To best simulate real world conditions, the

attitude questionnaire used was one developed by the company's own

research staff. The questionnaire consisted of twenty items that

were to represent three main areas of the job: supervision (four

items), company environment (seven items), and work (nine items).

Subjects replied to the twenty items on a five point Likert-type

scale; (l=disagree to a great extent, 5=agree to a great extent).

The format of this questionnaire, a rating scale, is the most widely

used method of measuring attitudes (Locke, 1976; Landy & Trumbo,

1976).

Sample: The subjects were all employees of a medium sized

engineering plant, located in the southeastern United States. The

data were analyzed for three separate time periods. The first

period, 1976, included 399 Ss, all of whom were surveyed in April,

1976. Time period two, 1977, included 1517 Ss, all of whom were

surveyed in November, 1977. The third time period, 1978, consisted

of 187 Ss, surveyed in July and December, 1978. All three samples

represented data from engineers, product support personnel and

administrative services personnel. The use of sample factor

patterns as a basis for generalizing to their corresponding

populations was supported by Aleamoni (1973). This researcher

concluded that samples of N=400 are adequate for generalizing to a

10

population of N = 2322, and that it may well be that N's larger

than 100 are adequate.

Procedure: Upon conclusion of the data collection and prior

to the factor analysis, an assessment of the appropriateness of the

correlation matrices (1976-1977, 1977-1978, 1976-1978) for factor

analysis will be determined (Dzuiban & Shirkey, 1974; Shirkey &

Dzuiban, 1976). These authors examined three different techniques

for evaluating correlation matrices, Bartlett's test of sphericity

(Bartlett, 1950), anti-image covariation matrix (Kaiser, 1974) and

the measure of sampling adequacy, M. S. A. (Kaiser, 1970; Kaiser,

1974) and concluded that the M. S. A. offers advantages which the

other two do not. Kaiser's (1973) guidelines:

in the .90's

in the .80's

in the .70's

in the .60's

in the .SO's

below .50

marvelous

meritorious

middling

mediocre

miserable

unacceptable

were used to evaluate each obtained M. S. A ..

A principle factor analysis with marimax rotation was used for

the factoring of the job satisfaction data. Squared multiple

correlations were used as communality estimates for each variable

in the job satisfaction scale. For a theoretical development of

factor analysis see Gorsuch (1974), Harmon (1967}, Rummerl (1970) or

Thurstone (1947). Tucker•s coefficient of congruence (Tucker, 1951)

1 1

will be used to assess the similarity of factor patterns across the

three time periods.

As suggested by Harmon (1967) each factor of one time period

was compared to all factors of the other two time periods, producing

3 coefficient of congruence matrices. Each factor was then paired

with the one (or two) with which it had the highest coefficient of

congruence. The formula used to compute the coefficient of con­

gruence, as given by Gorsuch (1974), is:

Cl2 EPVl PV2 = V2:PV1 2 2:PV2 2

where Cl2 = coefficient of congruence between factors

1 & 2

PVl = factor loadings for factor

PV2 = factor loadings for factor 2

An over a 11 attitude intensity score (OAIS) was computed for

each individual by summing the rating scores for the original

twenty items and dividing that total by twenty: 20

• E R. l=l 1 OAIS = N

where OAIS = overall attitude intensity score

R = rating score for the individual items

N = number of items (20)

Differences in overall atittude intensities between the three

time periods was measured through the use of an analysis of variance.

RESULTS

An examination of Table 1 shows that the M. S. A. for both 1976

and 1978 was in the meritorious category and the M. S. A. for 1977

was in the marvelous category, indicating that it is appropriate to

factor analyze all three correlation matrices.

One way to test for factor invariance is to count the number of

factors that emerge from the factor analysis for each time period.

If the factors are invariant, the number of extracted factors will

be the same for each year. Application of Kaiser•s (1958) criterion

of eigenvalues greater than 1.0 resulted in four factors from the

1977 time period and six factors from both the 1976 and 1978 time

periods. The eigenvalues and the percent of total factor variance

accounted for by each factor, are presented in Table 2. The 1976

factors accounted for 61% of the total 1976 variance, 1977 factors

accounted for 56% of the total 1977 variance, and the 1978 factors

accounted for 67% of the total 1978 variance.

Examination of the factor patterns is another method used to

test for factor invariance. If an individual factor has remained

invariant over time, its factor pattern for each year will be similar.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 show the varimax rotated factor patterns for all

three y~ars. The 20 questionnaire items are listed vertically,

while the extracted factors are listed horizontally. Any item that

had a factor loading in the .3o•s was considered to be a minor

Table 1

Measure of Sampling Adequacy

1976

1977

1978

.90's

.80's

.70's

.6o•s

.50's

below .50

Overall M. S. A.

Scale

Marvelous

~1eri tori ous

Meddling

Mediocre

Miserable

Unacceptable

.82

.90

.86

13

Tab

le

2

Eig

enva

lues

and

V

aria

nce

Acc

ount

ed

for

1976

-197

8

1976

19

77

1978

Eig

enva

lue

Var

ianc

e E

igen

valu

e V

aria

nce

Eig

enva

lue

Var

ianc

e

Fac

tor

1 5.

044

49.8

%

6.37

2 64

.2%

6.

575

57.9

%

Fac

tor

2 2

.05

0

18.1

%

1.9

59

16

.1%

l

.829

13

. 6~~

Fac

tor

3 1.

789

13.6

%

1.58

6 11

.8%

l.

623

11.0

%

Fac

tor

4 1.

205

8.9%

1.

225

7.8%

1.

254

7.

6%

Fac

tor

5 1

. 069

5.

7%

1. 0

43

5.7%

Fac

tor

6 1

. 011

3.

9%

l. 0

34

4. 1%

Tot

al*

60.8

%

55.7

%

66.8

%

*Thi

s to

tal

repr

esen

ts t

he p

erce

nt o

f th

e to

tal

yea

r's

vari

ance

acc

ount

ed f

or b

y th

e ex

trac

ted

fact

ors

.

__,

Tab

le 3

Var

imax

R

otat

ed

Fac

tor

Mat

rix

-19

76

Fac

tor

1 F

acto

r 2

Fac

tor

3 F

acto

r 4

Fac

tor

5 F

acto

r 6

Item

l

0.22

5 0.

499

0.09

9 0.

348

0.07

8 -0

.021

Item

2

0.72

3 0.

053

0.32

2 0.

116

-0.0

93

0.05

8

Item

3

0.63

4 0.

157

0.04

8 0.

025

0.06

6 0.

026

Item

4

0.07

8 0.

180

0.04

2 0.

523

0.16

9 0.

034

Item

5

0.03

2 0.

173

0.03

6 0.

885

0.00

3 -0

.023

Item

6

0.05

5 0.

798

0.

059

0.18

5 -0

.076

0.

462

Item

7

0.11

2 0.

075

0.09

8 -0

.007

0.

113

0.

382

Item

8

0.15

1 0.

666

0. 1

02

0.06

0 0.

039

0.07

2

Item

9

0.24

4 0.

987

0.19

7 0.

024

0.22

4 0.

099

Item

10

0. 1

17

0.00

2 0.

264

0.08

3 0.

407

0.1

12

Item

11

0.76

5 0.

047

0.20

4 0.

074

0. l

04

0.1

73

Item

12

0.12

9 0.

051

0. 7

38

0.08

5 0.

288

0.14

8 "'""

""' Ite

m 1

3 0.

123

0.20

9 0.

391

0.08

7 0.

267

-0. 1

21

U1

Item

14

0.1

54

0.

093

0.50

6 -0

.035

0.

212

0.03

0

Item

15

0.16

7 0.

158

0.17

7 -0

.007

0

.54

4

-0.0

63

Item

16

Item

17

Item

18

Item

19

Item

20

Fac

tor

1

0.44

9

0.7

13

0.19

4

0.03

9

-0.0

76

Tab

le 3

(c

onti

nued

)

Var

imax

R

otat

ed

Fac

tor

Mat

rix

-19

76

Fac

tor

2

0.07

5

0.22

0

0.48

3

0.06

6

-0.0

84

Fac

tor

3

0. 6

01

0.0

79

0.11

9

0. 23

1

0.02

0

Fac

tor

4

0.08

2

0.00

8

0.25

9

-0.0

05

0.1

66

Fac

tor

5

0.1

10

0.12

9

0.17

8

0.46

9

0.35

8

Fac

tor

6

0.1

66

0.02

8

-0.2

27

0.07

4

0.05

6

17

Table 4

Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - 1977

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Item 1 0.239 0.128 0.525 0.322

Item 2 0.768 0.159 0. 116 0.121

Item 3 0.591 0.110 0.328 0.079

Item 4 0.173 0. 119 0.666 0.075

Item 5 0.034 0.141 0.659 0.103

Item 6 0.158 0.073 0.408 0.770

Item 7 0.227 0.327 -0.065 0.334

Item 8 0.120 0.157 0.236 0.645

Item 9 0.379 0.288 -0.029 0.181

Item 10 0.136 0.576 0.029 0.099

Item 11 0.776 0.275 0.130 0.093

Item 12 0.269 0.723 0.039 0.150

Item 13 0.182 0.506 0.248 0.042

Item 14 0.208 0.603 0.022 0.144

Item 15 0.063 0.413 0.276 0.072

Item 16 0.521 0.461 0.059 0. 161

Item 17 0.654 0.184 0.320 0.100

Item 18 0.224 0.194 0.506 0.260

Item 19 0.126 0.531 0.238 0.056

Item 20 0.052 0.385 0.144 0. 001

18

Table 5

Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix - 1978

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Item 1 0.188 0.237 0.602 0.276 -0.023

Item 2 0.817 0.123 0.138 0.113 0.142

Item 3 0.741 0.005 0.179 0. 171 -0.034

Item 4 0.197 0.040 0.766 0. l 07 0.142

Item 5 0.110 0.215 0.691 0.079 0.082

Item 6 0.146 0.099 0.325 0. 591 0.052

Item 7 0.300 0.164 0.091 0.248 0.132

Item 8 0. 114 0.233 0.050 0.824 0.137

Item 9 0.299 0.109 0.020 0.022 0. 181

Item 10 0.249 0.241 0.134 0.025 0.463

Item 11 0.853 0.229 0.106 0.001 0.085

Item 12 0.242 0.819 0.157 0.153 0.258

Item 13 0.155 0.371 0.150 0.037 0.303

Item 14 0.132 0.606 0.190 0.263 0.166

Item 15 0. 111 0.080 0.143 0.132 0.393

Item 16 0.519 0.493 0.109 0.199 0.075

Item 17 0.680 0.236 0.166 0.083 0.094

Item 18 0.331 0.072 0.350 0.199 0.219

Item 19 0.139 0.340 0.065 0.098 0.475

Item 20 -0.075 0.046 -0.038 0.017 0.554

19

contributor, while loadings of .40 or greater were considered to be

major contributors to the corresponding factor. The higher the

factor loading, the more the item contributes to that factor.

Factor loadings have a maximum value of 1 .00.

In Table 6 the questionnaire items that contributed to each

factor are listed below the name of the factor. The items are

iisted in descending order, that is, the items listed first contri­

buted the most, those listed last contributed the least. The items

in parentheses had factor loadings in the .30 1 s, all of the other

items had loadings of .40 or higher. Factor pattern invariance can

be studied through this table also. It can easily be seen that

items 11, 2, 17, 3 and 16 are the major contributors to the

~~achievement/work satisfaction .. factor for all three years. An

examination of the "company environment/benefits 11 factor for 1976

and 1978 shows that in 1976 item 15 was the largest contributor,

and that item 20 was a minor contributor; whereas in 1978 item 20 was

the largest contributor and item 15 was a minor contributor.

A comparison of factor similarity over time can be more easily

accomplished through the examination of the coefficient of congruence

matrices, Table 7. High congruence coefficients indicate that the

factors are similar. Factor 2 from 1976, 11 Satisfaction with

supervisor/recognition", is highly congruent to factor 4 from 1977,

"satisfaction with supervisor 11 (.92) and mildly congruent to factor

3, "rewards/recognition" (.75). These matrices provide a quick

method for examining factor invariance. If two factors from the

Tab

le 6

Fac

tor

list

ing

: N

ames

an

d Id

enti

fyin

g It

ems

1976

19

77

1978

fact

or

1 A

chie

vem

ent/W

ork

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Ach

ieve

men

t/Wor

k S

atis

fact

ion

A

chie

vem

ent/W

ork

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

. 11,

2,

17

, 3,

16

ll

, 2~

17

, 3,

16

, (1

9)

ll,

2,

3,

17,

16,

(18,

7)

Fac

tor

2 S

atis

fact

ion

wit

h S

uper

ior

Rec

ogni

tion

6,

8,

1'

18

Fac

tor

3 Co

mpa

ny

Pri

de/S

ecur

e F

utur

e

12,

16,

14

(13,

2)

Fac

tor

4 R

ewar

ds

5,

4 (1

)

Fac

tor

5 Co

mpa

ny

Env

iron

men

t/B

enef

its

15

, 19

, 10

( 2

0)

Fac

tor

6 S

atis

fact

ion

wit

h P

eers

6

(7)

Com

pany

P

ride

/Sec

ure

Fut

ure/

Co

mpa

ny

Pri

de/S

ecur

e F

utur

e E

nvir

onm

ent

12,

14,

10,

19,

13,

16,

15,

12,

14,

16

(13,

19

) ( 2

0,

7)

Rew

ards

/Rec

ogni

tion

R

ewar

ds

5, 4

, 1

, 18

, 6

(3,

17)

4,

5,

1 (1

8,

6)

Sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

Sup

erio

r an

d P

eers

6

, 8

(7,

l)

Sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

Sup

erio

r 8

, 6

Com

pany

E

nvir

onm

ent/

Ben

efit

s 2

0,

19

, l 0

( 1

5,

l B)

Rec

ogni

tion

18

( 1

)

N

0

Tab

le

7

Coe

ffic

ient

of

Con

grue

nce

Mat

rice

s

1977

F

acto

r 1

Fac

tor

2 F

acto

r 3

Fac

tor

4

Fac

tor

1 .9

8 .5

0 .4

6 .4

0 F

acto

r 2

.43

.36

.75

.92

Fac

tor

3 .6

5 .9

0 . 3

1 .4

2

Fac

tor

4 .2

9 .3

0 .8

4 .3

9 F

acto

r 5

.39

.87

.44

.27

Fac

tor

6 .3

8 .3

6 .0

8 .6

3

1978

F

acto

r l

Fac

tor

2 F

acto

r 3

Fac

tor

4 F

acto

r 5

Fac

tor

6

Fac

tor

1 .9

8 . 5

1 .4

1 .3

9 .3

2 .4

8

Fac

tor

2 .4

2 .4

1 .6

5 .8

9 .3

0 .6

2

Fac

tor

3 .6

1 .9

5 .3

9 .4

4 .6

2 .3

6 N

_..

Fac

tor

4 . 3

1 .3

2 .8

9 .3

4 . 3

1 .3

8

Fac

tor

5 .3

8 .6

3 .3

7 .2

9 .9

3 .4

3

Fac

tor

6 .3

5 .3

8 . 1

7 .5

0 .2

3 . 1

6

1978

F

acto

r 1

Fac

tor

1 .9

7

Fac

tor

2 .5

7

Fac

tor

3 .5

1

Fac

tor

4 .4

6

Tab

le

7 (c

onti

nued

)

Coe

ffic

ient

of

Con

grue

nce

Mat

rice

s

Fac

tor

2 F

acto

r 3

Fac

tor

4

.60

.46

.43

.90

.45

.46

. 41

.93

.57

.50

.53

.9~

Fac

tor

5

.42

.86

.45

.36

Fact

or·

6

.49

.41

.63

.43

N

N

23

two separate time periods are highly congruent, that factor can be

considered invariant.

Factor hierarchy invariance can also be examined through the

congruence matrices. If the diagonals have the highest congruence

coefficients, one can conclude that the factor hierarchy remained

the same over time. The 1977-1978 matrix shows that the factor

hierarchy for factors l, 2, 3 and 4 was the same for both years.

This is not true for the 1976-1977 comparison.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Table 8 was used to test for

significant differences in overall attitude intensity scores (OAIS).

The ANOVA indicated an overall significant difference F = (2,209) =

8.54, p <.01. The LSD post-hoc comparison found the 1977-1978

comparison to be significant at .01.

Source D.F.

Between Groups 2

Within Groups 2093

Total 2095

Table 8

Analysis of Variance

24

Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio

6.6264

812.0918

818.7183

3.3132

0.3880

8.539*

*Significant at a = .01

DISCUSSION

The results of this study generally supported null hypothesis

1, in that the factors did remain generally invariant over the

three years. Except for 11 Satisfaction with other workers 11 in 1976

and 11 recognition 11 in 1978, all of the factors had congruence

coefficients of .84 or higher with at least one factor from the

other two years. A closer examination of the factor patterns reveals

that the major contributor to 11 satisfaction with other \vorkers 11 is

item 6, and that item 6 is also the major contributor to the

11 Sati sfacti on with supervi sor/recogni ti on 11 factor. The major

contributor to 11 recognition 11 in 1978 is item 18, which also con­

tributes to 11 rewards 11 and to 11 achievement/work satisfaction~~. This

means that the major contributors to these two factors are complex

items (they contribute to more than one factor) and it may well be

that because these factors are similar to other factors in the

same year and because they account for such a small amount of the

variance (4% for each) that the fact that they are not highly

congruent to a factor of another year is of minimal importance.

Due to the complexity of these items, it is difficult to interpret

the underlying motivation behind the employee 1 S answers. Thus, it

may be advisable to remove them from further survey administrations.

Factor invariance is also supported by an examination of whether

individual items load on the same factor (same according to the

26

congruence coefficients)· from time period to time period. Of the

20 questionnaire items, only one major contributor in 1976, item 18,

loaded on a different factor in 1977. All of the major contributors

in 1977 loaded on their corresponding 1978 factor. From 1976 to

1978, only two major contributors loaded on different factors,

items 1 and 18. Although the factors, in general, remained

invariant, there were some changes. In 1977, two less factors

emerged from the factor analysis than in either 1976 or 1978. The

two 1976 factors, "company pride/secure future" and 11 company

environment/benefits", that combined to form one factor in 1977,

11 COmpany pride/environment/secure future", are the same two factors

that this 1977 factor divided into in 1978. It is important to

state that had this study used a two year time period and only

examined data from 1976 and 1978, the fact that only four factors

emerged in i977, and the way in which these factors were formed,

would have been unknown.

Null hypothesis 2, the factor hierarchy will remain stable over

time, was not generally supported .. A factor hierarchy for each

year was established by ranking the factors according to the amount

of variance each one accounted for. The factor accounting for the

most variance was ranked first, and the factor accounting for the

least variance was ranked last. The hierarchy of the four 1977

factors was exactly the same as the hierarchy of the first four

1978 factors. However, 11 COmpany environment/benefits 11 ranked

fifth in 1978 while in 1977 it combined with ''company pride/secure

27

future" to form the second factor. "Recognition 11, which was ranked

sixth in 1978, combined with "rewards" in 1977 to form the third

factor.

The variance in factor hierarchies is displayed more clearly

in the 1976-1977 comparison. Other than the first factor,

"achievement/work satisfaction 11, which remained invariant for all

three years, all of the other factors in 1976 moved to a different

ranking in 1977. This is also true for 1976-1978 comparison. The

second thru fifth factors in 1976 all had different rankings in

1978.

Null hypothesis 3, attitude intensities will remain stable

over time, was also not generally supported. The overall ANOVA

was significant at a= .01. The LSD post hoc procedure showed that

the 1976-1977 difference was significant, but that the 1976-1978

difference was not. It is important to note that (a) had the

survey only been examined for 1976 and 1978, the change in attitude

intensity between 1976 and 1977 would have gone unnoticed, and

(b' although overall satisfaction is often times determined by

summing or averaging all of the questionnaire items, the method

used in this study, this author advises obtaining a separate

satisfaction score for each of the discriminable elements (factors)

of the job. Factor scores may be used to calculate these values,

but an easier method is to sum or average the scores on the

individual items that make up the factor. Changes in satisfaction

of a particular factor over time, can then be obtained. Personnel

28

practitioners may find it more meaningful to examine changes in

factor satisfaction than overall satisfaction.

One possible reason for the change in factor hierarchies and/or

attitude intensities is that this company hired a new General

Manager-Vice President in August, 1976. Occurring simultaneously

with the change in General Managers was the company•s switchover

from primarily a research and development organization to pre­

dominately a production plant. Either of these changes may have

created an atmosphere of uncertainty throughout the plant while

employees adjusted to the new situations. Both of these changes

occurred after the 1976 survey administration, but prior to the

1977 administration. This may help explain why the factor hierarchy

changed between 1976 and 1977, but remained relatively the same

between 1977 and 1978.

Another possible reason for the changes is that the question­

naire was administered in a different month for all three time

periods: April - 1976, November- 1977, July and December- 1978.

Changes in attitude intensity and/or factor hierarchy may be due

to the differences in the month of administration. This problem

may be eliminated by administering the surveys during the same

month of the year. The fact that the factors themselves remained

regardless of the month of administration further supports the

conclusion of factor invariance. Personnel Practitioners interested

in monitoring employee attitudes should be aware that changes in

factor patterns, factor hierarchy or attitude intensity may occur

29

independently of each other or simultaneously with one another.

Factor pattern invariance does not necessarily mean factor

hierarchy invariance. On the other hand, if the factors themselves

do not remain the same, one cannot accurately discuss hierarchy

invariance. If the factors are not the same it is impossible t­

talk about whether the importance of each factor remained invariant

over time. A comparison of factor hierarchies is a comparison of

the importance ranking of similar factors.

The complete technique used in this study to analyze the

employee attitude surveys has not, to this author•s knowledge,

been used before. Personnel Practitioners may find that the use

of this new technique will enable them to accurately monitor and

interpret employee attitudes.

COHEN STRATEGY

Step 1. Administer the survey on a yearly basis, always during

the same month. Use the same survey.

Step 2. Obtain a measure of sampling adequacy (M. S. A.). If

the M. S. A. is acceptable proceed to Step 3. If the M. S. A. is

not acceptable, meaning that the data is inappropriate for factor

analysis, proceed to Step 10.

Step 3. Factor analyze the data. Perform a separate factor

analysis for each time period. Use the same method and rotation

for each factor analysis.

Step 4. Obtain congruence coefficients.

Step 5. Check for factor invariance: (a) are there high

congruence coefficients?; (b) do the individual items load on the

same factors during each time period? If factor invariance exists

proceed to Step 6. If partial factor invariance exists, meaning

that some of the factors in both time periods were similar and

some were not, proceed to step 6 and investigate only those factors

that were invariant. If complete factor variance exists, meaning

that none of the factors in the two time periods were similar, it

would be inappropriate to investigate factor hierarchy invariance.

Proceed to step 9.

Step 6. Check for factor hierarchy invariance; (a) rank the

factors according to the amount of variance each accounts for. Do

31

this separately for each time period; (b) do the factors from one

time period maintain their ranking in the other time period?;

(c) examine the coefficient of congruence matrices. Does factor 1

of the time period one have its highest congruence coefficient with

factor 1 of time period two? If this is true it means that the two

factors are similar, factor invariance, and that this factor was

ranked the same during both time periods, factor hierarchy invariance.

Do this for each factor.

Step 7. Calculate attitude intensity scores for each factor.

This may be done by summary or averaging the scores for the

individual items that load on the factor.

Step 8. Check for changes in factor attitude intensity. That

is, ascertain whether there are significant differences in attitude

intensity, for each factor, between the various time periods.

Analysis of variance may be used for this investigation.

Step 9. If changes are found in the factors, the factors

hierarchy, and/or the factor attitude intensities, as 'Why•?

Proceed to Step 11.

Step 10. Ascertain why the data is inappropriate for factor

analysis.

Step 11. You have successfully completed the 11 COHEN STRATEGY".

CONCLUSION

The information contained in.the knowledge that the factor

pattern has changed (factor variance) meaning that the questionnaire

is measuring different attitudes, or that the factor hierarchy has

changed (factor hierarchy variance), meaning that the importance

of the attitudes has changed, is just as meaningful as the knowledge

that changes have occurred in the attitude intensities. Personnel

Practitioners also need to monitor employee attitudes on a yearly

basis, especially when there are open (easily perceived by employees)

changes in company policy or management. When changes are found in

the factor pattern, factor hierarchy or attitude intensities,

practitioners must ask why these changes have occurred. It is

important to identify the causes of the changes. When attitude

surveys are properly administered and interpreted, changes in the

pattern, hierarchy or intensity will service as a signal to person­

nel practitioners that changes have occurred in the employee's

overall perception of the job.

A possibility for future research is a quasi-longitudinal

factor analytic study by sub-work units. This will enable the

researcher to detect whether factor pattern, factor hierarchy or

attitude intensity changes over time are the same for sub-groups

of workers, i.e. males-females, minorities-nonminorities.

33

Appendix A: Employee Attitude Survey

34

Table A

Employee Attitude Survey

HOW TO ANSWER: After reading each statement, circle the number that best describes how you feel about the statement.

1'0 +-J

0 ~ .+-JQ)

+J Q)X Q)LLJ S-c::n -+-l ra ra U) ClJ

.,.... s.. a<:.!:)

1. I get recognition when I do good work. 1 2. My work gives me a sense of

achievement. 1

3. My job allows me to improve my skills. 1

4. Promotions have been satisfactory for me. 1

5. Pay increases have been about what I expected. 1

6. My supervisor is fair in his dealings with me. 1

7. I enjoy working with the people here. 1

8. My supervisor knows his job well. 1 9. I feel responsible for my own work. 1

10. Our company has good working conditions. l

11 . I f i n d my work sat i sf y i n g . 1 12. I am proud to work for my company. 1

13. I have a secure future here. 1

14. I plan to make a career of working for this company. 1

15. I get enough information about our company. 1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

.,.... Q)S... zo

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

-+-l s:: Q)

0+-l ..._,X LLl

Q) Q)Q) S-E cno

C::X::V1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

+-J ~

rt'$Q) +-J

ox ......, i..LJ

Q)+-J Q)f'O S..Q) O'lS...

c:((..!J

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

35

Table A (continued)

~ ClJ ......, <lJ +)

oc 04-> S...<lJ -:-' c: ~Q) +.lC: ~Q) c ctSQJ

+J Q) c:x:s.. QJ ~ ClJX ClJ;.J en 0~ o:>< Q)Ll.J <1):>( S-etS +J)( ~ LJJ s... s-w (l)V') w 01~ 0') .s:::. ·r- QJ QJ~

C'C ttl tel C1.l .4-J 0 QJQ) ClJ ctS tJ)ClJ t.J')E •r- s-e S,..Q) .,_ s... ·r- 0 Q)S... 0')0 O')S-0 (..!) 0 Vl =o c:t: U') c:::J:c.!J

16. I look forward to coming to work. 1 2 3 4 5

17. My job makes good use of my skills. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I know where I stand in my job performance. 1 2 3 4 5

19. The company's rules and policies help me do a better job. 1 2 3 4 5

20. Our fringe benefits (insurance, vacations, holidays, etc.) are as good as other companies in our industry. 1 2 3 4 5

36

References

Aleamoni, L. M. Effects of the size of sample on eigenvalues, observed communalities and factor loadings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 266-269.

Ash, P. The SRA employee inventory - A statistical analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1954, I, 337-361.

Baehr, M. E. A factorial study of the SRA employee inventory. Personnel Psychology, 1954, I, 319-336.

Bartlett, M. S. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, Statistical Section, 1950, l, 77-85.

Cascio, W. F. An empirical test of factor structure stability in attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1976, 36, 847-854.

Dzuiban, C. D. & Shirkey, E. C. On the psychometric assessment of correlation matrices. American Educational Research Journal, Spring 1974,. ll (2), 211-216.

Erdos, P. L. Employee surveys. Personnel Journal, April 1974, ~, 294-300.

Gorsuch, R. L. Factor analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1974.

Harmon, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Harrison, R. Cumulative communality cluster analysis of worker's job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45 (2), 123-125.

Herman, J. B., Dunham, R. B. & Hulin, C. L. Organizational structure, demographic characteristics, and employee responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, }l, 206-232.

Herman, J. B. & Hulin, C. L. Studying organizational attitudes from individual and organizational frames of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, ~, 84-108.

Job satisfaction and productivity. Gallup Opinion Index. 1973, 94, 8-9.

37

Kaiser, H. F. Image analysis. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring change. Madison, Wise.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963.

Kaiser, H. F. & Rice, J. Little jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1974, 34, 111-117.

Katzenmeyer, W. G. & Stenner, A. J. Estimation of the invariance of factor structures across sex and race with implications for hypothesis testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, ~' 111-119.

Kohn, M. L. & Schooler, C. Occupational experience and psychological functioning: An assessment of reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 1973, 38, 97-118.

Landy, F. J. & Trumbo, D. A. Psycholoty of work behavior. Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 976.

Lawler, E. E. Pay and organizational effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill, 1971.

Lawler, E. E. & Wanous, J. P. Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56 (2), 95-105.

Locke, E. A. What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 309-336.

Locke, E. A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnett (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976.

Pollane, L. P. & Schnittjer, C. J. Principal-axis factor analysis: A comparison of four selected computer program packages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, l[, 207-211.

Pritchett, P. Employee attitude surveys: A natural starting point for organizational development. Personnel Journal, 1975, 54, April, 202-205.

Quinn, R. P., Mangione, T. W. & Baldi de Mandilovitch, M.S. Evaluating working conditions in America. Monthly Labor Review, 1973, 96, 32-41.

Reynolds, C. H. & Nichols, R. C. Factor scales of the CPI: Do they capture the valid variance? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, 37, 907-915.

38

Roach, D. E. Empirical test of the concept of factor invariance. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1973, 57-58.

Roach, D. E. & Davis, R. R. Stability of the structure of employee attitudes: An empirical test of factor invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58 (2), 181-185.

Royce, J. R. Concepts generated in comparative and physiological psychological observations. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1966.

Rummell, R. J. Applied factor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970.

Shirkey, E. C. & Dzuiban, D. D. A note on some sampling characteristice of the measure of sampling adequacy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1976, 125-128.

Smith, P. C. Behaviors, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976.

Smith, R., Roberts, K. H. & Hulin, C. L. Ten year satisfaction trends in a stable organization. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, ~' 462-469.

Smith, F. J., Scott, K. D. & Hulin, C. L. Trends in Job-related attitudes of managerial and professional employees. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20 (3), 454-460.

Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Work in America. Cambridge, Mass . . : MIT Press, 1973.

Thurstone, L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.

Tucker, R. L. A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. (U. S. Department of the Army Personnel Research Report No. 984). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of the Army, 1951.

Weiss, D. J. Multivariate procedures. In M. D. Ounnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976.

39

Wherry, R. J. An orthogonal re-rotation of the Baehr and Ash studies of the SRA employee inventory. Personnel Psychology, 1954, z, 365-380.