Advertisement

Measuring Personal Growth and Development in Context: Evidence of Validity in Educational and Work Settings

  • Brittney K. AndersonEmail author
  • John P. Meyer
  • Chelsea Vaters
  • Jose A. Espinoza
Research Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Consistent with the trend toward viewing psychological well-being as more than the absence of illness, we developed an instrument—the personal growth and development scale (PGDS)—that can be used to assess positive change in well-being attributable to context-specific experiences. As part of the validation process, we examined relations between the PGDS and measures of need satisfaction and autonomous motivation in students (N = 241) and employees (N = 468). In the student sample, we also examined relations with engagement and burnout. The findings supported our hypothesis that need satisfaction, autonomous motivation and engagement would relate positively with the PGDS, and that burnout would relate negatively. In a second student sample (N = 377), we collected longitudinal data to investigate how global psychological well-being relates to personal growth and development over the course of an academic term. We found that initial levels of global well-being predicted positive changes in growth and development and replicated earlier findings regarding relations between the PGDS, need satisfaction and autonomous motivation. Future applications of the PGDS for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Personal growth and development Psychological well-being Eudaimonic well-being Self-determination theory Job-demands resources theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by research grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2014-0956) awarded to J. P. Meyer. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

10902_2019_176_MOESM1_ESM.docx (34 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 33 kb)

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  3. Benedetti, A. A., Diefendorff, J. M., Gabriel, A. S., & Chandler, M. M. (2015). The effects of intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation on well-being depend on time of day: The moderating effect of workday accumulation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 38–46.Google Scholar
  4. Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2010). The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and performance: Taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational constraints into account. Human Relations, 62(2), 163–191.Google Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.Google Scholar
  7. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validation in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.Google Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.Google Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). The importance of universal psychological needs for understanding motivation in the workplace. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.Google Scholar
  13. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.Google Scholar
  14. Deng, N., Guyer, R., & Ware, J. E. (2015). Energy, fatigue, or both? A bifactor modeling approach to the conceptualization and measurement of vitality. Quality of Life Research, 24, 81–93.Google Scholar
  15. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.Google Scholar
  16. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156.Google Scholar
  17. Espinoza, J. A., Meyer, J. P., Anderson, B. K., Vaters, C., & Politis, C. (2018). Evidence for a bifactor structure of the scales of psychological well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Well-being Assessment, 2(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
  18. Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behaviour engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.Google Scholar
  19. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 331–362.Google Scholar
  20. Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., et al. (2015). The multidimensional work motivation scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145.Google Scholar
  22. Gignac, G. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68.Google Scholar
  23. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.Google Scholar
  24. Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a continuum structure of self-determined motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1346–1377.Google Scholar
  25. Howard, J., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S., & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation profiles at work: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 95–96, 74–89.Google Scholar
  26. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
  27. 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(5), 1332–1356.Google Scholar
  28. Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789–1805.Google Scholar
  29. Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the basic needs satisfaction in general scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 280–296.Google Scholar
  30. Kafka, G. J., & Kozma, A. (2002). The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological wellbeing (SPWB) and their relationship to measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 171–190.Google Scholar
  31. Kam, C. C. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2015). How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality: The case of job satisfaction. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 512–541.Google Scholar
  32. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.Google Scholar
  33. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for roderick P McDonald. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand Company.Google Scholar
  35. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical review, theoretical framework, and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 323–337.Google Scholar
  37. Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T.-Y., & Liu, Z.-Q. (2012). A profile approach to self-determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(3), 354–363.Google Scholar
  38. Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A., & Marsh, H. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116–139.Google Scholar
  39. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  40. Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Amiot, C. E. (2010). Self-determination as a moderator of demands and control: Implications for employee strain and engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 53–67.Google Scholar
  41. Peterson, U., Demerouti, E., Bergström, G., Samuelsson, M., Åsberg, M., & Nygren, Å. (2008). Burnout and physical and mental health among Swedish healthcare workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 84–95.Google Scholar
  42. Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 33, 250–275.Google Scholar
  43. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ruini, C., Belaise, C., Brombin, C., Caffo, E., & Fava, G. A. (2006). Well-being therapy in school settings: A pilot study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 75(6), 331–336.Google Scholar
  45. Ryan, R. M., Curren, R. R., & Deci, E. L. (2013). What humans need: Flourishing in Aristotelian philosophy and self-determination theory. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 57–75). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  46. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.Google Scholar
  47. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.Google Scholar
  48. Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.Google Scholar
  49. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081.Google Scholar
  50. Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83(1), 10–28.Google Scholar
  51. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.Google Scholar
  52. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2006). Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Social Science Research, 35(4), 1103–1119.Google Scholar
  53. Schat, A. C. H., Kelloway, E. K., & Desmarais, S. (2005). The physical health questionnaire (PHQ): Construct validation of a self-report scale of somatic symptoms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 363–381.Google Scholar
  54. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25(3), 293–315.Google Scholar
  55. Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.Google Scholar
  56. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.Google Scholar
  57. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 43–68). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Schleicher, H., Alonso, C., Shirtcliff, E. A., Muller, D., Loevinger, B. L., & Coe, C. L. (2005). In the face of pain: The relationship between psychological well-being and disability in women with fibromyalgia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 74(4), 231–239.Google Scholar
  59. Schmitt, N., & Ali, A. A. (2015). The practical importance of measurement invariance. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 337–346). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.Google Scholar
  61. Shapiro, A., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2008). Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always better off? Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 329–346.Google Scholar
  62. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41.Google Scholar
  63. Springer, K. W., & Hauser, R. M. (2006). An assessment of the construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being: Method, mode, and measurement effects. Social Science Research, 35(4), 1080–1102.Google Scholar
  64. Tóth-Király, I., Morin, A. J. S., Bőthe, B., Orosz, G., & Rigó, A. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of need fulfillment: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling representation. Structural Equation Modeling, 25(2), 267–286.Google Scholar
  65. van Dierendonck, D. (2004). The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being and its extension with spiritual well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 629–643.Google Scholar
  66. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69.Google Scholar
  67. Vandenberg, R. J., & Morelli, N. A. (2016). A contemporary update on testing for measurement equivalence and invariance. In J. P. Meyer (Ed.), Handbook of employee commitment (pp. 28–42). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  68. Zinbarg, R. E., Barlow, D. H., & Brown, T. A. (1997). Hierarchical structure and general factor saturation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index: Evidence and implications. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 277–284.Google Scholar
  69. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  70. Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Miltidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  71. Waterman, A. S. (2013). The humanistic psychology–positive psychology divide: Contrasts in philosophical foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124–133.Google Scholar
  72. Waterman, A. S., & Schwartz, S. J. (2013). Eudaimonic identity theory. In A. S. Waterman (Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 99–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  73. Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D., Williams, M. K., Agocha, V. B., Kim, S. Y., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). The questionnaire for eudamonic well-being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(1), 41–61.Google Scholar
  74. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Carey, G. (1988). Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and depressive disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 346–353.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brittney K. Anderson
    • 1
    Email author
  • John P. Meyer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chelsea Vaters
    • 1
  • Jose A. Espinoza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Curtin Business SchoolCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations