A Construct Validity Study for the Humility at Work Scale: Item-Content Validity and Convergent-Discriminant Validity
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Humility at Work Construct
3. Humility at Work Scale
- Heightened specificity; a referent to “my job” or “my work” was inserted into every item to remove item content that might be mistaken as a truism, a moral imperative, or a normative expectation.
- Omitted qualifiers; omitted were qualifiers such as “all in all” or “the average person” in favor of item content that focused on self and others at work that might be viewed by possible overclaimers as too self-effacing or, if enacted, perhaps risking criticism from others—and equally might be viewed by possible underclaimers as “just about right”, even perhaps putting at risk a misrepresentation of self if not claimed.
- Framed for yes-no responses; a scaling strategy used to counteract response leniency (i.e., overly favorable responses, especially relevant to overclaiming), as well as errors of central tendency (i.e., noncommittal responses, especially relevant to underclaiming).
4. Scale Validity
4.1. Item-Content Validity
4.2. Convergent-Discriminant Validity
5. Research Questions
6. Method
6.1. Sample and Procedure
Can you volunteer to take this survey? You can if you are employed in the United States and not a full-time student. The survey is anonymous—no names. The survey takes less than 10 min to complete. The survey cannot be mailed. $5 is given for taking the survey. Please ask the researcher for a survey.
6.2. Measures for the Combined Sample
“We are interested in the person you are now—not the person you might strive to be in the future.
Please read each item carefully”.
“If this is the person you are now, check (√) the blank.
If this is not the person you are now, do not check (√) the blank”.
6.3. Measures for Subsamples A and B
“We are interested in how you would describe yourself at work.
For every item, write in one number using the following scale.
Please read each item carefully”.
“I am someone who often compliments others on their strengths”.
“I am someone who actively seeks feedback, even if it is critical”.
“I am someone who likes to tell others about my accomplishments”. (reversed scored)
“I am someone who likes to show off around others”. (reversed scored)
“I am someone who is comfortable with “walking around” in another person’s shoes”.
“I am someone who is really interested in how other people feel”.
“I am someone who thrives on having power over others”.
“I am someone who likes being the center of attention”.
“I am someone who certainly feels useless at times”. (reversed scored)
“I am someone who is able to do things as well as most people”.
“I am someone who is 100% honest with myself”.
“I am someone who is a completely rational person”.
7. Results
7.1. Item-Content Validity
7.2. PCAs for the Combined Sample
7.3. PCAs for Supervisors and Subordinates
7.4. PCAs for Union and Nonunion Employees
7.5. Summary of PCAs
7.6. Subscale Reliabilities
7.7. Convergent-Discriminant Validity
7.8. Coefficients for Subsample A
7.9. Coefficients for Subsample B
7.10. Summary of Convergent and Discriminant Coefficients
7.11. Subscale Post Hoc Descriptive Analyses
8. Overall Summary
8.1. What’s Valid, What’s Not?
8.2. What’s Suggestive, What’s Supportive?
8.3. What’s Applicable?
9. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
1 | For a reference list of sources, see [11]. |
2 | Payment for participation was intended as a form of gratitude (i.e., as a way of saying “thank you”). Against the prospect that payment may have induced nonvoluntary participation, true to the italicized wording on the flyer and on the informed consent form, payment was offered for “taking the survey” rather than for completing the survey. Notably, many participants chose to forgo the payment. |
3 | In reference to the four factors, coefficients in the component correlation matrix (a matrix of coefficients between factors) ranged from 0.007 to 0.155, with an average coefficient of 0.057. |
4 | Correlation tables for Subsamples A and B union employees and nonunion employees are available from the first author via email. The tables are not included in the article due to extremely low Ns for union employees (N = 9 in Subsample A; N = 13 in Subsample B). |
5 | As a demonstration of construct validity, to be noted is that evidence of discriminant validity without evidence of convergent validity or vice versa represents a deficient validity claim (for deficient examples and noted issues, see [40]). |
6 | Another study limitation to be noted is the less than 0.70 alphas for the supportive and appreciative humility subscales, and in particular caution is suggested for the use of these two subscales in prediction model tests. However, as a helpful reminder, alpha increases as a function of number of scale items (i.e., the numerator of the coefficient is calculated as the average inter-item covariance among the items multiplied by the number of items). In this light, it can be suggested that under conditions of first-study identification of component scales with 3 items (the supportive humility subscale) and 2 items (the appreciative humility subscale), alphas in the 0.49 to 0.66 range represent notable covariance. In that we encourage the use of the supportive and appreciative humility subscales in future exploratory model tests, perhaps to be settled is where alphas for these component scales tend to plateau across samples and by type of employment status. |
7 |
References
- Kornhauser, A.; Dubin, R.; Ross, A.M. Industrial Conflict; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, A. Union Solidarity; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1952. [Google Scholar]
- Stagner, R. Psychology of industrial conflict: Perception. Pers. Psychol. 1948, 1, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stagner, R. Psychology of industrial conflict: Motivation. Pers. Psychol. 1950, 3, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stagner, R. The future of union psychology. Int. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 1981, 30, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stagner, R.; Derber, M.; Ellison, C.W. The dimensionality of union-management relations at the local level. J. Appl. Psychol. 1959, 43, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stagner, R.; Rosen, H. Psychology of Union-Management Relations; Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Mellor, S. Understanding the gap between union sentiment and union joining: A moderated mediated psychological model of willingness to join. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, S. Intolerable vices: An inductive-deductive empirical analysis of union intolerance in relation to willingness to join a union. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 2031–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, S. A cognitive dissonance field study of American public-sector fee-paying employees in relation to the Janus Decision. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 42, 24812–24821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, S.; Elliott, R. Nonunion supervisors’ humility at work and union intolerance: An exploratory study centered on one hypothesis. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, S.; Holzer, K. Humiliation at work and union interest: An empirical analysis of community union satisfaction as related to status enhancement. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2018, 30, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, S.; Kath, L.M. Fear of reprisal for disclosing union interest: Assessing the effectiveness of perceived anti-unionism. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2011, 23, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, S.; Elliott, R. No fear or need? Perceived respect from one’s supervisor as a moderator of a mediation model of subordinates’ willingness to join a union. Curr. Psychol. 2024, 43, 32040–32057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruner, J. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Bruner, J.S.; Goodnow, J.J.; Austin, G.A. A Study in Thinking; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1956. [Google Scholar]
- Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life; Anchor: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Hogan, R.; Benson, M.J. Personality theory and positive psychology: Strategic self-awareness. In The Perils of Accentuating the Positive; Kaiser, R., Ed.; Hogan Press: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2009; pp. 119–134. [Google Scholar]
- Kagan, J. Equal time for psychological and biological contributions to human variation. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2003, 17, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mellor, S. Self-evaluation and union interest: The empirical relevance of a mediated model. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009, 82, 369–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tangney, J.P. Humility: Theoretical perspectives, empirical findings and directions for future research. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 19, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tangney, J.P. Humility. In Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology; Lopez, S.J., Snyder, C.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 483–490. [Google Scholar]
- Ou, A.Y.; Waldman, D.A.; Peterson, S.J. Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 1147–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maldonado, T.; Vera, D.; Spangler, W.D. Unpacking humility: Leader humility, leader personality, and why they matter. Bus. Horiz. 2022, 65, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McElroy-Heltzel, S.E.; Davis, D.E.; DeBlaere, C.; Worthington, E.L., Jr.; Hook, J.N. Embarrassment of riches in the measurement of humility: A critical review of 22 measures. J. Posit. Psychol. 2019, 14, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F. The self. In Handbook of Social Psychology; Gilbert, D., Fiske, S.T., Lindzey, G., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 690–740. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.X.; Bond, M.H.; Chan, B.; Tang, D.; Buchtel, E.E. Behavioral manifestations of modesty. J. Cross. Cul. Psychol. 2009, 40, 603–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owens, B.P.; Johnson, M.D.; Mitchell, T.R. Expressed humility in organizations: Implications for performance, teams, and leadership. Organ. Sci. 2013, 24, 1517–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, D.A. Issues in multilevel research: Theory development, measurement, and analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Rogelberg, S., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 247–274. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieu, J.E.; Taylor, S.R. Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 1031–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colbert, A.E.; Judge, T.A.; Choi, D.; Wang, G. Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: The mediating role of contributions to group success. Lead. Quart. 2012, 23, 670–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenzie, J.F.; Wood, M.L.; Kotecki, J.E.; Clark, J.K.; Brey, R.A. Establishing content validity: Using qualitative and quantitative steps. Am. J. Health Behav. 1999, 23, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio, D.M.; Berg-Weger, M.; Tebb, S.S.; Lee, E.S.; Rauch, S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc. Work Res. 2003, 27, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutton, A. Measuring the effects of self-awareness: Construction of the Self-Awareness Outcomes Questionnaire. Eur. J. Psychol. 2016, 12, 645–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haynes, S.N.; Richard, D.R.; Kubany, E.S. Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol. Assess. 1995, 7, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinkin, T.R. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ. Res. Meth. 1998, 1, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronbach, L.J.; Meehl, P.E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 1955, 52, 281–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, J.R. Construct validation in organizational behavior. In Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science; Greenberg, J., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 327–371. [Google Scholar]
- Kenny, D.A. Enhancing validity in psychological research. Am. Psychol. 2019, 74, 1018–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D.T.; Fiske, D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 1959, 56, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenny, D.A.; Kashy, D.A. Analysis of the multitrait-multimethod matrix by confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shadish, W.R.; Cook, T.D.; Campbell, D.T. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Hogan, R. Development of an empathy scale. J. Consul. Clin. Psychol. 1969, 33, 307–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spreng, R.N.; McKinnon, M.C.; Mar, R.A.; Levine, B. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. J. Pers. Assess. 2009, 91, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ames, D.R.; Rose, P.; Anderson, C.P. The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. J. Res. Pers. 2006, 40, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentile, B.; Miller, J.D.; Hoffman, B.J.; Reidy, D.E.; Zeichner, A.; Campbell, W.K. A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory–13 and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory–16. Psychol. Assess. 2013, 25, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Owens, T.J.; King, A.B. Measuring self-esteem: Race, ethnicity, and gender considered. In Extending Self-Esteem Theory and Research: Sociological and Psychological Currents; Owens, T.J., Stryker, S., Goodman, N., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001; pp. 56–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulhus, D.L. Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1197–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mellor, S.; Elliott, R. Nonunion supervisors’ humility at work and union tolerance interact in relation to respect received by union subordinates: A study from the perspective of supervisors. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 2025, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
- Paulhus, D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychology Attitudes; Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991; pp. 17–59. [Google Scholar]
- Edmonson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 1999, 44, 350–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, R.B.; Bator, R.J.; Guadagno, R.E. Normative influences in organizations. In The Management of Knowledge; Thompson, L.L., Levine, J.M., Messick, D.M., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1999; pp. 195–211. [Google Scholar]
- Duhigg, C. What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team. The New York Times Magazine, 25 February 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rozovsky, J. The Five Keys to a Successful Google Team. re:Work. 2015. Available online: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Folder4/Folder10/Folder3/Folder110/Folder2/Folder210/Folder1/Folder310/Google-and-Psychological-Safety.pdf?rev=7786b2b9ade041e78828f839eccc8b75 (accessed on 1 December 2015).
Factor | |
---|---|
Item | 1 |
H7 | 0.649 |
H4 | 0.606 |
H2 | 0.604 |
H6 | 0.520 |
H8 | 0.447 |
H5 | 0.425 |
H10 | 0.415 |
H1 | |
H9 | |
H3 |
Factors | ||
---|---|---|
Item | 1 | 2 |
H7 | 0.866 | |
H4 | 0.807 | |
H2 | 0.798 | |
H6 | 0.690 | |
H8 | 0.631 | |
H10 | 0.569 | |
H1 | 0.550 | |
H5 | 0.532 | |
H9 | 0.335 | |
H3 | 0.311 |
Factors | |||
---|---|---|---|
Item | 1 | 2 | 3 |
H7 | 0.839 | ||
H4 | 0.813 | ||
H2 | 0.798 | ||
H6 | 0.719 | ||
H8 | 0.663 | ||
H10 | 0.569 | ||
H5 | 0.522 | ||
H1 | 0.513 | ||
H3 | 0.877 | ||
H9 | 0.877 |
Factors | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Item | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
H7 | 0.850 | |||
H4 | 0.808 | |||
H2 | 0.813 | |||
H5 | 0.801 | |||
H6 | 0.738 | |||
H10 | 0.663 | |||
H9 | 0.884 | |||
H3 | 0.878 | |||
H1 | 0.840 | |||
H8 | 0.807 |
Subscale | α |
---|---|
Combined Samplea | |
Expressive humility | 0.75 |
Supportive humility | 0.59 |
Effective humility | 0.73 |
Appreciative humility | 0.58 |
Supervisorsb | |
Expressive humility | 0.71 |
Supportive humility | 0.61 |
Effective humility | 0.73 |
Appreciative humility | 0.49 |
Subordinatesc | |
Expressive humility | 0.79 |
Supportive humility | 0.56 |
Effective humility | 0.72 |
Appreciative humility | 0.63 |
Union Employeesd | |
Expressive humility | 0.70 |
Supportive humility | 0.57 |
Effective humility | 0.79 |
Appreciative humility | 0.66 |
Nonunion Employeese | |
Expressive humility | 0.77 |
Supportive humility | 0.59 |
Effective humility | 0.71 |
Appreciative humility | 0.56 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mellor, S.; Elliott, R. A Construct Validity Study for the Humility at Work Scale: Item-Content Validity and Convergent-Discriminant Validity. Merits 2025, 5, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010005
Mellor S, Elliott R. A Construct Validity Study for the Humility at Work Scale: Item-Content Validity and Convergent-Discriminant Validity. Merits. 2025; 5(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010005
Chicago/Turabian StyleMellor, Steven, and Ross Elliott. 2025. "A Construct Validity Study for the Humility at Work Scale: Item-Content Validity and Convergent-Discriminant Validity" Merits 5, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010005
APA StyleMellor, S., & Elliott, R. (2025). A Construct Validity Study for the Humility at Work Scale: Item-Content Validity and Convergent-Discriminant Validity. Merits, 5(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits5010005