Spanish Adaptation of the Scale of Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace

1 Spanish Adaptation of the Scale of Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace Running title: SPANISH ADAPTATION OF SPREITZER’S SCALE Maria-Jesús Albar*, Manuel García-Ramírez, Ana María López Jiménez, and Rocío Garrido Universidad de Sevilla (Spain) * Maria-Jesús Albar (corresponding author) Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología. Universidad de Sevilla. Avda. Dr. Fedriani s/n, 41008 Sevilla (Spain). E-mail: [email protected] Declaration of interest: None. Data available on request from the authors. 2 Abstract The objective of this study is to adapt and translate into Spanish Spreitzer’s Psychological Empowerment Scale (1995a). A process of translation and reverse-translation was applied to the scale’s items, whose psychometric properties were then examined using a sample of 272 professional nurses at public hospitals in the province of Seville. The data were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. The significance of the factor loadings demonstrated the need to create a new model eliminating one item. The 11-item model was shown to possess adequate construct validity and internal consistency. The results confirm the original, fourfactor structure obtained by Spreitzer, with the exception of item 10, and support the utilization of the Spanish version of this scale in the workplace. Future research should more extensively investigate its construct validity, and test the nomological network of the operationalized construct within the field of psychological well-being and in the context of the workplace. Keywords: psychological empowerment scale, psychometric validation, workplace context, nursing. 3 Resumen El objetivo de este estudio es adaptar al español la escala de Empoderamiento Psicológico en el trabajo desarrollada por Spreitzer (1995a). Se llevó a cabo un proceso de traducción y retrotraducción de los ítems que la componen y se exploraron sus propiedades psicométricas en una muestra de 272 profesionales de enfermería de hospitales públicos en la provincia de Sevilla. Los datos se sometieron a un análisis factorial confirmatorio. La significación del peso factorial mostró la necesidad de especificar un nuevo modelo eliminando un ítem. La versión de 11 ítems mostró una adecuada validez de constructo y consistencia interna. Los resultados confirman la estructural factorial original de cuatro factores obtenida por Spreitzer, a excepción del ítem 10, y apoyan la utilización de la versión española de esta escala en contextos laborales. Futuras investigaciones deben profundizar en la validación del constructo y probar la red nomológica de la operacionalización del constructo en el ámbito del bienestar psicológico en el contexto laboral. Palabras clave: escala de empoderamiento psicológico, validación psicométrica, contexto laboral, enfermería. 4 INTRODUCTION The research construct of psychological empowerment (PE) has become increasingly relevant in recent years because of its demonstrated mediating role in the relationship between a workplace’s structural characteristics (i.e. access to resources, access to information, socio-political support and a workplace culture of unity) and positive work outcomes, including innovation, heightened satisfaction, performance and efficiency, and decreased stress levels (Bonias, Bartram, Legatt, & Stanton, 2010; Chang, Shih, & Lin, 2010; Gregory, Albritton, & Osmonbekov, 2010; Randolph & Edward, 2011; Spreitzer, 1997). PE refers to a series of cognitive processes that modify subjects’ perceptions of themselves, and their setting or context (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Menon, 2001; Spreitzer, 1995a; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Spreitzer (1995a) categorizes it into four types of cognition, each reflecting the individual’s orientation toward work (i.e. meaning, competence, selfdetermination and impact). Though numerous instruments have been developed to measure PE (Menon, 2001; Speer & Peterson, 2000; Zimmerman, 1995), Spreitzer’s multidimensional scale (1995a) is the one that has gained the most empirical support (Aryee & Chen, 2006; Ergenely, Sag, Ari, & Metin, 2007; Hochwälder & Bergsten Brucefors, 2005). Nevertheless, there remains no adaptation of this instrument for the Spanish language. Interest in the study of PE in the workplace has grown within organizational psychology research as new challenges have come to necessitate innovative, competitive employees (Bowen & Lawler, 1992). First of all, research in this area has taken a largely relational perspective centered on management practices encouraging participation through such strategies as sharing power or delegating authority between the highest and lowest organizational levels. Conger and Kanungo (1988), and Thomas and Velthouse (1990), 5 suggest this approach does not always reflect how employees feel when they experience empowerment; rather, they believe PE needs to be studied as a psychological experience. The first empirical studies along those lines were conducted by Spreitzer (1996), and Thorlakson and Murria (1996). The influence of context in manifestations of PE (Maton & Salem, 1995; Rappaport 1984) makes it a challenge for researchers to measure it, given the need for an operational definition to address different populations and contexts. Spreitzer (1995b) has made an effort on that front, developing a scale based on a model stemming from the work of Conger and Kanungo (1988), and Thomas and Velthouse (1990). To Conger and Kanungo, PE is a “process enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal” (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p.484). Thomas and Velthouse built on that idea, developing a cognitive model in which they understood PE as an intrinsic motivation that manifests itself through four types of cognition, each reflecting an orientation toward work, specifically, meaningfulness, competence, choice and impact. To operationally define each dimension, Spreitzer (1995a) reviewed the available literature on this subject from the perspectives of psychology, sociology, social work and education, and found support for all four, simply changing the dimension labeled choice for selfdetermination. Meaning is understood as the value of the goal or purpose behind an individual’s work, in terms of his or her ideals or standards (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This implies that the requirements of one’s occupational role fit with his or her values, beliefs and behaviors (Brief & Nord, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995a, 1996). Competence, or particular self-efficacy for one’s work, is defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to perform work or tasks well (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). This dimension is rooted in Bandura’s 6 (1987) social cognitive theory about perceived self-efficacy. Self-determination is defined as a person’s belief in his or her autonomy in the decision-making process, and control over executing their work (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It reflects a sense of choice about initiating and regulating one’s actions. Finally, impact is one’s perception of their strategic or administrative influence in the workplace, or of the results of their work (Ashforth, 1989). It involves an individual employee’s sense of control over organizational outcomes, and the belief that one can “make a difference” in the workplace. In order to measure the dimensions of PE, Spreitzer (1995a) created a multidimensional instrument, each dimension corresponding to a separate scale. She chose scales according to the following criteria: they would be (1) one-dimensional, (2) adaptable to a common format to facilitate their administration (e.g. a 7-point Likert-type scale) and (3) focused on the individual’s experience of the dimension, more than their description of the workplace environment, which may result from said experience. In this way, she developed a 12-item instrument in which each of four dimensions is measured by three items. To test the convergent and discriminant validity of PE’s four components, Spreitzer (1995b) completed a secondorder factor analysis using two samples, one sample of managers and one of insurance company employees. Their results supported a factor structure of the construct made up of four dimensions. In recent years, the study of PE has become increasingly relevant to professions such as nursing because it is associated with a higher quality of care (Bonias et al., 2010), patient safety (Halbesleben, Wakefield, Wakefield, & Cooper, 2008) and burnout prevention (Laschinger & Leiter, 2006), among other things. Furthermore, studies conducted to validate the scale have confirmed the factor structure Spreitzer obtained (Hochwälder & Bergsten Brucefors, 2005; Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden, 1999). 7 In Spain, in response to the diverse challenges presently facing the National Health System (sustainability, preventing health inequalities, tending to dependencies, the politics of patient safety, etc.), health services need to meet certain organizational characteristics that give rise to empowerment among professional nurses. Thus, it stands to reason that we need an instrument to measure professional nurses’ experience of PE. Given that in Spain, there are no instruments to measure PE in the workplace, and in light of the need to explore and analyze this experience within the context of the health challenges involving professional nurses, the present study’s objective is to adapt a Spanish version of Spreitzer’s scale, and to validate its psychometric properties in a sample of professional nurses. METHODS Participants The sample of participants was selected from a population of 1,500 certified nurses, working in three different hospitals in the capital, Seville, deemed by Andalucía Health Services (AHS) to offer specialized care: Virgen Macarena Hospital, Virgen del Rocío Hospital, and Nuestra Señora de Valme Hospital. After obtaining a sample of care units with relatively homogeneous workplace characteristics across the three hospitals, four strata were selected at each hospital: medical-surgical, critical care, pediatric and urgent care units. Next, using employee lists provided by each hospital’s directors of nursing, 510 participants were chosen by means of a systematic random sampling technique. The following inclusion criteria were employed: a) having worked at the hospital for at least a year, b) voluntarily consenting to participate in the study, 8 c) being actively employed at the time of data collection and d) having a set contract or long-term interim standing. If a selected subject did not meet these requirements, he or she was substituted by the next one on the list. 372 employees consented to participate, giving us a response rate of 72.94%. Nevertheless, 100 questionnaires were excluded during the process of data purification for their low quality. Of the remaining 272 participants, 37.9% were from Virgen Macarena Hospital, 38.2% from Virgen del Rocío and 23.9% from Nuestra Señora de Valme. As for the sample’s sociodemographic characteristics, 76.8% were women, with an average age of 40.40 years-old (SD= 7.58) ranging from 23 to 62 years-old. Participants’ number of years holding this job was found to range from 2 to 36 years, with a mean of 16.65 years (SD = 7.08). 50% of the sample carried out their work in medical/surgical units, 18% in critical care, 19.5% in urgent care and 12.5% in pediatrics. Instruments Sociodemographic Data Registry: Information was collected about the variables age, sex, time on the job, and care unit. Spreitzer’s Psychological Empowerment Scale (1995a, 1997). The Spanish version of said scale was utilized; it was created according to the steps recommended in the body of literature on adapting scales (Muñiz & Hambleton, 2000). To ensure the items’ conceptual equivalency, in the first phase, a direct translation of the original items in English was performed, followed by a reverse-translation. This process was performed by two qualified translators who were informed of the scale’s objective and response format. Two expert psychologists were also asked to review the scale; they participated in creating the final instrument. The translated scale is presented in Appendix 1. 9 The resulting, adapted form of the instrument consisted of 12 items distributed into the subscales defined above: Meaning (items 1, 2 and 3), Competence (items 4, 5 and 6) , Self-determination (items 7, 8 and 9) and Impact (items 10, 11 and 12). The response format was conserved as well, a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Procedure Once comprehension of the items was confirmed, the instrument went on to be administered to the participants selected. They were informed of the study’s objectives and the confidentiality of their data, and they were asked to verbally consent to participate. In order to guarantee anonymity, each was given an envelope in which the finished instrument could be kept; they were asked to deposit the envelope in a box placed ad hoc. However, to resolve any possible doubts about completing the instrument, the researcher and participants agreed the researcher would pass by their unit in two or three days time after the scales were turned in. Data analysis The statistical package SPSS 13.0 and the program EQS (version 6.0) were employed in carrying out data analysis. The scale’s psychometric properties were explored through: a) a statistical description of the scale’s items that included calculated means, medians, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis; b) means, standard deviations and correlation matrices were computed for each of the four dimensions; c) to test the four-dimensional structure of the original scale, confirmatory factor analysis was performed. The maximum likelihood method of estimation was utilized, which assumes multivariate normal distribution, and is robust when that assumption is not met (Shermelleh et al., 2003), which occurred in our data. That being said, despite maximum likelihood estimation’s robustness, the Satorra- 16 Hochwälder, J., & Bergsten Brucefors, A. (2005). A psychometric assessment of a Swedish translation of Spreitzer´s empowerment scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 521–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00484.x Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 127–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164499591009 Laschinger, H. K. S., & Leiter, M. (2006). The impact of nursing work environments on patient safety outcomes: the mediating role of burnout/engagement. Journal of "ursing Administration, 36, 259–267. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higherorder factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.97.3.562 Maton, K. L., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 631–656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506985 Matthews, R. A., Diaz, W. M., & Cole, S. G. (2003). The Organizational Empowerment Scale. Personnel Review, 32, 297–318. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480310467624 Menon, S.T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 153–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00052 17 Muñiz, J., & Hambleton, R. K. (2000). Adaptación de los test de unas culturas a otras [Adapting tests from one culture to the next]. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2, 129–149. Randolph, W., & Edward, R. (2011). Managerial use of power bases in a model of managerial empowerment practices and employee psychological empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 95–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379798 Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies of empowerment: Introduction to the issue. Prevention in Human Services, 3, 1–7. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research - Online, 8, 23–74. Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (2000). Psychometric properties of an empowerment scale: Testing cognitive, emotional and behavioural domains. Social Work Research, 24, 109–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/swr/24.2.109 Spreitzer, G. M. (1995a). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. http://dx.doi.org/10. 2307/256865 Spreitzer, G. M. (1995b). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 601–629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506984 18 Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256789 Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, 31–62. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1990.4310926 Thorlakson, A. J. H., & Murray, R. P. (1996). An empirical study of empowerment in the workplace. Group and Organization Management, 21, 67–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601196211004 Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustration. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983 19 TABLES Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Items (N = 272) 20 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations among Psychological Empowerment’s Factors Mean SD 1 2 3 4 1. Meaning 6.18 1.025 1 .452** .291** .435** 2. Competence 6.26 .832 1 .452** .414** 3. Self-determination 5.18 1.230 1 .369** 4. Impact 5.01 1.156 1 ** p < .01 21 Figure 1. Structural Model of the Psychological Empowerment Scale 22 APPEDDIX Spreitzer’s Psychological Empowerment Scale (Spanish version) A continuación se presentan unos enunciados relacionados con su experiencia psicológica en el puesto de trabajo. Redondee la opción que considere más oportuna en su caso, en una escala del 1 al 7, correspondiendo el 1 = Totalmente en desacuerdo y 7 = Totalmente de acuerdo . Enunciado Puntuación Significado 1. El trabajo que yo hago es muy importante para mí 2. Mis actividades laborales son personalmente valiosas 3. El trabajo que realizo es significativo para mí Competencia 4. Confío en mi aptitud para hacer mi trabajo 5. Confío en mi capacidad para desarrollar las tareas que se requieren en mi trabajo 6. He adquirido dominio en las habilidades necesarias para desarrollar mi trabajo Autodeterminación 7. Tengo autonomía para determinar cómo hacer mi trabajo 8. Yo puedo decidir por mi mismo cómo organizar mi trabajo 9. Tengo suficiente libertad e independencia para decidir cómo hacer mi trabajo Impacto 10. Mi trabajo es importante para el funcionamiento de mi unidad 11. Tengo suficiente control sobre lo que ocurre en mi unidad 12. Tengo suficiente influencia en lo que ocurre en mi unidad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23