Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY
3.5 Instrumentation and Measurements
Based on the research design and research framework, this study uses instrumentation and measurements depicted to examine non-financial factors’ influence upon work engagement relayed to Vietnamese stock brokers’ decision to stay with their organization. Indicators of non-financial independent variables will be measured the BDI (1961), MBI (2001), ISSB-M (1990), SCS (1990), RSLQ (2002) and UWES (2003).
3.5.1 Job Stress
Job stress, indicated by depression and job burnout, will be measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al, 1961) and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Loiter, 2001) respectively.
3.5.1.1 Depression
The first factor considered influential to brokers’ decision to stay with their organization (work engagement) is depression. Depression is measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck, 1961), consisting of twenty-one items about how the subject has been feeling in the last week. Each question includes four answers. The order of each answer to each question is equivalent from zero (0) to three (3). A zero score is required to ensure respondents who are not depressed are excluded from the analysis. A total score of 21 items ranges from 0 to 63. Sample items from the BDI are shown below at Table 3.1; the full scale is viewable in the appendix B of this document.
And, levels of depression are evaluated according to Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.1 Sample Measure Items of Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
Variable Score Measure
Depression (D) 0 D1: “I do not feel sad”
1 D2: “I feel sad”
2 D3: “I am sad all the time and I cannot snap out of it.”
3 D4: “I am so sad and unhappy that I cannot stand it.”
Note: Adapted from Beck (1961) Table 3.2 Total score of levels of depression
Total score Levels of depression
0 - 9 Minimal depression
10 - 18 Mild depression
19 - 29 Moderate depression
30 - 63 Severe depression
Note: Adapted from Beck (1961)
Reliability of Beck Depression Inventory
During the initial construction of the instrument, test-retest reliability coefficients determined a high reliability and internal consistency for BDI. Two studies included a sample of 226 patients (Study I) and a sample of 183 patients (Study II) at the hospital were investigated in 1959 with correlation coefficient is .65 and .67 respectively. In Study I, the score of 21 items was compared the total score for each individual. The alpha reliability of the BDI in Study II was .86 (Beck, 1961).
The alpha reliability of the BDI has also been reported in some others studies which used in many various languages as well as samples of different ages such as Cronbach’s coefficient α = 0.91 (Zauszniewski, 1994), α = 0.86 (Zauszniewski &
Chung, 2001), α = 0.84 (Zauszniewski et al., 2001), α= 0.85 (Chen, 2001), α = 0.92 (Huang et al, 2005).
Validation of the Beck Depression Inventory
Validity of the BDI (1961) has received favorable support. The BDI (1961) were used in many studies such as a study of Chen (2001) was translated from original English version into Chinese (BDI-C), by Zauszniewski (1994), Zauszniewski & Chung
(2001), Zauszniewski et al (2001), and Huang et al (2005). These later studies showed that the original Beck Inventory was still valid in spite of changes in society since 1959.
3.5.1.2 Job Burnout
The second factor hypothesized to impact work engagement is job burnout which is measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS) (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). It included 16 items divided into three subscales:
exhaustion, professional efficacy and cynicism. Each item has seven-point Likert-type scale from never (1) to everyday (7) as in Table 3.3. The full scale is found in the appendix B.
Table 3.3 Sample Measure Items of Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Variable Measure
Job-Burnout (JB) Never (1)/Everyday (7)
JB1: “I feel emotionally drained from my work”.
JB2: “I can effectively solve the problems that arise in my work”.
JB3: “I have become less enthusiastic about my work”.
Note: Adapted from Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter (2001)
Reliability of Maslach Burnout Inventory
The alpha reliability coefficients of the MBI for three subscales varied from .87 to .89 for exhaustion, from .73 to .84 for cynicism, from .76 to .84 for professional efficacy. (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).
Validation of Maslach Burnout Inventory
The relationship of three MBI-GS subscales was examined with 853 respondents at the hospital to see that they make comments about the quality of care there and had a higher score for exhaustion and cynicism, a lower score for professional efficacy, and vice versa. Moreover, respondents comment on harassment/stress at workplace with the higher score of exhaustion and lacking of respect in personal relationships on cynicism (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).
3.5.2 Social Support
The third factor likely to influence work engagement is social support. Social support will be assessed through the Inventory of Social Support Behavior-Modified (ISSB-M) by Krause & Markides (1990). This is a 40-item self-report Likert-type scale to measure social embeddedness (6 items, 4 score scales), negative interaction (7 items, 4 score scales), anticipated support (3 items, 4 score scales), helping behaviors received from others (tangible, information and emotional support, 10 items, 4 score scales) and satisfaction with the support received as well as helping behaviors provided for others and satisfaction with support provided. Table 3.4 shows some sample questions from Krause & Markides, (1990). The full scale is found in the appendix B.
Table 3.4 Sample Measure Items of Social Support Behavior – Modified (ISSB-M) Variable Measure
Social Support (SS) SS1: “How often have you gone out to visit family?”
Answer SS1: More than 6 times a week (1)/Not at all (4)
SS2: “How often has someone provided you with some transportation?”
Answer SS2: Very often (1)/Never (4)
SS3: “How would feel with the help you have received?”
Answer SS3: Completely satisfied (1)/Not at all satisfied (4) SS4: How often have you helped someone with their shopping?
Answer SS4: Very often (1)/Never (4)
Note: Adapted from Krause & Markides (1990)
Reliability of Social Support
The coefficient alphas for informational support, emotional support and tangible support were .82, .67 and .83, respectively (Krause & Markides, 1990).
Validation of Social Support
The predictive validity of the scale is illustrated by showing that the dimensions of social support buffer the stressful effects of bereavement on depressive symptoms (Krause & Markides, 1990).
3.5.3 Learned resourcefulness
Indicators of learned resourcefulness are indicated by control and self-leadership and will be measured via the Self-Control Schedule (SCS) (Rosenbaum, 1990) and the Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire (RSLQ) (Houghton & Neck, 2002) respectively to ascertain how high or low is the coping behavior of the stock brokers.
3.5.3.1 Self-control
The fourth factor that will be explored in its relationship to retention is self-control which was measured through the Self-Control Schedule (SCS) by Rosenbaum (1990). Self-control includes 36 items, each item ranges from not at all (1) to very much (5). Table 3.5 shows some sample questions from Rosenbaum (1990) that found in appendix B.
Table 3.5 Sample Measure Items of Self-control Schedule (SCS) Variable Measure
Self-Control (SC) Not at all (1)/Very much (5)
SC1: “I am good at resisting temptation.”
SC2: “I have a hard time breaking bad habits.”
SC3: “I never allow myself to lose control”
Note: Adapted from Rosenbaum (1990)
Reliability of Self-Control Schedule
The alpha coefficient of the SCS scale ranges from 0.74 to 0.95 (Rosenbaum, 1990).
Validation of Self-Control Schedule
In some related research, Zauszniewski (1995) used a sample of depressed (n = 63) and non-depressed (n = 63) male and female adults to analyze SCS. Another study of Boonpongmanee, Zauszniewski & Boonpongmanee (2002) used a sample of pregnant women in Thailand (n = 180) who either had or did not have the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to analyze SCS.
3.5.3.2 Self-leadership
The fifth factor is self-leadership, theorized as critical for learned resourcefulness and hypothesized to impact work engagement. This variable will be measured by using of the Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire (RSLQ) (Houghton &
Neck, 2002) to investigate if brokers mostly regulate their actions through particular behavior, cognition and thought activities.
The RSLQ consists of 35 items, each item ranges from not at all accurate (1) to completely accurate (5). The RSLQ represents for three dimensions and is divided into nine subscales as below Table 3.6. The first dimension is “behavior-focused self-leadership” with five subscales including “self-goal setting (5 items), self-reward (3 items), self-punishment (4 items), self-observation (4 items), and self-cueing (2 items)”.
The second dimension is “natural reward self-leadership” measured with 5 items. The last dimension is “constructive thought self-leadership” including three subscales:
“visualizing successful performance (5 items), self-talk (3 items), and evaluating beliefs and assumptions (4 items)”. And, when computing the average scores of the dimensions
“behavior-focused, natural reward, and constructive thought self-leadership” can be summed into a generally single measure of self-leadership (Houghton & Neck, 2002).
The full scale is found in the appendix B.
Table 3.6 Sample Measure Items of Self-leadership Variable Measure
Self-leadership (SL) Not at all accurate (1)/Completely accurate (5)
SL1: “I establish specific goals for my own performance.”
SL2: “I pay attention to how well I’m doing in my work.”
SL3: “I find my own favorite ways to get things done.”
Note: Adapted from Houghton & Neck (2002)
Reliability of Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire
The coefficient alpha for “behavior-focused self-leadership”, “natural reward self-leadership”, and “constructive thought self-leadership” was .89, .74 and .85 respectively. The coefficient alpha for “goal, reward, punishment, self-observation and self-cuing” in “behavior-focused self-leadership” dimension was .84, .93, .86, .82 and .91 respectively. The coefficient alpha of “visualizing
successful performance”, “self-talk”, and “evaluating beliefs and assumptions” for
“constructive thought self-leadership” dimension was .85, .92 and .78 respectively (Houghton & Neck, 2002).
Validation of Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire
Two samples of students were collected at a large southeastern university in the USA. Sample I included 442 students and sample II had 357 students (Houghton &
Neck, 2002). The psychometric properties of 559 Chinese employees were examined by Neubert & Wu (2006) and construct validity of the RSLQ of Houghton & Neck (2002) in a Chinese context was considered in order to measure the existence and development of self-leadership practices across cultures.
3.5.4 Work Engagement
The last factor is work engagement. This is the dependent variable, measured by the use of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003).
The UWES includes 17 items and is divided into three subscales: vigor, dedication and absorption. Each item is scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale from never (1) to always (7). Table 3.7 shows questions from Schaufeli & Bakker (2003). The full scale is found in the appendix B.
Table 3.7 Sample Measure Items of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) Variable Measure
Work Engagement (WE) Never (1)/Always (7)
WE1: At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy WE2: I find the work that I do full of meaning & purpose WE3: Times flies when I am working
Note: Adapted from Schaufeli & Bakker (2003)
Reliability of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
The coefficient alpha of UWES in a study sample of 1.832 respondents in Dutch language was .93 with the coefficient alpha for vigor, dedication and absorption is .83, .92 and .80, respectively (Shaufeli & Bakker, 2003).
Validation of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
The UWES has been used widely in many studies with many various languages to assume an undifferentiated engagement factor such as in Portugal (Schaufeli et al., 2002a), South Africa (Storm & Rothmann, 2003), The Neither-land (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004), China (Yi-Wen & Yi-Qun, 2005), Spain (Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005a), Sweden (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), Greece (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Kantas,
& Demerouti, in press), and Finland (Seppala et al., 2008). Another study in the Japanese language was also conducted with 2,334 respondents and the coefficient alpha of this scale is 0.92 and the test-retest reliability with an interval of two months was 0.66 (Schaufeli & Shimazu, 2008).