Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Following the Ants

Development of Short Scales for Proactive Personality and Supervisor Support by Ant Colony Optimization

Published Online:November 30, 2015https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000299

Abstract

Abstract. Employees’ innovative work is a facet of proactive work behavior that is of increasing interest to industrial and organizational psychologists. As proactive personality and supervisor support are key predictors of innovative work behavior, reliable, and valid employee ratings of these two constructs are crucial for organizations’ planning of personnel development measures. However, the time for assessments is often limited. The present study therefore aimed at constructing reliable short scales of two measures of proactive personality and supervisor support. For this purpose, we compared an innovative approach of item selection, namely Ant Colony Optimization (ACO; Leite, Huang, & Marcoulides, 2008) and classical item selection procedures. For proactive personality, the two item selection approaches provided similar results. Both five-item short forms showed a satisfactory reliability and a small, however negligible loss of criterion validity. For a two-dimensional supervisor support scale, ACO found a reliable and valid short form. Psychometric properties of the short version were in accordance with those of the parent form. A manual supervisor support short form revealed a rather poor model fit and a serious loss of validity. We discuss benefits and shortcomings of ACO compared to classical item selection approaches and recommendations for the application of ACO.

References

  • Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E. & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285. doi: 10.1348/096317900167029/abstract First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bateman, T. S. & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. doi: 10.1002/job.4030140202/abstract First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bindl, U. K. & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. ZedeckEd., APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bradburn, N. M. (1978). Respondent Burden. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods, DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 7, 35–40. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Carr, T., Moss, T. & Harris, D. (2005). The DAS24: A short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 285–298. doi: 10.1348/135910705X27613 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Choi, J. N. & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 245–253. doi: 10.1037/a0012994 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Colorni, A., Dorigo, M. & Maniezzo, V. (1991). Distributed optimization by ant colonies. In F. VarelaP. BourgineEds., Proceedings of ECAL91–European Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 134–142). Paris, France: Elsevier Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.532 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600304 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P. & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146–162. doi: 10.1177/089443930101900202 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deneubourg, J. L. & Goss, S. (1989). Collective patterns and decision-making. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 1, 295–311. doi: 10.1080/08927014.1989.9525500 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deneubourg, J. L., Pasteels, J. M. & Verhaeghe, J. C. (1983). Probabilistic behaviour in ants: A strategy of errors? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 105, 259–271. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5193(83)80007-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fan, X., Thompson, B. & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 56–83. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540119 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Galesic, M. (2006). Dropouts on the Web: Effects of interest and burden experienced during an online survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 22, 313–328. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Galesic, M. & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 349–360. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp031 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hu, L. & 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, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302. doi: 10.1348/096317900167038 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039–1050. doi: 10.2307/3069447 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kidd, J. M. & Smewing, C. (2001). The role of the supervisor in career and organizational commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 25–40. doi: 10.1080/13594320042000016 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–102. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H. M. & Sijtsam, K. (2013). On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of Testing, 13, 223–248. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2012.703734 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leite, W. L., Huang, I.-C. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). Item selection for the development of short forms of scales using an Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 411–431. doi: 10.1080/00273170802285743 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • MacDonald, P. & Paunonen, S. V. (2002). A Monte Carlo comparison of item and person statistics based on item response theory versus classical test theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 921–943. doi: 10.1177/0013164402238082 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maloney, P., Grawitch, M. J. & Barber, L. K. (2011). Strategic item selection to reduce survey length: Reduction in validity? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 162–175. doi: 10.1037/a0025604 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ng, T. W., Feldman, D. C. & Lam, S. S. (2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 744–751. doi: 10.1037/a0018804 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–279. doi: 10.1002/job.376 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Parker, S. K. & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662. doi: 10.1177/0149206308321554 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M. & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rammstedt, B. & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 212–220. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000141 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Rogers, M. E., Creed, P. A., Searle, J. & Hartung, P. J. (2010). The physician values in practice scale-short form: Development and initial validation. Journal of Career Development, 38, 111–127. doi: 10.1177/0894845310363593 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rolstad, S., Adler, J. & Rydén, A. (2011). Response burden and questionnaire length: Is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health, 14, 1101–1108. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 364–386. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634443 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M. & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M. & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K. & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stocking, M. & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item selection in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 277–292. doi: 10.1177/014662169301700308 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Watkins, J. (1964). Laboratory experiments on the trail following of army ants of the genus Neivamyrmex (Formicidae: Dorylinae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 37, 22–28. doi: 25083355 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E. & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555. doi: 10.2307/256941 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., O’Neil, J. M. & Danforth, L. (2012). Development and evaluation of the Gender Role Conflict Scale Short Form (GRCS-SF). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 199–210. doi: 10.1037/a0025550 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Yuan, F. & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. (2014). Comments on Item Selection Procedures. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 1–2. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000196 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J. & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales – Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 185–189. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000148 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar