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

Challenging the Multidimensional Conception of Perceived Person-Environment Fit

Are Specific Fit Dimensions Related to Educational Outcomes Beyond a Higher-Order Factor?

Published Online:December 30, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000622

Abstract

Abstract. In the current study, we examined the viability of a multidimensional conception of perceived person-environment (P-E) fit in higher education. We introduce an optimized 12-item measure that distinguishes between four content dimensions of perceived P-E fit: interest-contents (I-C) fit, needs-supplies (N-S) fit, demands-abilities (D-A) fit, and values-culture (V-C) fit. The central aim of our study was to examine whether the relationships between different P-E fit dimensions and educational outcomes can be accounted for by a higher-order factor that captures the shared features of the four fit dimensions. Relying on a large sample of university students in Germany, we found that students distinguish between the proposed fit dimensions. The respective first-order factors shared a substantial proportion of variance and conformed to a higher-order factor model. Using a newly developed factor extension procedure, we found that the relationships between the first-order factors and most outcomes were not fully accounted for by the higher-order factor. Rather, with the exception of V-C fit, all specific P-E fit factors that represent the first-order factors’ unique variance showed reliable and theoretically plausible relationships with different outcomes. These findings support the viability of a multidimensional conceptualization of P-E fit and the validity of our adapted instrument.

References

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Badger Darrow, J., & Behrend, T. S. (2017). Person-environment fit is a formative construct. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 103, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bohndick, C., Rosman, T., Kohlmeyer, S., & Buhl, H. M. (2018). The interplay between subjective abilities and subjective demands and its relationship with academic success. An application of the person–environment fit theory. Higher Education, 75(5), 839–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0173-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0081 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chen, F. F., West, S., & Sousa, K. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chou, C.-P., Bentler, P. M., & Satorra, A. (1991). Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for non‐normal data in covariance structure analysis: A Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44(2), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1991.tb00966.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dawis, R., & Lofquist, L. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment, University of Minnesota Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 802–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Etzel, J. M., & Nagy, G. (2016). Students’ perceptions of person-environment fit: Do fit perceptions predict academic success beyond personality traits? Journal of Career Assessment, 24(2), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715580325 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources. First citation in articleGoogle 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), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmermann, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A Meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Li, Y., Yao, X., Chen, K., & Wang, Y. (2013). Different fit perceptions in an academic environment. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712466713 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.137 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Morin, A. J. S., & Asparouhov, T. (2018). Estimation of a hierarchical Exploratory Structural Equation Model (ESEM) using ESEM-within-CFA. Substantive Methodological Synergy Research Laboratory. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Nagy, G. (2006). Berufliche Interessen, kognitive und fachgebundene Kompetenzen: Ihre Bedeutung für die Studienfachwahl und die Bewährung im Studium [Vocational interests, cognitive and scholastic abilities: Their role in choice of major and success at university]. Freie Universität Berlin. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Nagy, G., Brunner, M., Lüdtke, O., & Greiff, S. (2017). Extension procedures for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(4), 574–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1260524 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Friede, A., Imus, A., & Merritt, S. (2008). Perceived fit with an academic environment: Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Westermann, R., Heise, E., Spies, K., & Trautwein, U. (1996). Identifikation und Erfassung von Komponenten der Studienzufriedenheit [Identifying and assessing components of student satisfaction]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 43, 1–22. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar