Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Testing the measurement invariance of the work motivation scale for training and adult education in a nationwide study of Singapore

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Work motivation has profound benefits ranging from increased development to performance for employees and companies. The present nationwide survey adopted the Multidimensional Work Motivation Questionnaire (Gagné et al., 2015) and developed a Work Motivation Scale to accurately measure the construct amongst three groups of respondents working in the Training and Adult Education Sector in Singapore. Using the Rasch-Andrich rating scale model and structural equation modeling (SEM), we investigated the psychometric features of the dimensions of the instrument and its measurement invariance, respectively. We found evidence supporting the fit of the dimensions to the Rasch model and also a good level of partial structural invariance for the majority of the parameters in the SEM model. The present study extends existing self-determination theory literature by measuring work motivation in the multicultural context of Singapore and emphasises the importance of invariance measurement. The findings lend support for the continued use of the Work Motivation Scale to measure the antecedents and outcomes of work motivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang, I., & Stratton, J. (2018). The Singapore way of multiculturalism: Western concepts/​Asian cultures. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 10(1), 65–89 From http://www.jstor.org/stable/41056903. Accessed 25 November 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos (version 23.0) [computer program]. Chicago: IBM SPSS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: The limited benefits of self-worth strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 482–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach to representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–297). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, M. R., Brie’re, N. M., Lachance, L., & Vallerand, R. J. (1993). L’E´ chelle de Motivation au Travail de Blais. [Blais’ Work Motivation Scale]. Revue Que’becoise de Psychologie, 14, 185–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D. (2006). When does measurement invariance matter? Medical Care, 44, S176–S181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. O. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016.

  • Chang, W. C., Wong, W. K., Teo, G., & Fam, A. (1997). The motivation to achieve in Singapore: In search of a core construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(5), 885–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., Ramos, C., Puah, L. D., & Cheng, S. C. (2020). Training and adult education landscape in Singapore: Characteristics, challenges and policies. Singapore: Institute for Adult Learning https://www.ial.edu.sg/content/dam/projects/tms/ial/Research-publications/Reports/TAE%20Landscape%20Report_Final.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard, G., Jr. (2012). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.

  • Fouad, N. A., & Byars-Winston, A. M. (2005). Cultural context of career choice: Meta-analysis of race/ethnicity differences. The Career Development Quarterly, 53(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00992.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., et al. (2015). The multidimensional work motivation scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, J., & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent Education, 3. www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2020.

  • Hau, K.-T., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327–351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. P. (2006). Methods and frameworks for cross-cultural measurement. Medical Care, 44(3), S17–S20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, S. L., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Wright, T. A. (2019). Toward a work motivation conceptualization of grit in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 44(2), 320–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119834093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R., & Fletcher, K. A. (2019). Work motivation and employment goals in later adulthood. In S. J. Czaja, J. Sharit, & J. B. James (Eds.), Current and emerging trends in aging and work (pp. 219–241). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24135-3_11.

  • Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 338–355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E. S., & Yoon, M. (2011). Testing measurement invariance: A comparison of multiple-group categorical CFA and IRT. Structural Equation Modeling, 18(2), 212–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liem, A. D., & Nie, Y. (2008). Values, achievement goals, and individual-oriented and social-oriented achievement motivations among Chinese and Indonesian secondary school students. International Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 898–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701838097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J. M. (2018). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Dichotomous infit and outfit mean-square fit statistics Rasch. Measurement Transactions, 8(2), 360 https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt82a.htm. Accessed 23 December 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., & Slegers, D. W. (2005). Factor analysis: Multiple groups. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 617–623). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H., Ludtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A., & Von Davier, M. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right-camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 3, 257–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsunaga, M. (2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2, 260–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellenbergh, G. J. (1989). Item bias and item response theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), The American Council on Education/Macmillan series on higher education. Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc; American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasser-Abu, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 204–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paik, Y., Vance, C. M., & Stage, H. D. (2000). A test of assumed cluster homogeneity for performance appraisal management in four Southeast Asian countries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4), 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Briére, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.17.1.35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, B. (2000). To parcel or not to parcel: The effects of item parceling in confirmatory factor analysis (Unpublished dissertation). The University of Rhode Island, Providence, RI.

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. The Free Press. New York: Collier MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saleem, R., Mahmood, A., Mahmood, A., & Mahmood, A. (2010). Effect of work motivation on job satisfaction in mobile telecommunication service organizations of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(11), 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. Academic Press. http://www.sciencedirect.com.fama.us.es/science/book/9780126190700. Accessed 20 March 2020.

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • SkillsFuture. (2017). Skills frameworks. https://www.skillsfuture.sg/skills-framework. Accessed 16 September 2019.

  • SkillsFuture. (2018). Skills framework for training and adult education. Available from https://www.skillsfuture.sg/-/media/SkillsFuture/Initiatives/Files/SF-for-Training-and-Adult-Education/Booklet/SFw_TAE_Booklet_20181101_Finalv01.pdf?la=en. Accessed 16 September 2019.

  • Smith, D., Woodman, R., Harvey, P., & Battersby, M. (2016). Self-perceived distress and impairment in problem gamblers: A study of pre-to post-treatment measurement invariance. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32(4), 1065–1078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steers, R. M., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to special topic forum: The future of work motivation theory. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterba, S. K., & Rights, J. D. (2016). Accounting for parcel-allocation variability in practice: Combining sources of uncertainty and choosing the number of allocations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2–3), 296–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. N. (2019). Conceptualization of faculty work motivation: Overcoming the impasse. Doctor of philosophy (PhD), dissertation, psychology. Old Dominion University. https://doi.org/10.25777/rf1d-pe34.

  • Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 41(4), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2008). Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, E. W. (2013). A bootstrap approach to evaluating person and item fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 14, 1–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M., & Adams, R. J. (2013). Properties of Rasch residual fit statistics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 14, 339–355.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C., Nay, S., & Hoyle, R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 122–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., & Aryadoust, A. (2019). Examining test fairness across gender in a computerised reading test: A comparison between the Rasch-based DIF technique and MIMIC. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 8(2), 65–90 https://arts.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/3241619/8_2_S3_Zhu-and-Aryadoust.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the funding agency and all the participates in the survey. Thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. We are also grateful to the useful inputs to the draft manuscript by Bryan Ang Sheng Jie and Ng Qi Jia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Adult Learning, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore, Singapore

    Zan Chen

  2. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Vahid Aryadoust

Authors
  1. Zan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vahid Aryadoust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zan Chen.

Ethics declarations

This study was funded by SkillsFuture Singapore Agency (IR044). Author 1 declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author 2 declares that he has no conflict of interest. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Work Motivation Scale

Work Motivation Scale

Read the following statements and indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following items corresponds to the reasons why you put in effort into your current work related to training and adult education.

  

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree

Strongly agree

I put in little effort, because…

1

I really feel that I’m wasting my time at work

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

I don’t think this job/work is worth putting effort into

1

2

3

4

5

6

3

I don’t know why I’m doing this job/work

1

2

3

4

5

6

I put in effort into my current work,…

4

To get others’ appreciation (e.g. supervisor, colleagues, family, clients …)

1

2

3

4

5

6

5

Because others will respect me more (e.g. supervisor, colleagues, family, clients …)

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

To avoid being criticized by others (e.g. supervisor, colleagues, family, clients …)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Because others will reward me financially only if I put enough effort in my job/work

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

So that I have greater job/work security

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

Because I risk losing my job/work if I don’t put enough effort in it

1

2

3

4

5

6

10

Because I personally consider it important to put effort into this job/work

1

2

3

4

5

6

11

Because putting effort into this job/work aligns with my personal values

1

2

3

4

5

6

12

Because putting effort into this job/work has personal significance to me

1

2

3

4

5

6

13

Because I enjoy doing my job/work

1

2

3

4

5

6

14

Because what I do in my job/work is exciting

1

2

3

4

5

6

15

Because the job/work I do is interesting

1

2

3

4

5

6

  1. Amotivation (items 1, 2, 3); Extrinsic regulation (social – items 4, 5, 6; material – items 7, 8, 9); Identified regulation (items 10, 11, 12); and Intrinsic motivation (items 13, 14, 15)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Z., Aryadoust, V. Testing the measurement invariance of the work motivation scale for training and adult education in a nationwide study of Singapore. Curr Psychol 42, 3122–3133 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01579-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01579-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation