Journal of Vocational Behavior 17, 33-40 (1980)

Second-Order Dimensions of the Work Values Inventory (WVI)

BRIAN BOLTON

Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville

An item factor analysis of the 45 items of the Work Values Inventory (WVI) for 445 physically disabled clients produced six second-order dimensions: Stimulating Work, Interpersonal Satisfaction, Economic Security, Responsible Autonomy, Comfortable Existence, and Esthetic Concerns. These second-order factors pro- vide a summary of clients’ work motivation at a higher level of generality that is consistent with the WVI primary structure. The six factors are virtually indepen- dent of age, education, and intelligence and can be hand-scored by a simple procedure.

The Work Values Inventory (WVI) was designed to assess the range of values that influence the motivation to work (Super, 1972). Research beginning in 1951 resulted in several preliminary instruments that pre- ceded the current edition (Super, 1968) which measures 15 work-relevant value dimensions using three items for each scale. Various lines of evi- dence indicate that the 15 scales do, in fact, represent discriminable value dimensions. For example, Gable and Pruzek (1971) reported a confirma- tory analysis of the 45 WV1 items and concluded that they had been legitimately grouped into the 15 scales.

However, factor analytic studies of other instruments, such as the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (Lofquist & Dawis, 1978) and The Survey of Work Values (Wollack, Goodale, Wijting, & Smith, 1971), and the primary scales from three inventories (C&es, l%l), suggest that six second-order constructs should provide a more parsimonious framework for organizing work values into broader categories. And while several factorial studies of the 15 WV1 scales have been reported, e.g., Hendrix and Super (1968), there have been no attempts to reduce the 45 items directly to second-order constructs. (Gable & Pruzek (1971) did factor analyze the 45 items in their second analysis, but they selected a 13-factor

This investigation was supported by RSA Grant 16-P-56812, RT-13 to the Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, University of Arkansas-Fayetteville.

33

OOOl-8791/80/040033-08$02.00/0 Copyright Q I!380 by Academic Press, Inc.

All rights of rrproducticm in any form reserved.

34 BRIAN BOLTON

rotated solution that included one large general factor and nine scale- specific factors. Interestingly, they rejected a six-factor rotated solution because it did not provide “the most interpretable description of the image factor space” (p. 45).) Hence, the purposes of the current investiga- tion were to organize the WV1 items into a smaller number of broad categories consistent with the WV1 primary scale structure, and to de- velop a simple scoring procedure for these second-order dimensions.

METHOD

Sample

In conjunction with their evaluations for vocational rehabilitation ser- vices, 445 physically disabled clients completed the WVI. One-half (51%) were males, three-quarters (76%) were white, and one-half (50%) were high school graduates. The clients ranged in age from 15 to 61 with a median of 29 years. WAIS IQs were typically in the low-average range, with a mean of 95.

Variables

Each of the 45 items of the WV1 are responded to by the examinee using a S-point Likert rating format. The items were originally selected from the published literature on values and job satisfaction and were progressively refined over a period of years (Super, 1973). Most of the items (41) are listed in Table 1 in abbreviated or paraphrased form with the primary WV1 scale indicated in parentheses.

Analyses

The 45-item intercorrelation matrix was condensed via principal com- ponents analysis and the eigenvalue plot was examined using the scree criterion (Cattell, 1966; Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977). Six factors were rotated to orthogonal simple structure by the Varimax procedure. The Promax oblique rotation, which “adjusts” the Varimax factors, was used to evaluate the satisfactoriness of the orthogonal solution. Factor scores for the second-order dimensions were calculated by summing subsets of items selected from the rotated factor pattern matrix. To assess the generalizability of the resulting second-order factors, age, education, and IQ were correlated with the factor scores for males and females sepa- rately.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The eigenvalues associated with the first 15 principal components were

as follows: 10.69, 3.35, 2.38, 1.81, 1.51, 1.32, 1.26, 1.22, 1.14, 1.09, 1.00, 0.96, 0.89, 0.86, and 0.84. Either by plotting the eigenvalues or by cal- culating the successive differences, it can be reliably determined that the first scree begins with the sixth component, i.e., the differences from

WORK VALUES 35

there on are relatively constant, in contrast to the first five differences, which become progressively smaller. Hence, six factors were retained for rotation.

Because the interfactor correlations among the Promax-rotated factors were small, i.e., a range from .02 to .33 with a median value of .27, it was decided to accept the Varimax solution as the most parsimonious descrip- tion of the six-factor space. The rationale for this decision was twofold: (a) Low interfactor correlations probably represent “error” in the hyperplane fitting process, and (b) several authorities suggest that low factor obliquity or orthogonality of factors is preferable, e.g., Guilford (1975) and Hakstian and Abel1 (1974). Not surprisingly, given the low interfactor correlations, the Varimax and Promax factor patterns for the 45 WV1 items were virtually identical anyway.

In order to provide an unequivocal summary of the six-factor Varimax solution, only factor pattern coefficients of .40 or greater were regarded as significant and meaningful. Indicating the goodness of the solution, 41 of the 45 WV1 items had one or more loadings of .40 or greater. Furthermore, just six of these 41 items had two loadings of .40 or greater. A more precise index of the comprehensiveness and differentiability of the solu- tion is the average proportion of communality associated with the items defining the six factors, 64%, with a range from 56 to 71%. Also, the six factors are of approximately equal magnitude, as indicated by the range of 6 to 8 salient items per factor. In summary, the six Varimax factors almost span the 45-item space and they are generally separable and clearly defined.

The six factors are described in Table 1 in terms of their significant items, with the items either abbreviated or yparaphrased.’ The primary WV1 scale that the item contributes to is given in parentheses. From this information the six factors can be identified as follows.

Factor I. The items that define this dimension come from three primary value scales: Intellectual Stimulation (IS), Variety (Va), and Creativity (Cr). An inspection of the item content reflects a common core of need for challenging and meaningful work. This obviously intrinsic dimension of work motivation can be reasonably named Stimulating Work.

Factor II. The three best definers of this factor are from the Altruism (Al) scale, with lower-loading items from the Associates (As) and Achievement (AC) scales. A brief examination of the items reveals a clear people orientation in this dimension. What is valued is helping others, being with others, and doing worthwhile work. Interpersonal Satisfaction provides a good capsule summary of this construct, which obviously reflects a concern with the work itself.

1 The complete factor pattern matrix for the Varimax rotation, including WV1 item descriptive statistics and communalities, is available on request from the author.

36 BRIAN BOLTON

TABLE 1 Second-Order Dimensions of the WVI’

No. Item (scale) r

23* 1*

15* 38* 29* 32* 4*

45*

30* 31* 2*

34* 27* 10 17* 44*

22* 3*

39* 19* 9* 6 5

40* 14* 21* 37* 33 24*

36* 35* 12* 26* 25* 18

41* 7* 8

20*

I. Stimulating work Mentally challenged (IS) Problem solving (IS) Try new ideas (0) Mentally alert (IS) Avoid monotony (Va) Do different things (Va) Changes in job (Va) Contribute new ideas (Cr)

II. Interpersonal satisfaction Feel you have helped (Al) Well-being of others (Al) Help others (Al) Contacts with fellow workers (As) Friendships with fellows (As) Personal respect (WL) Work satisfaction (AC) See results (AC)

.66

.61

.58

.50

.50

.49

.48

.45

.80

.76

.66

.52

.49

.45

.44

.41

III. Economic security Pay increases (ER) Get raise (ER) Paid enough (ER) Sure of job (Se) Stable work (Se) Gain prestige (Pr) Work freedom (In)

IV. Responsible autonomy Own boss (In) Authority over others (Ma) Make own decisions (In) Plan work of others (Ma) Looked up to (Pr) Use leadership abilities (Ma)

V. Comfortable existence Good place to work (Su) Lead enjoyable life (WL) Good work setting (Su) Good life away from work (WL) Adequate work facilities (Su) Reasonable boss (SR)

VI. Esthetic concerns Make attractive products (Es) Artistic ability (Es) One of the gang (As) Add beauty (Es)

.70

.67

.65

.64

.51

.43

.42

.72

.70

.59

.58

.53

.51

.60

.49

.48

.45

.43

.42

.59

.52

.50

.48

WORK VALUES

TABLE 1 -continued

37

No. Item (scale) r

42 Job security with company (Se) .46 28 Respect of others (Pr) .45

D The WV1 items (abbreviated or paraphrased) with the highest loadings in the Varimax rotated factor pattern are listed in order of the magnitude of their loadings. The loadings (item-factor correlations) are given in the right-hand column headed r and the WV1 primary scales are indicated in parentheses. The scales are as follows: Creativity (Cr), Management (Ma), Achievement (AC), Surroundings (Su), Supervisory Relations (SR), Way of Life (WL), Security (Se), Associates (As), Esthetics (Es), Prestige (I?), Independence (In), Variety (Va), Economic Return (ER), Altruism (Al), and Intellectual Stimulation (IS). Items marked with an asterisk (*) are included in the second-order factor scores as described in the text.

Factor III. The five highest-loading items are from the Economic Re- turn (ER) and Security (Se) subscales and reflect financial concerns and job security. This dimension is clearly a manifestation of Economic Security and reflects an extrinsic motivational issue.

Factor IV. Five of the six significant items defining this factor are from the Management (Ma) and Independence (In) subscales. These items express the need to function autonomously and, at the same time, exercise authority and supervise the work of others. The underlying construct here would seem to include reponsibility for self and others. The best label might be Responsible Autonomy, but the motivational element is not entirely intrinsic to the work.

Factor V. The five highest-loading items are from the Surroundings (Su) and Way of Life (WL) subscales and indicate a central concern with a pleasant environment, both work and nonwork. This dimension embraces a value construct that is clearly extrinsic to the actual work activity and may be called Comfortable Existence.

Factor VI. The only primary WV1 scale that is represented consistently on this factor is Esthetics (Es). Disregarding the other three items, which are virtually impossible to integrate with the items that reflect esthetic values, this dimension can be labeled Esthetic Concerns.

Five of these second-order factors have been identified in at least one other factor analytic study of vocational motivation or work values. However, the extent of the similarity between corresponding factors in different studies varies, due mainly to differences in response format, e.g., forced choice versus rative, and restricted item pools. Lofquist and Dawis’ (1978) factor analysis of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ) produced recognizable parallels for five WV1 factors: Stimulating Work (Achievement), Interpersonal Satisfaction (Altruism), Economic Security (Safety), Responsibile Autonomy (Autonomy), and Comfortable Existence (Comfort). Only Esthetic Concerns failed to match an MIQ factor.

38 BRIAN BOLTON

In contrast to the similarity of the MIQ and WV1 second-order struc- tures, only one of the six factors of The Survey of Work Values (SWV; Wollack et al., 1971) was even somewhat similar to one of the WV1 secondaries, Attitudes toward Earnings. However, this would be ex- pected since the SWV was developed specifically to measure various aspects of the Protestant Work Ethic, and the authors acknowledged the .limited scope of the instrument. The narrow emphasis of the SWV is apparent in the names of the other five factors: Intrinsic Values, Organization-Man Ethic, Upward Striving, Social Status of Job, and Conventional Ethic.

The results of an earlier investigation by Crites (1961) are more difficult to compare to the present findings for the WVI, since Crites combined the primary scales from three different instruments into one factor analysis. Still, three of the six dimensions that he identified appear to parallel the second-order WV1 factors, i.e., Material Security, Social Service, and Job Freedom.

Factor score composites for the six second-order WV1 constructs were calculated by (a) selecting those items that uniquely defined each Varimax factor, with the condition that at least two items from a WV1 primary scale be included, and (b) summing the raw scores for the selected items and dividing by the number of items to make the six composite scores directly comparable. (This simple scoring procedure approximates unit- weighting of the salient items, since the item standard deviations are very similar, and is identical to the scoring procedure used for the 15 primary scales.) The items marked with asterisks in Table 1 are the ones that comprise the second-order factors. Only 2 of the 15 WV1 primary scales, Supervisory Relations and Prestige, were eliminated by this conservative procedure, which was adopted to ensure that the secondary dimensions would be consistent with the WV1 primary structure. (One primary scale, Esthetics, did not merge with any others by this procedure and, hence, is identical to the second-order dimension, Esthetic Concerns.) Thus, the second-order factors generally provide a parsimonious summary of the WV1 primary profile that requires only six scores.

The internal consistency coefficients ((Y’S) for the six second-order factors are listed in the first columns of Table 2 for males and females separately. The ds for the five unique secondary factors are 10 points higher on the average (.76 versus 66) than the cr’s of the 14 primary scales (Esthetics and Esthetic Concerns were not included in the calculations) for these samples. However, it is important to emphasize that the internal consistency coefficients are lower-bound estimates for the parallel form reliabilities, and that other evidence suggests that the test-retest re- liabilities of the WV1 primary scales are typically in the low .8Os, e.g., Hendrix and Super (1968, p. 270). Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the reliabilities of the second-order factors would approach .90.

WORK VALUES 39

TABLE 2 Correlates of Second-Order WV1 Dimension@

Males (n = 227) Females (n = 218)

Second-order dimension Q Age Educ IQ (Y Age Educ IQ

I. Stimulating work .76 .09 -.04 .22** .76 -.04 .Ol .10 II. Interpersonal Satisfaction .78 .07 -.07 -.ll .84 .oo -.08 .Ol

III. Economic Security .73 .03 -.14 -.20* .81 -.03 .ll -.05 IV. Responsible Autonomy .76 .05 .I1 -.14 .76 .OO .lO -.lO V. Comfortable Existence .68 .02 .05 -.13 .74 .Ol -.03 -.03

VI. Esthetic Concerns .58 .I0 -.09 -.17* .65 .05 -.21** -.m*

’ Due to incomplete data the sample sizes for Education and IQ were reduced to 180 and 148 and to 181 and 160, for males and females, respectively.

b Education was coded as a dichotomy: High school graduates vs others. * p < .05.

** p < .Ol.

The final step in this research was to assess the generalizability of the WV1 second-order dimensions across age, educational, and intellectual variability in the samples. The correlations between the secondary factor scores and age, education, and WAIS IQ are presented in Table 2 for males and females. It can be readily concluded that clients of different ages and educational levels do not respond to the WV1 in any consistently different manner. The modest correlations between intelligence and Stimulating Work (positive relationship) and Economic Security (negative relationship) for males are entirely reasonable, but the negative correla- tion between IQ and Esthetic Concerns is difficult to understand. Yet, the magnitude of the relationship means that it has almost no practical conse- quence. These results support Super’s (1973) claim that the WV1 is a wide-ranging values inventory that is applicable to persons at all age, educational, and intellectual levels.

REFERENCES Cattell,, R. B. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,

1966, 1, 245-276. Cattell, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. A comprehensive trial of the scree and KG criteria for

determining the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1977, 12, 289- 325.

Crites, J. 0. Factor analytic definitions of vocational motivation. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, l%l, 45, 330-337.

Gable, R. K., & Pruzek, R. M. Super’s Work Values Inventory: Two multivariate studies of interitem relationships. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1971, 40, 41-50.

Guilford, J. P. Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 1975,82,802-814. Hakstian, A. R., & Abell, R. A. A further comparison of oblique factor transformation

methods. Psychometrtia, 1974, 39, 429-444. Hendrix, V. L., & Super, D. E. Factor dimensions and reliability of the Work Values

Inventory. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1968, 17, 269-274.

40 BRIAN BOLTON

Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. Values as second-order needs in the Theory of Work Adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 12, 12-19.

Super, D. E. Work Values Inventory. Boston: Houghton MiBBn, 1968. Super, D. E. The Work Values Inventory. In D. G. Zytowski (Ed.), Contemporary up-

proaches to interest measurement. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1973. Wollack, S., Goodale, J. G., Wijting, J. P., & Smith, P. C. Development of the survey of

Work Values. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 331-338.

Received: June 19, 1979.