Development and validation of the Work Confl ict Appraisal Scale (WCAS)

  1. Pilar González-Navarro 1
  2. Lucía Llinares-Insa 2
  3. Rosario Zurriaga-Llorens 1
  4. Susana Lloret-Segura 1
  1. 1 IDOCAL, Universidad de Valencia
  2. 2 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 29

Número: 2

Páginas: 268-274

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2016.174 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Antecedentes: en el contexto de la valoración cognitiva se ha desarrollado la escala de Evaluación del Conflicto en el Trabajo (WCAS) que permite evaluar el conflicto en términos de desafío y amenaza. Método: el Estudio 1 contó con 296 trabajadores con los que se puso a prueba la estructura factorial de la escala usando análisis factorial confirmatorio. En el Estudio 2, con 815 trabajadores, se realizó un análisis factorial confirmatorio multi-muestra, para la validación cruzada de los resultados. Resultados: los análisis confirman la validez de la escala y son consistentes con la clasificación tridimensional del conflicto, apoyando la distinción entre evaluación del conflicto como desafío y como amenaza. Se subraya la importancia de medir estos dos tipos de valoración separadamente Conclusiones: esta escala es un instrumento válido y fiable para medir la percepción de conflicto en las organizaciones.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Thiswork was supported by funding of the Generalitat Valenciana (Spain) for research groups of excellence GVPROMETEO2012-048 and the Ministerio de Econom?a y Competitividad en el Programa Estatal de Investigaci?n, Desarrollo e Innovaci?n Orientada a los Retos de la Sociedad - EDU2013-45919-R.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alzate, R., Laca, F., & Valencia, J. (2004). Decision-making patterns, conflict styles, and self-esteem. Psicothema, 16(1), 110-116.
  • Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  • Bravo, M. J., García, J. A., Peiró, J. M., & Prieto, F. (1993). Satisfacción con el trabajo. In J. M. Peiró, F. Prieto, M. J. Bravo, P. Ripoll, I. Rodríguez, P. Hontangas, & M. Salanova (Eds.), Los jóvenes ante el primer empleo: el significado del trabajo y su medida [Youth at the first employment: the meaning of work and its measurement] (pp. 21-39). Valencia. Nau Llibres.
  • Bruk-Lee, V., Nixon, A.E., & Spector, P. E. (2013). An expanded typology of conflict at work: Task, relationship and non-task organizational conflict as social stressors. Work & Stress, 27(4), 339-350.
  • Chen, Z. J., Zhang, X., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the underlying processes between conflict and knowledge sharing: A workengagement perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1005-1033.
  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.
  • De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390.
  • Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(18), 39-50.
  • González, P., Zurriaga, R., & Bravo, M. J. (1995). Discriminant validity of the ways of coping checklist. In J. Rodríguez-Marín (Ed.), Health psychology and quality of life research. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the European Health Psychology Society: Vol. II (pp. 657-663).
  • Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3), 278-302.
  • Griffith, T. L., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Conflict and virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 335-353). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Gutnick, D., Walter, F., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2012). Creative performance under pressure an integrative conceptual framework. Organizational Psychology Review, 2, 189-207.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tathan, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonPrentice Hall.
  • Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615-632.
  • Hu, L., & Benter, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
  • Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187-242.
  • Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251.
  • Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 and PRELIS 2.8 [ComputerSoftware]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
  • Kozusznik, M., Rodríguez, I., & Peiró, J. M. (2012). Cross-national outcomes of stress appraisal. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 507-525.
  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Free Press.
  • LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor– hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764-775.
  • Maier, K. J., Waldstein, S. R., & Synowski, S. J. (2003). Relation of cognitive appraisal to cardiovascular reactivity, affect, and task engagement. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 32-41.
  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G.A. Marcoulides & R.E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling. Issues and techniques (pp. 315-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  • Martínez-Moreno, E., Zornoza, A., González-Navarro, P., & Thompson, L. F. (2012). Investigating face-to-face and virtual teamwork over time: When does early task conflict trigger relationship conflict? Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice, 16(3), 159-171.
  • Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martínez, I., & Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3-4), 219-230.
  • Milfont, T.L., & Fischer, R. (2011). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111-121.
  • Parlamis, J. D. (2012). Venting as emotion regulation: The influence of venting responses and respondent identity on anger and emotional tone. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 77-96.
  • Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor- hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438-454.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
  • Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., & Wilkinson, H. M. (in press). Fear appeals, engagement, and examination performance: The role of challenge and threat appraisals. British Journal of Educational Psychology.
  • Regueiro, R., & León, O. G. (2003). Estrés en decisiones cotidianas [Stress in personal decisions]. Psicothema, 15(4), 533-538.
  • Rodríguez, I., Kozusznik, M. W, & Peiró, J. M. (2013). Development and validation of the Valencia eustress-distress appraisal scale. International Journal of Stress Management, 20(4), 279-308.
  • Rodríguez, J., Terol, C., López-Roig, S., & Pastor, M. A. (1992). Evaluación del afrontamiento del estrés: propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario de formas de afrontamiento de acontecimientos estresantes [Evaluation of coping of stress: Psychometric properties of the questionnaire coping of stressful events]. Revista de Psicología de la Salud, 4, 59-84.
  • Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2003). Utrech work engagement scale. Preliminary manual. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
  • Shaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
  • Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). Construct validation studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 18, 1-76.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet