TY - JOUR
T1 - Factorial structure of Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (Version 1.0) revisited
T2 - Evaluation of acquiescence bias
AU - Santalla-Banderali, Zuleima
AU - Alvarado, Jesús M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Santalla-Banderali, Alvarado. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - The objective of this study is to evaluate the factorial structure of the Spanish version of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (Version 1.0) and to estimate the impact that acquiescence has on it as response bias. Exactly 500 workers from organizations from different industries, primarily located in Ecuador, participated in this study. The comparison of different models using Confirmatory Factor Analysis proved that when acquiescence is not controlled, evidence leads to the rejection of a one-dimensional-or essentially one-dimensional- structure (bifactor model), thus questioning the initial conceptualization of the construct. But when this response bias is controlled, both the one-dimensional model (χ2 = 429.608 [223], p < .001; CFI = .974; TLI = .982; RMSEA = .043; SRMR = .063) and the bifactor model (χ2 = 270.730 [205], p = .001; CFI = .992; TLI = .994; RMSEA = .026; SRMR = .047) show relevant improvement in terms of goodness of fit over the three-correlated-factors model (χ2 = 537.038 [132], p < .001; CFI = .950; TLI = .942; RMSEA = .079; SRMR = .070). However, the low reliability of the substantive factors of the bifactor model makes the one-dimensional model preferable in applied studies. Finally, the results show how mistakes could be made when concluding on the possible relationships between work performance and other relevant variables, in case acquiescence is not controlled.
AB - The objective of this study is to evaluate the factorial structure of the Spanish version of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (Version 1.0) and to estimate the impact that acquiescence has on it as response bias. Exactly 500 workers from organizations from different industries, primarily located in Ecuador, participated in this study. The comparison of different models using Confirmatory Factor Analysis proved that when acquiescence is not controlled, evidence leads to the rejection of a one-dimensional-or essentially one-dimensional- structure (bifactor model), thus questioning the initial conceptualization of the construct. But when this response bias is controlled, both the one-dimensional model (χ2 = 429.608 [223], p < .001; CFI = .974; TLI = .982; RMSEA = .043; SRMR = .063) and the bifactor model (χ2 = 270.730 [205], p = .001; CFI = .992; TLI = .994; RMSEA = .026; SRMR = .047) show relevant improvement in terms of goodness of fit over the three-correlated-factors model (χ2 = 537.038 [132], p < .001; CFI = .950; TLI = .942; RMSEA = .079; SRMR = .070). However, the low reliability of the substantive factors of the bifactor model makes the one-dimensional model preferable in applied studies. Finally, the results show how mistakes could be made when concluding on the possible relationships between work performance and other relevant variables, in case acquiescence is not controlled.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85134602329
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0271830
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0271830
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 35857805
AN - SCOPUS:85134602329
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 17
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 7 July
M1 - e0271830
ER -