You are on page 1of 6

JEE

Volume 3

ISSN 2146-2674

Issue 2

2013

Akn et al.

Turkish Version of the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI): Validity and Reliability Study
Ahmet Akn
Mehmet Ali Hamedolu
nar Kaya
Psychological Counceling and Guidance
Sakarya University
Sakarya, Turkey
Hakan Saram
Psychological Counceling and Guidance
Dunlupnar University
Ktahya, Turkey

Abstract
The aim of this research is to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of The Work and Meaning
Inventory (WAMI). The participants of this study consisted of 352 teachers. The validity and reliability of scale was
investigated by test re-test, Cronbach alpha, confirmatory factor analysis and criterion related validity methods. The Job
Crafting Scale (JCS) was used for the criterion related validity. The results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that
10 items loaded on three factors (positive meaning, meaning making through work, and greater good motivations):
x/df= 2,15, RMSEA= .087, CFI= .98, IFI= .98, NFI= .94, NNFI= .96, SRMR= .057. In the concurrent validity
significant relationship (r= .41) was found between total WAMI and the Job Crafting Scale. The internal consistency
coefficients of three subscales were .68, .64, and .73, respectively. The overall internal consistency coefficient of the
scale was .86. Test-retest reliability coefficient was .69. The corrected item-total correlations of WAMI ranged from .30
to .62. Overall findings demonstrated that this scale had high validity and reliability scores and that it may be used as a
valid and reliable instrument in order to measure diverse ideas of individual about meaningful work. Nevertheless,
further studies that will use WAMI are important for its measurement force.
Keywords: Meaningful work, validity, reliability, confirmatory factor analysis

Introduction
Jobs and careers are not just means for financial income or passing time; they are also expected to
provide some meaning for the individual. Meaningful work as a concept that has attracted
researchers, yet there is no consensus about the qualities and components of this experience in spite
of certain endeavors for operationally defining the construct (Steger et al., 2012). Rosso et al.
(2010) and view meaningful work as a positive experience, rather than a general term for all
meanings attributed to work; Steger et al. (2012) continues pointing out meaningful work as a
demonic (growth- and purpose-oriented) positive process rather than hedonic (pleasure-oriented)
process.
Meaningful work is a crucial concept since it is significant for its positive outcomes for
organizations as well as for its being an ethical or moral obligation for organizations (Michaelson,
2005). Meaningful work is associated with greater well-being (Arnold et al., 2007), feelings of

11

JEE

Volume 3

ISSN 2146-2674

Issue 2

2013

Akn et al.

centrality and importance (Harpaz and Fu, 2002), and greater job satisfaction (Kamdron, 2005).
Studies on meaningful work suggests that it can be characterized by a variety skills like opportunity
to complete an entire task, task significance to other people, military pride, engagement, challenge,
work role identity, work values, work centrality, intrinsic work orientation, good pay, spirituality,
and reputation; and there is no scale measuring the construct which has adequate psychometric
properties (Steger et al., 2012). Hackman and Oldham, (1976) has introduced the first instrument on
the construct MW (meaning work), which does not have adequate psychometric qualities, and all
the other instruments mainly modified this scale, thus there was a need for a new measure on
meaningful work (Steger et al., 2012).
Wrzesniewski (2003) stressed the significance of workplace relations for the experience of
meaningful work; Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) offered the desire to serve the greater good as a
component of meaningful work and Ashforth (2001) offered making sense of ones self as the key
aspect of meaningful work. Steger et al. (2012) conceptualize meaningful work as consisting of
three primary aspects: (1) Psychological Meaningfulness (PM) in work, the personal significance of
the job; (2) Meaning making (MM) through work: meaning in life as a whole as linked with
meaningful work; (3) Greater good (GG) motivations: The need to make a positive impact on the
greater good for especially others.
The construct meaningful work was assessed using Steger et al.s (2012) The Work and
Meaning Inventory (WAMI). The 10-item five-point Likert-type scale (1:strongly disagree to 5:
strongly agree) is composed of three subscales [Psychological Meaningfulness (PM), Meaning
Making (MM) through work, Greater Good (GG) motivations] which make up the over-arching
construct of MW that are confirmed by factor analysis. The results of confirmatory factor analysis
indicated that the three-dimensional MW model (PM, MM, GG) model was acceptably fit
(x=69.05, df=30 RMSEA=.090, CFI=.97). The Cronbachs Alpha internal consistency of the scale
was as .89 for positive meaning dimension, .82 for meaning making through work dimension, .83
for greater good motivations dimension and .93 for whole scale.
The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI), as an instrument devised for assessing the
construct of meaningful work, which has sufficient psychometric properties, is presented to the
attention of researchers and practitioners in Turkey for utilization in evaluation and research
activities in various areas like management, organizational behavior and leadership.
Method
Participants
Participants were 352 (189 female and 163 male) teachers who were employed in different
schools in Istanbul and Sakarya, Turkey. The mean age of the participants was 34.8.
Instrument
Job Crafting Scale (JCS): Tims Bakker and Derk (2012) developed original form of the Job
Crafting Scale (JCS) and it was adapted to Turkish by Hamedolu et al. (2012). The results of
confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the 21 items loaded on four factors: x/df= 1,94,
RMSEA= .049, NNFI= .94, CFI= .95, IFI= .95, GFI= .92, AGFI= .90, and SRMR= .068. The
internal consistency coefficients of four subscales were .90, .72, .76, and .75, respectively and .84
for the scale. The corrected item-total correlations of JCS ranged from .33 to .87.
Procedure
Primarily translation of the WAMI into Turkish was based on the kind permission of
Michael F. Steger. As the first step three specialists who were a native Turkish speaker fluent in
English translated English version into Turkish. Then they translated the Turkish version of the
WAMI back into English. The differences between translated versions were evaluated and a
12

JEE

Volume 3

ISSN 2146-2674

Issue 2

2013

Akn et al.

satisfactory compliance with the original scale was achieved by consensus of the translators. Three
researchers from department of English Language and Literature evaluated the completed Turkish
version for cultural appropriateness, controversial items were determined and necessary
modifications were done. In this study confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was executed to confirm
the original scales structure in Turkish culture (Bykztrk, 2011; Smer, 2000; imek, 2007;
Ylmaz ve elik, 2009). Also concurrent validity, internal consistency reliability, the item-total
correlations, test-retest reliability and the differences between mean scores of upper 27% and lover
27% groups were examined. Data were analyzed using LISREL 8.54 and SPSS 17.0 package
programs.
Results
Construct Validity
The results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that 10 items loaded on three factors
(positive meaning, meaning making through work, and greater good motivations): x=/df= 2,15,
RMSEA= .087, CFI= .98, IFI= .98, NFI= .94, NNFI= .96, SRMR= .057. Factor loadings and path
diagram of Turkish version of WAMI are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Factor Loadings and Path Diagram for the WAMI

13

JEE

Volume 3

ISSN 2146-2674

Issue 2

2013

Akn et al.

Concurrent validity
In the concurrent validity significant relationship (r= .41) was found between total WAMI
and the Job Crafting Scale. Besides, Job Crafting Scale to be related positively to the positive
meaning sub-dimension (r= .33), as well as to meaning making through work sub-dimension (r=
.36), greater good motivations sub-dimension (r= .42) of the WAMI.
Reliability
For reliability of the Turkish version of the WAMI internal consistency coefficient was
calculated. The Cronbachs Alpha internal consistency of the scale was as .68 for positive meaning
dimension, .64 for meaning making through work dimension, .73 for greater good motivations
dimension, and .86 for whole scale. Test-retest reliability coefficient was .69 after 28 days. The
corrected item-total correlations of WAMI ranged from .30 to .62. The t-test results differences
between each items means of upper 27% and lower 27% points were significant (p< .05). The item
analysis result and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.

Items

Corrected itemtotal correlation

1.

,30

Upper 27%
Lower 27%
group t
-17.17***

2.

,35

-15.68***

3.

,48

-17.07***

4.

,52

-15.49***

5.

,46

-15.03***

6.

,60

-14.31***

7.

,55

-14.81***

8.

,57

-15.02***

9.

,46

-14.94***

10.

,62

-15.04***

*** (p< .001)

Table 1. The WAMI item-total correlation, t-test results differences between each items means of
upper 27% and lower 27% group
Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to adapt the WAMI into Turkish and examine its psychometric
properties. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the factor structure was harmonized with
the factor structure of the original scale. Thus, it can be concluded that the structural model of the
WAMI, which consists of three factors, was well fit to the Turkish culture (Bentler and Bonett,
14

JEE

Volume 3

ISSN 2146-2674

Issue 2

2013

Akn et al.

1980; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Schermelleh-Engel and Moosbrugger, 2003). The internal consistency
reliability coefficients of the scale were high (Bykztrk, 2010; Kline, 2000).
Considering that item total correlations having a value of .30 and higher and significant test
results differences between each items means of upper 27% and lower 27% are generally
considered to be adequate in terms of distinguishing between the traits to be measured for
construing item total correlation, it is possible to state that item total correlations and t-test result
regarding the scales are adequate (Bykztrk, 2010). Overall findings demonstrated that this
scale had high validity and reliability scores and that it may be used as a valid and reliable
instrument in order to measure diverse ideas of individual about meaningful work. Nevertheless,
further studies that will use WAMI are important for its measurement force.
References
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational
leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 193203. doi:10.1037/1076-998.12.3.193
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bykztrk, . (2010). Sosyal bilimler iin veri analizi el kitab. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
yaynlar.
Hamedolu, M. A., Akn, A., Saram, H., Gediksiz, E., Gler, H., Uysal, R., & ardak, M. (2012,
December). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Job Crafting Scale
(JCS), International Symposium on Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 20-22 December
2012, Ankara-Turkey.
Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. (2002). The structure of the meaning of work: A relative stability amidst
change. Human Relations, 55, 639667. doi:10.1177/0018726702556002
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Kamdron, T. (2005). Work motivation and job satisfaction of Estonian higher officials.
International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 12111240.
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
Michaelson, C. (2005). I want your shower time!: Drowning in work and the erosion of life.
Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 24, 726.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical
integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91127.
doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H., (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of
Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J. and Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring Meaningful Work: The Work and
Meaning Inventory (WAMI) Journal of Career Assessment 00(0) 1-16. DOI:
10.1177/1069072711436160.
Smer, N. (2000). Yapsal eitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve rnek uygulamalar. Trk Psikoloji
Yazlar, 3(6), 49-74.
imek, . F. (2007). Yapsal Eitlik Modellemesine Giri: Temel lkeler ve Lisrel Uygulamalar.
Ankara: Ekinoks Yaynlar.

15

JEE

Volume 3

ISSN 2146-2674

Issue 2

2013

Akn et al.

Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.


E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp.
296308). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings:
Peoples relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 2133.
doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162
Ylmaz, V., & elik, H. E. (2009). Lisrel ile Yapsal Eitlik Modellemesi-I: Temel Kavramlar,
Uygulamalar, Programlama. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yaynlar.

16

You might also like