Test-Retest Reliability of the Relative Work Centrality Measure

Abstract

The Meaning of Work International Research Team in 1987 developed the Relative Work Centrality measure, on which individuals divide 100 points among five major domains (work, leisure, community, religion, and family) in their lives, based on their relative centrality. The present study examined the test-retest reliability of this measure in a convenience sample of 96 Israeli full-time workers over a 4-wk. period. The sample consisted of 41.7% men and 58.3% women, of whom 48.9% were married. The participants had a mean age of 36.0 yr. (SD = 11.5) and a mean education of 14.9 yr. (SD = 2.5). The Spearman rank correlation coefficients for work, leisure, community, religion, and family at Time 1 and Time 2 were, respectively, .66, .76, .64, .76, and .82. These values indicate a fairly high test-retest reliability of the Relative Work Centrality measure and support the notion that this measure can also be applied to assess the relative centrality of each of the other four major life domains, in addition to work.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arvey

R. D.

Harpaz

Liao

(2004) Work centrality and post-award work behavior of lottery winners. The Journal of Psychology, 138, 404–420.

Barker

(1968) Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer. Press.

Brief

Nord

(1990) Work and meaning: Definitions and interpretations. In Brief

Nord

(Eds.), The meaning of occupational work. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Pp. 1–19.

Dubin

(1956) Industrial worker's worlds: A study of the “central life interest” of industrial workers. Social Problems, 3, 131–142.

England

G. W.

(1991) The meaning of working in the USA: Recent changes. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1, 111–124.

Harding

S. H.

Hikspoors

F. J.

(1995) New work values: In theory and in practice. International Social Science Journal, 47, 441–455.

Harpaz

(1999) The transformation of work values in Israel. Monthly Labor Review, 122, 46–50.

Harpaz

Honig

Coetsier

(2002) A cross-cultural longitudinal analysis of the meaning of work and the socialization process of career starters. Journal of World Business, 37, 230–244.

Locke

E. A.

(1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Pp. 1279–1349.

10.

MOW-International Research Team. (1987) The meaning of work: An international view. London: Academic Press.

11.

Quintanilla-Ruiz

S. A.

Wilpert

(1991) Are work meanings changing? European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1, 91–109.

12.

Rokeach

(1973) The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

13.

Snir

Harpaz

(2002) Work-leisure relations: Leisure orientation and the meaning of work. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 178–203.

14.

Snir

Harpaz

(2004) Attitudinal and demographic antecedents of workaholism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 520–536.