Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: development and validation of a questionnaire. Issue 6 (1st November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: van Woerkom, Marianne; Mostert, Karina; Els, Crizelle; Bakker, Arnold B.; de Beer, Leon; Rothmann Jr., Sebastiaan
• Is Part Of: European journal of work and organizational psychology. Volume 25:Issue 6(2016)
• Page Start: 960
• Page End: 975
• Publication Date: 2016-11-01
• Subjects: positive psychology -- strengths use -- deficit correction -- perceived organizational support -- proactive behaviour; Psychology, Industrial -- Periodicals; Organizational behavior -- Periodicals; Personnel management -- Europe -- Periodicals; Work -- Psychological aspects -- Periodicals; Psychology, Industrial -- Periodicals; Work -- psychology -- Periodicals; 158.7
• DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1359-432X

Abstract

Abstract : Although the positive psychology tradition emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach regarding individual strengths and weaknesses, there is no valid instrument to measure these phenomena in organizations. The purpose of the present studies is to develop and validate an instrument that measures four dimensions, namely perceived organizational support (POS) for strengths use, POS for deficit correction, strengths use behaviour, and deficit correction behaviour. In study 1 and 2, the Strengths Use and Deficit COrrection (SUDCO) questionnaire was developed and tested for its factor structure, reliability, and convergent and criterion validity in two samples of South African employees ( N = 338 and N = 361, respectively). In study 3, the convergent and criterion validity of the SUDCO were examined in a sample of Dutch engineers ( N = 133). Results indicated that the intended dimensions of strengths use and deficit correction can be measured reliably with 24 items and showed convergent validity. Moreover, POS for strengths use and strengths use behaviour correlated positively with self- and manager-ratings of job performance, supporting the criterion validity of these scales. As expected, POS for deficit correction and deficit correction behaviour were unrelated to the performance ratings.