O slideshow foi denunciado.

Measurement of Person-Environment Fit in Community Settings

1

Compartilhar

Carregando em…3
×
1 de 26
1 de 26

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Audiolivros relacionados

Gratuito durante 14 dias do Scribd

Ver tudo

Measurement of Person-Environment Fit in Community Settings

  1. 1. Christopher R. Beasley Leonard A. Jason Steven A. Miller 2011 SCRA Biennial
  2. 2.  (Mis)Fit  Alienation 1  Anxiety 2  Depression 2  Diminished well-being 2  Fit  Satisfaction 3,4,5,6,7,  Commitment 3,6,8  Identification with a setting 3  Citizenship behaviors 3  Social integration 9  Intent to stay in a setting 6  Attendance of meetings 10,11  Group involvement 12 Conceptualization Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results DiscussionIntroduction
  3. 3. Introduction Implications GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Value Congruence  Value Congruence 13  When an individual’s values are similar to those of the setting  Example  Individual value for 12-step recovery and setting emphasis on 12-step recovery
  4. 4. Interpersonal Similarity Value Congruence  Supplementary 14  When individuals are similar to other members of an environment  Example  Military veterans living with other veterans Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
  5. 5. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Value Congruence  Needs-Supplies 15  When a setting supplies what an individual needs psychologically and physically  Example  An individual with a high need for cognitive structure in a highly structured environment Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
  6. 6. Needs Supplies Individual Contributions Interpersonal Similarity Value Congruence  Complementary 14  When individuals complement environments  Example  Individuals with leadership skills in a house that otherwise lacks leadership Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
  7. 7. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Demands Abilities Value Congruence  Demands-Abilities 15  When individuals have the ability to meet the demands of their environment  Example  When a person has the life skills and cognitive abilities needed to live in a self-sufficient setting Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Individual Contributions
  8. 8. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Demands Abilities Value Congruence Direct Subjective  Direct vs. Indirect 16  Direct assesses P & E simultaneously  Indirect assesses P & E separately  Subjective vs. Objective  Subjective is a person’s perception of fit  Objective is a third-party assessment of fit Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Individual Contributions
  9. 9. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Demands Abilities Value Congruence  P-E Fit  Directly, Subjectively  Value Congruence  Interpersonal Similarity  Needs-Supplies Fit  Individual Contributions  Demands-Abilities Fit Direct Subjective Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Individual Contributions Person- Environment Fit
  10. 10. Introduction Conceptualization  GEFS  Person-environment fit measure  Brief 15-item measure  Flexible language for various settings  Forward & reverse phrasing  Five components of fit GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  11. 11. Introduction Conceptualization  Value Congruence  My values prevent me from fitting in with my Oxford House.*  The values of my Oxford House do not reflect my own values.*  My personal values are similar to those of my Oxford House. * Indicates a reverse-scored item GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  12. 12.  Interpersonal Similarity  The other residents of my Oxford House are similar to me.  The other residents of my Oxford House are different from me.*  I am different than the other residents of my Oxford House.* * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  13. 13.  Unique Contributions  My unique differences add to the success of my Oxford House.  Nothing unique about me adds to the success of my Oxford House.*  I make unique contributions to my Oxford House. * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  14. 14.  Needs-Supplies Fit  The Oxford House that I currently live in gives me just about everything I could ever need from a recovery home  There is a poor fit between what my Oxford House offers me and what I need in a recovery home.*  The Oxford House that I live in does not have the attributes that I need in a recovery home.* * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  15. 15.  Demands-Abilities Fit  I have the ability to meet the demands of my Oxford House.  The match is very good between the demands of my Oxford House and my personal skills.  I am not able to meet the demands of my Oxford House.* * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  16. 16.  246 attendees of the annual Oxford HouseWorld Convention  Mutual-help addiction recovery housing system  No professional staff  Over 1400 houses across the U.S. and abroad  Sample demographics  71%White, 19% Black, 11% Multiple or Other  52% Male, 48% Female  Median recovery = 24 months (SD = 42.86, 0-326)  79% current residents (Median = 12 mo., SD = 20.97, 0-117) Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethodsMethods
  17. 17.  GEFS  Person-environment fit  26-item 4-point Likert-type  Job Satisfaction Index Subcale Judge, Bono, and Locke’s (2000) Rothe (1951)  Modified measure of workplace satisfaction  Replaced “Job” with “Oxford House”  6-item 7-point Likert-type  α = .81  Tenure  How much longer do you expect to live in yourOxford House?Years? Months? Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods
  18. 18. Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods Results Variable means and standard deviations Min Max Mean SD GEFS 33 60 50.02 5.19 Satisfaction 6 35 30.49 4.36 Tenure 0 117 21.08 46.9
  19. 19. Subscale internal consistency, descriptive statistics, and inter-scale correlations Subscale α Min Max Mean SD VC IS UR NS Value Congruence .65 4 12 10.12 1.57 --- Interpersonal Similarity .78 3 12 8.14 2.08 .38* --- Unique Role .72 3 12 9.93 1.65 .20* -.14 --- Needs-Supplies Fit .71 6 12 10.43 1.57 .54* .29* .26* --- Demands-Abilities Fit .49 7 12 10.52 1.24 .33* .07 .47* .43* Notes. *p < .01 VC = Value Congruence subscale NS = Needs-Supplies subscale DA = Demands-Abilities subscale IS indicates Interpersonal Similarity subscale UC = Unique Contribution subscale Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results
  20. 20. CFA Model Fit Statistics Models χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA RMSEA C.I. SRMR Model 1a 124.37** 80 .94 .92 .05 [.03, .07] .06 Model 1b 126.48** 80 .92 .90 .06 [.04, .07] .06 Model 2 389.17** 90 .57 .50 .12 [.11, .14] .12 Model 3 338.44** 89 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .13] .11 Model 4 336.04** 87 .64 .57 .11 [.10, .13] .11 Model 5 338.13** 90 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .12] .19 Model 6 172.52** 85 .87 .84 .07 [.05, .08] .08 Notes. aTheorized five-factor model using the entire sample. bTheorized five-factor model using only current residents. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. **p < .001 Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results
  21. 21.  Needs-Supplies fit  β = .52, t(151) = 7.50, p < .001 rp 2 = .25  Explained 25% of the variance  Interpersonal Similarity  β = .14, t(151) = 1.94, p = .05 rp 2 = .02  Explained 2% of the variance  These two aspects of fit explained 33% of the variance in resident satisfaction  R2 = .33, F(2, 153) = 37.21, p < .001 Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results
  22. 22.  Interpersonal Similarity  β = .20, t(122) = 2.43, p = .02, rp 2 = .04  Explained 4% of the variance Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results
  23. 23. Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results  Existing measures of P-E fit are not adequate for community settings  Not flexible across settings  Do not examine all facets of fit  Interpersonal similarity seems to be important in community settings  Need fulfillment may be more important in service settings DiscussionDiscussion
  24. 24.  Convenience sample  Limited range  Limited validity  Internal consistency of Demands-Abilities Fit andValue Congruence Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion
  25. 25.  5-point scale  Other settings  Multiple setting fit and global outcomes  Benefits of misfit  Program-environment fit Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion
  26. 26. 1. Thomson, W.C. & Wendt, J.C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by student teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 269-274. 2. Caplan, R.D., Tripathi, R.C., & Naidu, R.K. (1985). Subjective past, present, and future fit: Effects on anxiety, depression, and other indicators of well- being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 180-197. 3. Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884. 4. DeRue, D.S & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Stability and change in person–team and person–role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253. 5. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453. 6. Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489. 7. Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219. 8. Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477. 9. Segal, S.P., Silverman, C., & Baumohl, J. (1989). Seeking person-environment fit in community care placement. Journal of Social Issues, 45(3), 49-64. 10.Humphreys, K. & Woods, M.D. (1993). Researching mutual help group participation in a segregated society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 181-201. 11.Luke, D.A., Roberts, L., & Rappaport, J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-fit predictors of self-help group attendance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 216-238. 12.Mankowski, E.S., Humphreys, K., & Moos, R.H. (2001). Individual and contextual predictors of involvement in twelve-step self-help groups after substance use treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 537-563. 13.Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333- 349. 14.Muchinsky, P.M. & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277. 15.Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267. 16.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49. N E T D H E ?

×