Career and Technical Education Research, 41(3), p.

175
DOI: 10.5328/cter41.3.175
©2016

Employability Skills Assessment: Measuring Work Ethic for Research and Learning

HwaChoon Park
Roger B. Hill
University of Georgia

Abstract
The Employability Skills Assessment (ESA) was developed by Hill (1995) to provide an
alternative measure of work ethic needed for success in employment. This study tested goodness-
of-fit for a model used to interpret ESA results. The model had three factors: interpersonal skills,
initiative, and dependability. Confirmatory factor analysis results demonstrated a significant
overall relation between the ESA factors and showed that the three-factor model of the ESA was
acceptable for the observed data. Potential applications for the ESA are also described.

Keywords: Work ethic, instrument adaptation, confirmatory factor analysis, model fit indices

Introduction Literature Review

From school to work, or from work to Bandura’s (1989, 2005) social
work, many people experience transitions. cognitive theory (SCT) provides a theoretical
People seeking jobs and trying to maintain framework for understanding the dynamic of
current jobs need good employability skills work ethic, the essence of which is personal
(Brauchle & Azam, 2006). Employers place responsibility and accountability for work
a high value on work ethic and search for behaviors (Hill & Petty, 1995; Petty & Hill,
workers with a strong work ethic and good 2005). Social cognitive theory (Bandura,
soft skills (Hill & Fouts, 2005). Regardless of 1989, 2005) states that people learn by
what terminology is used, there are identified observing models, such as family members,
characteristics that contribute to success influential adults, and friends. These
when a person is employed in work activities learnings can be expressed in a person’s
(Hill & Fouts, 2005). Employers look for internal beliefs and external behaviors. Based
clues of a strong work ethic when they make on the social cognitive theory a person’s
hiring decisions because workers with a behaviors are influenced by reinforcements
strong work ethic enable higher productivity or punishments from the environment
and enhance profitability (Huang & Capelli, (Bandura, 1989, 2005). People are social and
2007). In addition, a strong work ethic is are influenced by those with whom they
regarded as the most important factor when come into contact. Those around an
hiring an administrative employee (Flynn, individual transmit knowledge, but they also
1994). Instruments that accurately assess model behaviors. Acceptable behaviors are
work ethic attributes are valuable for largely influenced by these models. Bi-
evaluation in the workplace, for use in directionally, environment affects an
instruction, and for gathering data in individual, and the individual also affects the
research. For all of these reasons it is environment. An individual’s emotion and
important to continue to refine and knowledge influence behaviors and societal
substantiate measures of work ethic and reactions to behavior serve as feedback.
employability skills. Individuals shape and change their emotions
and future actions based on the feedback as

175
 Employability Skills Assessment

well. In social cognitive theory, self-efficacy calling to have a certain occupation. This
and self-regulatory capabilities are important connection between God and work meant
characteristics that affect a person’s that a person should be diligent and seek to
behaviors (Bandura, 1989, 2005). Self- be successful. Hard work was usually
efficacy is defined as a person’s beliefs about required and would lead to favor in God’s
capabilities to enable certain behaviors eyes (Hill, 1992; Weber, 2005).
(Bandura, 1989, 2005). Self-regulation can The link between hard work and
be defined as mechanisms people use to Protestant belief systems has been attributed
exercise control over their motivation, styles as key element in the emergence and success
of thinking, and emotional life (Bandura, of capitalism. Weber (2005) introduced this
1989, 2005). concept in his 1905 essay entitled, The
These two concepts of SCT explain Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
how different behaviors can be expressed and proposed that economic growth in
based on a person’s level of self-efficacy and America was accelerated by Protestant
self-regulatory capabilities (Bandura, 2005). religious beliefs. Since then, the concept of
That is, person, behavior, and environment the Protestant ethic has been adopted by other
can affect each other. Those concepts of self- researchers in various fields and recognized
efficacy and self-regulatory help to explain as a precursor to work ethic in Western
how a person’s work ethic forms and is nations that were predominantly Protestant
expressed. People’s behaviors related to work (Hill, 1992, 1999)
ethic can be influenced by factors such as One place where Weber’s concepts
persons, environments, and cultures within and influence have been evident is in the
the life-space of a person where family, development of instruments to assess
teachers in schools, coaches, trainers in individuals’ work ethic. Several work ethic
institutions, influential people in the society, measures based on Weber’s work have been
and coworkers in the workplace are observed developed and the Protestant Ethic Scale
(Hill, 1992; Hill & Petty, 1995; Kim, 2007). (Goldstein & Eichhorn, 1961); the Pro-
Protestant Ethic Scale (Blood. 1969); the
Work Ethic in the Past Protestant Work Ethic Scale (Mirels &
Hill and Petty (1995) defined work Garrett, 1971); the Spirit of Capitalism Scale
ethic as “a cultural norm that advocates being (Ray, 1982); and the Australian Work Ethic
personally accountable and responsible for Scale (Ho & Lloyd, 1984) are some
the work that one does and is based on a examples. Recently, Mann, Taber, and
belief that work has intrinsic value” (p. 60). Haywood (2013) proposed that such
This cultural norm places a positive moral instruments which had been developed based
value on doing a good job. In Western on Weber’s thesis might not represent the
cultures, it is actually a secularized artifact of beliefs and norms of the contemporary, post-
the Protestant Reformation. During the industrial workforce. Based on interviews
Sixteenth Century, along with the Protestant with participants in their research, they
Reformation, a new perspective on work developed 68 Likert-type work ethic items,
formed. Beginning with Luther’s perspective conducted a factor analysis, identified six
on the meaning of work during the Protestant dimensions of work ethic not found in earlier
Reformation, cultural norms associated work ethic measures, and named the scale the
success in work with God’s favor (Hill, New Multidimensional Work Ethic Scale
1992). Luther wrote that salvation was by the (Mann, Taber, & Haywood, 2013).
grace of God and that each person had a

176
Employability Skills Assessment

In terms of religion, even though employability of students transitioning from

work ethic was influenced by Protestantism school to work, as well as working adults in
in the United States and several Western a broad range of occupations. The OWEI
European countries, many studies have consists of 50 items, consisting of short
revealed that there is no consistent descriptors, such as dependable, efficient,
relationship between religious orientation patient, likeable, hardworking, and
and work ethic beliefs in contemporary productive. Hill and Petty (1995; 2005)
society (Christopher & Schlenker, 2005; conducted a factor analysis using data
Furnham, 1990; Hill & Petty, 1995; Mann, gathered with the OWEI, and identified three
Taber, & Haywood, 2013; Miller, Woehr, & meaningful factors: interpersonal skills,
Hudspeth, 2001; Pascarella, 1984; Ray, initiative, and dependability. A fourth factor
1982). Researchers agree that even the that emerged was comprised of reversed
Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) is not descriptive words and was not labelled for
connected with religious affiliations use in measuring work ethic.
(Furnham, 1990; Hassall, Muller, & Hassall, Since the OWEI was developed,
2005). Pascarella’s study (1984) suggested many studies have been done using the
that all major religions have espoused the OWEI. Data analysis in those studies
importance of work, and he proposed that exhibited a correlation alpha of .90 (Hatcher,
work ethic should be viewed as not a 1995), .95 (Hill & Petty, 1995), and .92 (Hill,
Protestant work ethic, but a general work 1997), and reported reliability coefficients
ethic. According to Beder (2000), the for the subscales of .91 for interpersonal
compulsion to work is now inspired by a need skills, .88 for initiative, .83 for being
to acquire and support one’s family and dependable, and .77 for the reversed items.
country, rather than the need to fulfill a Tydings (2003) examined how advisory
religious calling. Ghorpade, Lackritz, and committee members, instructors, and
Singh (2006) concluded that the construct of students in a technical college perceived
hard work is no longer an exclusive attribute work ethic descriptors using the OWEI and
of the Protestant religion. compared differences of ratings on the
Many of the instruments listed above importance of work ethic descriptors among
were developed based on Weber’s Protestant them. Hill and Fouts (2005) used the OWEI
ethic and they have been modified over time. to study work ethic and employment status
There have also been instruments developed among job seekers. Kim (2007) translated the
for use in Career and Technical Education OWEI into Korean and used the KOWEI for
(CTE) where participants are preparing for a factor analysis to identify themes in Korean
employment and work ethic instruction is workers’ responses using data collected in
part of the course of study. One example is Korea. Lim, Petty, Fontan, and Yoon (2008)
the Georgia Department of Technical and compared work ethic between two teams: a
Adult Education (GDTAE) work ethic scale self-directed work team and a traditional
developed by Boatwright and Slate (2002). It work team in a manufacturing company
was used to evaluate work ethic of technical based on the four subscales of the OWEI.
college students and consists of 61 items, Harvell (2009) used the OWEI in her doctoral
including five demographic questions. dissertation in order to analyze differences of
Another example is the Occupational Work work ethic of workers employed in public
Ethic Inventory (OWEI) which was and private business and industries grouped
developed by Petty (Hill and Petty, 1995). by occupation, level of education, age,
The OWEI has been used to evaluate gender, and years of full time work

177
 Employability Skills Assessment

experience in Shreveport, Louisiana. Joseph learners can use to self-assess work ethic
(2010) examined the relationship between characteristics is an important element in
work ethic and each of the independent work ethic instruction. Whether used as a
variables: generational cohort, gender, and centerpiece for class discussions or within
personality dimension in a dissertation study instructional activities, work ethic measures
using the OWEI. are an important part of a work ethic
curriculum or lesson materials that might be
Work Ethic in the Present included within other courses.
A framework developed by Rojewski One of the instruments for measuring
and Hill (2014) positions work ethic as one of work ethic that was originally developed
three essential components all persons need specifically for use in instruction is the
to develop in preparation for success at work Employability Skills Assessment (ESA)
(see Figure 1). Work ethic, innovation, and designed by Hill in 1995. This instrument
career navigation are all essential elements provides assessment of the same constructs
for success in 21st Century work and life identified using the OWEI, but it is more
(Rojewski & Hill, 2014). Technical skills, concise and provides an alternative format
job-related content knowledge and expertise, for instrument items. Hill (1995) began with
and certifications are all important, but these the three OWEI subscales: interpersonal
change rapidly as technology advances with skills, initiative, and dependability (Hill,
iteration after iteration of increasingly 1995). He constructed instrument items
intelligent devices and information and based on the OWEI descriptors that most
communication technology (ICT) heavily loaded during the factor analytical
applications (Rojewski & Hill, 2014). In a study. Since the Employability Skills
changing world with smarter and smarter Assessment was developed, it has been
machines to enhance human endeavors, work widely used to assess individuals’ work ethic
ethic is still highly sought, innovation and as a part of employability skills. For example,
creativity are more important than ever, and Hill has developed a website called “The
career navigation is essential as people work Work Ethic Site” (URL:
in jobs that are contracted for the life of a http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/). The purpose
project or are constantly monitoring the of the site is to provide educators and
landscape for a new and better opportunity professionals of human resource
(Rojewski & Hill, 2014). Clark and Cole development (HRD) with central resources
(2015) also emphasized the importance of related to work ethic, employability skills,
interpersonal skills, which is a part of work and work competencies. (Hill, 2016). The
ethic elements, as one of core leadership work ethic site provides online versions of
skills that CTE leaders and administrators both the OWEI and the ESA that are freely
should have or develop. One of the more available for anyone to complete. As of
important tools for conducting work ethic August 20, 2015, the online version of the
research, as well as instruction to prepare OWEI had been used 237,892 times, and the
people for work, is an accurate and reliable online version of the ESA had been used
instrument to assess work ethic. Obtaining an 55,699 times. Both versions execute using a
accurate picture of the status of work ethic in PERL script and save response data on a
various population groups as well as University of Georgia server. The intent of
identifying trends in work ethic attributes is the website was to disseminate work ethic
critical to career and technical education resources, rather than to conduct research,
research. In addition, having a tool that

178
Employability Skills Assessment

but the data collected in that process served

as a basis for the current study.

Figure 1. Framework showing central role of work ethic.

Despite the fact that many people sometimes easier when a brief phrase is used
have used the ESA, the original intent in rather than a single word.
developing it was for use in learning For the ESA to be used in work ethic
activities, rather than to collect data for research the reliability and construct validity
research. The procedures used in developing of each ESA subscale is needed. Individual
the instrument were rigorous and followed researchers who have already collected data
the same kinds of steps that might have been with the ESA have computed these measures,
taken for design of a research data collection but a confirmatory factor analysis using a
tool, but research studies on reliability tests relatively large data set would provide a
and construct validity of the ESA have not foundation for those considering the ESA for
been published until now. As familiarity with research purposes. As compared to the OWEI
the ESA spread, researchers began to take with of 50 short descriptors and the GDATE
note of the instrument and use it for research. with 61 items specific to the technical college
It was attractive for some projects because of work ethic program in Georgia, the ESA
the brevity and the structure of the items provides an efficient, 23-question instrument
using brief statements. It was particularly that can be easily understood and used in
suited for use where translation was needed combination with other instruments
to collect data in international settings. The researchers might choose to deploy.
OWEI has been translated and used Completing the steps needed to position this
internationally (e.g., Kim, 2007), but instrument for research in addition to its place
capturing the meaning of instrument items is

179
 Employability Skills Assessment

in learning was a reasonable step and the University of Georgia (UGA) and saved
precipitated the current study. on a UGA server. A total of 14,045 responses
collected over a period of time from
Purpose and Research Questions September, 2001, to August, 2015, were
The purpose of this study was to used. Hill developed and revised this website
examine reliability and construct validity of for instructional use by educators and human
the ESA by conducting reliability tests and a resource professionals (Hill, 2016). Anyone
confirmatory factor analysis. The ESA has who can read and understand texts in English
three constructs: interpersonal skills, can take this assessment by visiting the Work
initiative, and dependability (Hill, 1995). The Ethic Site. One of the links on the website
following research questions guided this launches an electronic version of the ESA;
study. computes scores for interpersonal skills,
1. What common factors can be initiative, and dependability; and provides
identified in data collected using the these scores to respondents. In completing
ESA? this process, data accumulates in a data file,
2. How are common factors related to which provided responses analyzed for
the observed variables when the three purposes of this study. A summary of
factor model of the ESA is tested? participants in this study, including gender,
occupation, education, and age is presented
Method (see Table 1).
Participants
This study utilized archival data
electronically collected through a website at

Table 1

Composition of Respondents (n =14,054)

Group Sub-group n Percent (%)
Gender Female 9 111 64.87
Male 4 934 35.13
Occupation Service 1 572 11.19
Sales 518 3.69
Business 3 077 21.91
Professional 6 248 44.49
Medical professional 1 039 7.40
Full-time homemaker 256 1.82
Unemployed 1 335 9.51
Education K-12 college bound 512 3.65
K-12 vocational 599 4.26
Completed high school or GED 2 283 16.25
2 Years of college or associate’s degree 2 644 18.83
Bachelor’s degree 3 612 25.72
Some graduate work 3 783 26.93
Doctorate 612 4.36
Age 25-44 9 362 66.66
45-64 4 683 33.34

180
Employability Skills Assessment

Total 14045 14 045 100.00

Note. Subtotal of each category was omitted since they were all 100.00 %.

Instrumentation being satisfied with “status quo” (Petty &

The instrument used in this study was Hill, 2005, p.8) performance. Some
the ESA which consists of 23 brief statements statements included for this factor also
related to work ethic and employability (Hill, encompass the concept of sticking with a job
1995). The ESA was developed as an situation that might not be going smoothly,
alternative for the OWEI (Hill, 1995, 2014), such as “Do you waste time?” (Hill, 1995;
and its face validity was established using the Petty & Hill, 2005, p.8). The third factor,
same constructs that were identified in prior dependability, consists of six items related to
research that used the OWEI. The OWEI satisfying the expectations and the implicit
items that were cross-loading or below .45 agreement to perform certain functions at
eigenvalues were eliminated from those on work. The combined meaning involves at
which ESA items are based. The OWEI’s least fulfilling the minimum expectations for
fourth factor, which is comprised of reversed satisfactory job performance but does not
items, was not used in developing the ESA. necessarily include going “beyond the call of
Thus, the ESA was designed with three duty” (Hill, 1995; Petty & Hill, 2005, p.8).
subscales: interpersonal skills, initiative, and Out of 23 items, three items are designed as
dependability (Hill, 1995) and a 7-point reversed-coded items in order to prohibit
Likert-type scale for rating each item with 1 potential participants from developing a
(never); 2 (almost never); 3 (seldom); 4 response pattern by quickly selecting ratings
(sometimes); 5 (usually); 6 (almost always); perceived to be positive without reading the
and 7 (always). The differences between the actual items.
OWEI and the ESA are the number and CTE professionals, counselors, HRD
format of the items. While the OWEI consists practitioners, job program trainers, and
of 50 single descriptive words, the ESA has numerous others have inquired about the
23 brief statements. All of the 23 items are work ethic materials developed by Hill in
statements (e.g., Are you a happy person?; conjunction with the ESA. A set of
Are you thoughtful of others?; Are you curriculum materials is available to all who
committed to doing good work?). inquire for educational use at no cost. Often
The first ESA factor, interpersonal the ESA is used as a part of the learning
skills, is comprised of eight items related to activities associated with these materials. It
working relationships with other people, was designed to be a part of that. One of the
measuring personal characteristics that first persons who used the ESA for research
would contribute to positive job performance purposes was Wilson, a professor emeritus of
in a setting where cooperation with others is counseling at the University of Cincinnati
important. Statements such as “Are you with over 35 years of service (Hill, 2014). He
thoughtful of others?” and “Do you work reported a portion of his conclusions back to
well with others?” (Hill, 1995; Hill, 2004) are Hill in appreciation for availability of the
included. The second factor, initiative, assessment and materials.
consists of nine items (e.g., Are you eager to Wilson provided performance
be successful? and Do you accomplish your statistics in 2002 based on a study of 69 long-
goals?) describing characteristics which term welfare recipients who had histories of
would contribute to “moving up the ladder” chronic failure to profit from job programs.
(Petty & Hill, 2005, p.8) on a job and not He used the ESA to collect data and reported

181
 Employability Skills Assessment

scale reliabilities and intercorrelations. skills, initiative, and dependability was

Factor 1 (interpersonal skills) had high established based on prior research and was
reliability with coefficient 𝛼 = .82. The specified in advance using face validity by
initiative and dependability subscales had Hill (1995). This model included items 1, 5,
moderate reliability with coefficient 𝛼 = .63, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 23 for interpersonal skills
and coefficient 𝛼 = .64 each. Coefficient (Factor 1); items 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 21, and
α for both subscales of initiative and 22, for initiative (Factor 2); and items 4, 10,
dependability would have been improved by 13, 17, 19, and 20 for dependability (Factor
eliminating some items. Instrument revisions 3). Our goal was to examine how the
have not been made, but the items identified common factors were related to one another
by Wilson will provide a common-factor and to the observed variables by testing the
model of the ESA (Hill, 2014). model and how each item on each factor was
related. Using the common-factor model of
Data Analysis the ESA, we examined reliability and
Confirmatory Factor Analysis for construct validity of the model in order to
Construct Validity and Reliability provide a deeper analysis of instrument
Coefficients validity by performing CFA. For this, we
For reliability coefficients that treated the responses as being continuous.
indicate the extent of agreement between CFA is a powerful statistical tool for
different parts of one test associated with validating factor structure of a measurement
form-to-form variability (Brennan, 2011; (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1991; Van Prooijen &
Crocker & Algina, 1986), we computed Van der Kloot, 2001). CFA use linear
coefficient alpha using SAS 9.4. We applied regression models, predicting each
a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using continuous observed item from a latent
the maximum likelihood estimation (ML) for predictor item, to analyze relationships
the covariance structure analysis or the among subscales (Mulaik, 2010).
CALIS procedure (Structural Equation Projecting that the common factor
Modeling) with SAS 9.4 in order to test model of the ESA follows a multivariate
parameters and goodness-of-fit of the normal distribution, we used the maximum-
hypothesized factor model as a part of likelihood estimation. To examine the
construct-related validity of the proposed goodness-of-fit of the model, we used several
model of the ESA. Validity can be the indices in this study: the chi-square
interpretations of test scores for proposed goodness-of-fit-test, 𝜒 2 , with degrees of
uses of tests and can be the approximate truth freedom and a p-value, goodness-of-fit index
of propositions, inferences, or conclusions (GFI; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1986), the
(Messick, 1995). Thus, validity is the standardized root-mean-square residual
fundamental consideration in developing and based on a residuals-based fit index (SRMR;
evaluating measurements (Messick, 1995). Bentler, 1995; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1986)
Specifically, statistical tests of construct with 90% confidence intervals, the root-
validity can be the evidence for score mean-square error of approximation
interpretation (Messick, 1995). We used (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), the
Mplus 7.11 to produce a path diagram of a comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990),
confirmatory factor analysis (Muth é n & and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Muliak,
Muthé n, 2010). 2010). The 𝜒 2 is a test of model
The hypothesized model of the ESA misspecification that evaluates the
with the three factors labeled interpersonal differences between the observed sample and

182
Employability Skills Assessment

the estimated model covariance matrices. If CFI ranges between 0 and 1 to indicate
𝜒 2 is statistically significant, it means that the degree of fit. The value of 0.0 indicates a very
model fit is poor. It represents a badness-of- poor fit and the value of 1.0 indicates a
fit index. If 𝜒 2 is statistically non-significant, perfect fit (Bentler, 1990; Mulaik, 2010). CFI
the model fits the observed data well. values greater than .90 indicate good fit
RMSEA, however, was also used to models, values less than .09 indicate poor fit
overcome the limitations of 𝜒 2 such as models (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Whitley, Kite,
sensitivity to sample size and to violations of & Adams, 2013). For Tucker and Lewis’s
the assumptions of multivariate normal index (TLI), a value greater than 0.9 is
distribution. The values of the RMSEA considered a good fit model (Mulaik, 2010).
model index from .05 to .06 indicate a good
model fit and values from .06 to .08 are Results
acceptable (Bentler, 1990; Mulaik, 2010). Before analyzing the model,
SRMR represents the average residual value correlation coefficients among the three
derived from the implied model covariance factors were calculated. Correlation
matrix to the observed sample covariance coefficients among subscales, means,
matrix and ranges from 0 to 1. SRMR values standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis
equal to or less than 0.08 are regarded as a of each subscale of the ESA were calculated
good fit (Mulaik, 2010). CFI is an inferential (see Table 2). The correlation coefficients
fit index that assesses the improvement of ranged from .68 to .73 and indicated that
overall fit, comparing the hypothesized moderate correlation existed among
model with the empirical model with the subscales. The means of the subscales ranged
specification of no relations among variables. from 5.62 to 5.72.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients among Subscales (n = 14,045)

Interpersonal skills Initiative Dependability
Interpersonal skills 1.00
Initiative .68* 1.00
Dependability .68* .73* 1.00
Mean 5.72 5.62 5.67
SD 0.77 0.72 0.73
Skewness -1.71 -1.23 -1.37
Kurtosis 6.34 3.11 4.45
*
p-value < .001.

The overall model fit of the three- the data (RMSEA = .06 with 90% CI [.059,
factor model CFA of the ESA demonstrated .061], p-value < .001, TLI = .91). Three
statistically an overall good model fit to the model indices examined suggested a good
data (see Table 3). The chi-square goodness- model fit for the sample (GFI = 0.93, CFI =
of-fit test was 𝜒 2 (227, n = 14,045) = 0.92, SRMR = 0.04). Thus, all the model
11,712.11, p-value < .001. Two model indices examined suggested that the
indices indicated an acceptable model fit to hypothesized three-factor model had an
acceptable fit for the sample.

183
 Employability Skills Assessment

Table 3

Model Fit Indices (n = 14,045)

𝜒 2 (df) GFI RMSEA CI(90%) CFI SRMR TLI
11,712.11 (227)* .93 .06* .059, .061 .92 .04 .91
Note. Number of items = 23. * p-value < .001.

A diagram of a confirmatory factor error variances ranged from 0.36 to 1.49. The
analysis model with three correlated factors three latent factors are interpersonal skills (f1
and completely standardized robust in the diagram), initiative (f2 in the diagram),
maximum likelihood parameter estimates and dependability (f3 in the diagram) in the
were produced using Mplus7.11 (see Figure three ellipses. The factor variances were 0.44
2). The model had the following parameters (standard error; SE = 0.01, p < .001) for
to be estimated: 23 error variances, 20 factor Factor 1, interpersonal skills, 0.51 (SE =
loadings, 3 factor variances, 3 factor 0.01, p < .001) for Factor 2, initiative, and
covariance or correlation, and a total of 49 0.47 (SE = 0.01, p < .001) for Factor 3,
parameters to be estimated. The first item dependability, respectively. The estimate
question for each factor set the factor loading correlation between interpersonal skills (f1)
to one with a standard error 0.00, so there was and initiative (f2) was 0.38 (SE = 0.01, p <
no real standard error for the first item of each .001), the estimate correlation between
factor. That is, a response to Item 5 would initiative and dependability was .44 (SE =
change by 1.09 for a one unit change in 0.01, p < .001) and the estimate correlation
interpersonal skills. Factor loading estimates between interpersonal skills and
on Factor 1, interpersonal skills, ranged from dependability was .37 (SE = 0.01, p < .001).
1.02 to 1.17 (p < .001). Factor loading The 23 observed item questions are in
estimates on Factor 2, initiative, ranged from rectangles from q1 to q23. Standardized
0.63 to 1.03 (p < .001). Factor loading factor loadings for all the three subscales
estimates on Factor 3, dependability, ranged were calculated (see Table 4, Table 5, and
from 0.77 to 1.05 (p < .001). The Table 6).
measurement errors were not correlated, and

Table 4

Standardized Factor Coefficients for Interpersonal Skills (n = 14,045)

Standardized
Item question factor coefficient S.E. Est./S.E.
1. Are you a happy person? 0.65* 0.01 123.2
5. Are you thoughtful of others? 0.69* 0.01 142.3
7. Do you like to be with other people? 0.60* 0.01 103.1
9. Do you work well with others? 0.76* 0.00 183.1
11. Do you have good manners? 0.72* 0.01 158.3
14. Do people like you? 0.74* 0.00 171.0
15. Do you look for ways to help other people? 0.69* 0.01 143.4
23. Do other people enjoy being with you? 0.76* 0.00 186.5
Note. * indicates p-value < .001.

184
Employability Skills Assessment

Figure 2. A diagram of a confirmatory factor analysis model with three correlated factors and
completely standardized robust maximum likelihood parameter estimates. The residual variance
components (error variances) indicated the amount of unexplained variance. Thus, for each
observed variable, 𝑅 2 = (1-error variance), f1 = interpersonal skills, f2 = initiative, and f3 =
dependability.

185
 Employability Skills Assessment

Table 5

Standardized Factor Coefficients for Initiative (n = 14,045)

Standardized
Item question factor coefficient S.E. Est./S.E.
2. Are you eager to be successful? 0.65* 0.005 122.4
3. Do you waste time? 0.50* 0.007 72.38
6. Are you aware of what is going on around 0.59* 0.006 97.48
you?
8. Are you committed to doing good work? 0.78* 0.004 194.0
12. Do you do things right the first time? 0.63* 0.006 111.3
16. Is it difficult for you to find solutions to 0.35* 0.008 44.02
problems on your own?
18. Are you eager to complete the work that you 0.67* 0.005 130.7
have to do?
21. Do you accomplish your goals? 0.69* 0.005 137.5
22. Do you do more than is required or expected 0.64* 0.006 115.8
of you?
Note. S.E. = standard error. * indicates p-value < .001.

Table 6

Standardized Factor Coefficients for Dependability (n = 14045)

Item question Standardized S.E. Est./S.E.
factor coefficient
4. When you say you will do something, do you 0.67* 0.01 126.0
do it?
10. Do you take your time and avoid making 0.68* 0.01 130.2
careless mistakes?
13. Are you good at following instructions? 0.71* 0.01 145.1
17. Do you tell the truth? 0.65* 0.01 118.9
19. Do you ever disappoint people? 0.48* 0.01 68.09
20. Do you follow the rules even if you disagree 0.53* 0.01 79.77
with them?
Note. S.E. = standard error. * indicates p-value < .001.

The factor loading coefficients on the The standardized factor loading

interpersonal skills subscale ranged from coefficients on the initiative subscale ranged
0.60 to 0.76. For example, the factor loading from 0.35 to 0.77. The standardized factor
coefficient of item question 1 indicated that a loading coefficient of question 2 indicates
response to item question 1 increases by 0.65 that a response to item question 1 increases
SD (of item 1) for every one‐SD increase in by 0.65 SD (of item 1) for every one‐SD
interpersonal skills (S.E = 0.005, t-value = increase in initiative (SE = 0.01, t-value =
123.2). The correlation between question 1 122.4). The correlation between item
and interpersonal skills is 0.65. question 1 and initiative is 0.65.

186
Employability Skills Assessment

The standardized factor loading Grayson, 2004). Also, coefficient alpha is

coefficients on the dependability subscale equal to the square of the correlation of the
ranged from 0.48 to 0.71. The standardized observed score with the true score (Cronbach
factor loading coefficient of question 4 & California University, 2004; Eisinga,
indicates that a response to item question 4 Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013), so the square
increases by 0.67 SD (of item 1) for every root of alpha of each subscale was calculated
one‐SD increase in dependability (S.E. = as well (Cronbach & California University,
0.01, t-value = 126.0). The correlation 2004). Reliability coefficients ranged from
between item question 4 and dependability is 0.81 to 0.85, and their square roots ranged
0.67. from 0.90 to 0.92. Values of 0.70 to 0.80 are
In order to examine the internal acceptable values for coefficient alpha
consistency of the ESA subscales, coefficient (Cortina, 1993; Kline, 2000; Nunnally,
alphas were calculated (see Table 7). Since 1978). Values of coefficient alphas of all
the ESA is multidimensional with three three subscales of the ESA were above the
subscales, coefficient alphas were produced range showing acceptable reliabilities (see
separately for these subscales (Cortina, 1993; Table 7).

Table 7

Reliability of the Three Factors of the ESA (n = 14045)

Coefficient Coefficient alpha based n of
Subscale alpha Square root of alpha on standardized items items
Interpersonal Skills .85 .92 .85 8
Initiative .81 .90 .81 9
Dependability .81 .90 .81 6
Note. n = the number of items

Discussion for measuring work ethic in future research

The results of this study suggested studies. Despite the strengths of the
that the hypothesized three-factor model of techniques and statistics used in this study,
Employability Skills Assessment is a good only self-assessed perceptions of work ethic
model for measuring work ethic. Along with were included in the data used. Previous
the OWEI, the ESA has been widely used to research has demonstrated that self-report
measure individuals’ work ethic as a self- data can provide accurate assessment of
assessment tool. The current research study behavior associated with attitudes and
confirmed the factor structure of the measure affective attributes (e.g., Brener, Billy, &
of work ethic consistent with past studies of Grady, 2003). Future research might explore
OWEI. Each factor of the ESA has an this further by including data from
excellent or good reliability. To our supervisors or others in a position to observe
knowledge, this is the first study reporting work behaviors in job settings. One other
construct validity and reliability of the ESA item to note with respect to the current study
using a CFA with a large sample of responses is that respondents who entered the data on
from across age groups and from different the website were assured of anonymity and
professions. under no compulsion to present themselves in
In sum, the present research study a favorable light for anyone who might
confirmed the viability of the ESA as a tool review the responses. In summary, the results

187
 Employability Skills Assessment

of the current study showed that the ESA has coefficient alphas of the ESA since the value
good psychometric properties and can be of alpha depends on the number of items of a
used to measure the work ethic constructs of factor and values of alpha do not always
interpersonal skills, initiative, and guarantee that an instrument is reliable
dependability. (Cortina, 1993).
The ESA is available to assess work In conclusion it is clear that the ESA
ethic by human resource specialists who want is an instrument that can be used for both
to train or improve employee performance or research and learning. The factor analytical
by educators who are providing learning study reported here demonstrated it is ready
opportunities to prepare people for success in for use as an assessment of work ethic
the workplace. Work ethic is one of three attributes in research, and the extensive
areas that are included in a framework for previous use as a component of instructional
preparing for work success in the 21st activities have shown it to be a valuable part
Century (Rojewski & Hill, 2014). The of learning activities designed to shape self-
framework includes work ethic, career awareness and work behaviors related to
navigation, and innovation and proposes that work ethic. While there are several other
these are areas of knowledge, skills, and instruments to choose from when conducting
attitudes that will have enduring value in work ethic research, the ESA has some
present and future work. Many of the skills, particular characteristics that make it ideal
knowledge, certifications, applications, and when a brief assessment is needed that can be
technical content that might be a part of translated to other languages or combined
work-related instruction experience rapid with other instruments for collecting data.
change, but the components of this The availability of an online, self-scoring
framework will be valued into the future and version makes it quite assessable and the
will contribute to success. companion instructional materials already
Although this study provides several available can provide substantial resources
contributions to work ethic research in CTE, when research is being conducted in
several limitations must be considered. First, association with learning activities. Work
research participants responded an ethic is a critical component for being
instrument that focused on measuring parts of prepared for 21st Century work and the ESA
work ethic: interpersonal skills, initiative, is a resource worthy of consideration when
and dependability. Thus, this instrument is researching or teaching about work ethic.
not designed to measure all aspects of work
ethic. Second, in CFA, the loadings of References
variables on factors that were not Bagozzi, R.Y., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W.
hypothesized to measure were constrained to (1991). Assessing construct validity in
equal zero, which meant that many loadings organizational research. Administrative
which in reality may not be zero, such as in Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.
an exploratory factor analysis if conducted, Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory.
were forced to be zero in the confirmatory In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child
factor analysis in this study. Also, in CFAs, development. Six theories of child
measurement error variances should not be development, 6, (pp. 1-60). Greenwich,
shared because they are considered to be CT: JAI Press.
random, but specific variances can be shared Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social
in reality. We encourage researchers to be cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith, & M. A.
cautious when applying the results of Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management.

188
Employability Skills Assessment

(pp. 9-35). Oxford: Oxford University Education Research, 40(1), 63-80.

Press. doi:10.5328/cter40.1.63
Beder, S. (2000). Selling the work ethic. New Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient
York: St. Martin's Press. alpha? An examination of theory and
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit applications. Journal of Applied
indexes in structural models. Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. Crocker, L. M., & Algina, J. (1986).
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural Introduction to classical and modern test
equations program manual. Encino, CA: theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart,
Multivariate Software. and Winston.
Blood, M. (1969). Work values and job Cronbach, L. J., & California University, L.
satisfaction. Journal of Applied E. (2004). My current thoughts on
Psychology, 53(6), 456-459. coefficient alpha and successor
doi:10.1037/h0028653 procedures. (CSE Report 643). Center for
Boatwright, J. R., & Slate, J. R. (2002). Research on Evaluation Standards and
Development of an instrument to assess Student Testing. Retrieved from
work ethics. Journal of Industrial http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/s
Teacher Education, 39(4). Retrieved ervlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED483410
from Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v (2013). The reliability of a two-item
39n4/boatwright.html scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-
Brauchle, P. E., & Azam, M. S. (2006). Brown? International Journal of Public
Revisiting the occupational work ethic Health, 58(4), 637-642.
inventory: A classical item analysis. doi:10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
Online Journal of Workforce Education Flynn, G. (1994). Attitude more valued than
and Development, 1(4). ability. Personnel Journal, 73, 16.
Brener, N., Billy, J., & Grady, W. (2003). Furnham, A. (1990). A content, correlational,
Assessment of factors affecting the and factor analytic study of seven
validity of self-reported health-risk questionnaire measures of the Protestant
behavior among adolescents: evidence work ethic. Human Relations, 43,
from the scientific literature. Journal of 383−399.
Adolescent Health, 33(6), 436-457. doi:10.1177/001872679004300406
Brennan, R. L. (2011). Generalizability Ghorpade, J., Lackritz, J., & Singh, G.
theory and classical test theory. Applied (2006). Correlates of the Protestant ethic
Measurement in Education, 24(1), 1-21. of hard work: Results from a diverse
doi:10.1080/08957347.2011.532417 ethno-religious sample. Journal of
Christopher, A. N., & Schlenker, B. R. Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2449-
(2005). The Protestant work ethic and 2473. doi:10.1111/j.0021-
attributions of responsibility: 9029.2006.00112.x
Applications of the triangle model. Goldstein, B., & Eichhorn, R. L. (1961). The
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, changing Protestant ethic: Rural patterns
35(7), 1502-1518. in health, work, and leisure. American
Clark, R. W., & Cole, B. (2015). A look at Sociological Review, 26(4), 557-565.
leadership: An examination of career and Grayson, D. (2004). Some myths and legends
technical administrator preparation in the in quantitative psychology.
United States. Career and Technical Understanding Statistics, 3(1), 101-134.

189
 Employability Skills Assessment

Harvell, K. D. (2009). A new study of work jobseekers. Journal of Industrial Teacher

ethic as determined by occupation, Education, 42(3), 48-65.
education, age, gender, and work Hill, R. B., & Petty, G. C. (1995). A new look
experience. (Doctoral dissertation). at selected employability skills: A factor
Retrieved from analysis of the occupational work ethic.
http://dbs.galib.uga.edu/cgi- Journal of Vocational Education
bin/getd.cgi?userid=galileo&action=sear Research, 20(4), 59-73.
ch Ho, R., & Lloyd, J. (1984). Development of
Hassall, S. L., Muller, J. J., & Hassall, E. J. the Australian work ethic scale.
(2005). Comparing the Protestant work Australian Psychologist, 19, 321-332.
ethic in the employed and unemployed in doi:10.1080/00050068408255438
Australia. Journal of Economic Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff
Psychology 26, 327–341. criteria for fit indices in covariance
doi:10.1016/j.joep.2004.06.005 structure analysis: conventional criteria
Hatcher, T. (1995). From apprentice to versus new alternatives. Structure
instructor: Work ethic in apprenticeship Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
training. Journal of Industrial Teacher Huang, F., & Capelli, P. (2007). Employee
Education, 33(1), 24-45. screening: Theory and evidence.
Hill, B. (1999). Historical context of the work Research Collection School of
ethic. Retrieved from Economics. Retrieved from
http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/historypdf. http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcon
pdf tent.cgi?article=2029&context=soe_rese
Hill, R. B. (1992). The work ethic as arch doi:10.2139/ssrn.893261
determined by occupation, education, Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986).
age, gender, work experience, and LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural
empowerment (Doctoral dissertation). relationships by maximum likelihood and
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, least squares methods. Mooresville, IN:
2343A. Scientific Software.
Hill, R. B. (1997). Demographic differences Joseph, J. A. (2010). How generation,
in selected work ethic attributes. Journal gender, and personality affect work ethic;
of Career Development, 24(1), 3-23. Guiding managers in leading a diverse
Hill, R. B. (2004). Work ethic and workforce. (Doctoral dissertation).
employability skills. Work ethic Retrieved from
curriculum materials. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/922
http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/mp.html 420812
Hill, R. B. (2014). Development of the Kim, S. J. (2007). Identifying work ethic
Employability Skills Assessment. constructs using a Korean translation of
Unpublished manuscript, Department of the OWEI. (Doctoral dissertation).
Career and Information Studies, The Retrieved from
University of Georgia, Athens, GA. http://dbs.galib.uga.edu/cgi-
Hill, R. B. (2016). Welcome to the work ethic bin/getd.cgi?userid=galileo&action=sear
site [Web log post]. Retrieved from ch
http://workethic.coe.uga.edu/index.html Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of
Hill, R. B., & Fouts, S. (2005). Work ethic psychological testing. New York:
and employment status: A study of Routledge.

190
Employability Skills Assessment

Lim, D. H., Petty, G., Fontan, J., & Yoon, S. Industrial Teacher Education, 42(2), 5-
W. (2008). The effect of self-directed 20.
work teams on work ethic. Online Ray, J. J. (1982). The Protestant ethic in
Submission. Australia. Journal of Social Psychology,
Mann, M. J., Taber, T. D., & Haywood, K. J. 116, 127-138.
(2013). Work ethic revisited: Identifying doi:10.1080/00224545.1982.9924402
and operationalizing new dimensions of Rojewski, J. W., & Hill, R. B. (2014).
work ethic a century after Weber. Journal Positioning research and practice in
of Business Disciplines, 11(1), 65-101. career and technical education: A
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological framework for college and career
assessment: Validation of inferences preparation in the 21st century. Career
from persons' responses and and Technical Education Research,
performances as scientific inquiry into 39(2), 137-150. doi:10.5328/cter39.2.137
score meaning. American Psychological Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. M. (1980, May).
Association, 50 (9). 741-749. Statistically-based tests for the number of
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 common factors. Paper Presented at the
Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. Annual Meeting of the Psychometric
(2001). The meaning and measurement of Society, Iowa City, IA.
work ethic: Construction and initial Tydings, F. W. (2003). A comparison of work
validation of a multidimensional ethic descriptors among technical college
inventory. Journal of Vocational advisory committee members,
Behavior, 59, 1-39. instructors, and students. (Doctoral
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1838 dissertation). Retrieved from
Mirels, H., & Garret, J. (1971). Protestant https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/tydings_flo
ethic as a personality variable. Journal of ra_w_200305_edd.pdf
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, Van Prooijen, J., & Van der Kloot, W.
40-44. doi:10.1037/h0030477 (2001). Confirmatory analysis of
Mulaik, S. A. (2010). Foundations of factor exploratively obtained factor structures.
analysis (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Educational and Psychological
Chapman and Hall/CRC Measurement, 61, 777–792.
Muthé n, L. K., & Muthé n, B. O. (2010). doi:10.1177/00131640121971518
Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, Weber, M. (2005). The Protestant ethic and
CA: Muthé n and Muthé n. the spirit of capitalism. New York:
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory Routledge. Retrieved from
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamli
Pascarella, P. (1984). The new achievers: n/1095/The%20Protestant%20Ethic%20
creating a modern work ethic. New York, and%20the%20Spirit%20of%20Capitali
NY: Free Press. sm.pdf.
Petty. G. C., & Hill, R. B. (2005). Work ethic Whitley, B. E., Kite, M. E., & Adams, H. L.
characteristics: Perceived work ethics of (2013). Principles of research in
supervisors and workers. Journal of behavioral science (3rd ed.). New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

191
 Employability Skills Assessment

Authors
HwaChoon Park is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Career and Information Studies,
The University of Georgia at Athens, 109 River’s Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens,
GA 30602, (706) 224-1038, email: [email protected].

Roger Brian Hill is a Professor in the Department of Career and Information Studies, The
University of Georgia at Athens, 209 River’s Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens, GA
30602, (706) 542-4100, email: [email protected].

Manuscript submitted 04.19.2016, accepted for publication 07.07.2016, published 12.15.2016

192
Copyright of Career & Technical Education Research is the property of Career & Technical
Education Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.