172 Chapter 7 of both the general and state version of the proactive vitality management scale was good (Cronbach’s alphas varied between .86 and .97). The newly developed proactive vitality management scale behaved consistently throughout the studies described in the previous chapters, suggesting that the scale is applicable to and may reliably be used across different settings, nationalities, organizations, as well as measurement levels. For example, the studies involved samples of working people from various organizations and occupations, as well as nationalities, namely Dutch (Chapter 2, 3, 4 and 6), but also German (Chapter 5) and American individuals (Chapter 2 and 5). Moreover, the empirical studies described in the previous chapters indicate that the scale may be used to examine both between-person differences as well as intraindividual fluctuations in the use of proactive vitality management. Intraindividual Variation Some individuals may use proactive vitality management on a regular basis, making it somewhat of a habit to anticipate the workdays ahead and manage their physical and mental energy accordingly. In this way, proactive vitality management may become part of one’s personal way of living, likely related to general work motivation and personality characteristics. However, most people are not that steadfast all the time, and not every day or week is the same. As such, proactive vitality management is inherently a fluctuating phenomenon. It refers to proactive behavior individuals may display to a more or lesser extent, day in and day out. In support of this view, the amount of variance in proactive vitality management that could be explained at the within-person level ranged from 33% to 69% throughout the studies included in this dissertation. These percentages indicate that the use of proactive vitality management fluctuates considerably from week to week (Chapters 3 and 4) and from day to day (Chapters 2 and 5). A within-person approach may capture the relative use of proactive vitality management on moments (e.g., days) compared to other moments, and how those relative deviations from the mean may meaningfully relate to (fluctuating) outcomes. Moreover, questionnaires that are tailored to specific time periods (e.g., day or week) reduce retrospective bias and increase the accuracy of the self-reported behaviors (Ohly et al., 2010). Besides such a methodological advantage of being ‘on top’ of the process, there is also a conceptual difference between using a within-person design compared
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw