60 Chapter 3 “people at work give me useful feedback about my ideas concerning the workplace”, “I can discuss my work-related ideas with people at work in order to improve them”, and “people at work are almost always supportive when I come up with a new idea about my job” (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha was α = .81. Week-Level Measures Proactive vitality management was measured with eight items developed by the authors, converted for use on the week-level. Participants were asked to report on the extent to which they had used vitality management strategies to promote their work in the past week. Example items are: “Last week, I made sure that I felt energetic during my work” and “Last week, I motivated myself” (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .88 to .92 over the three weeks. To further support the measurement instrument, we conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MLCFA) over the eight weekly items. The results of the MLCFA generally indicated a good fit to the data (CFI = .95, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .06, SRMR within = .06, SRMR between = .11). Moreover, all items had substantial standardized loadings on the latent construct, with coefficients ranging from .54 to .88 (all p’s < .001). In addition, item-level ICCs (i.e., the amount of variance that can be attributed to the person-level) ranged from .26 to .40, indicating that a considerable amount of variance remains to be explained on the within-person level. So, the MLCFA results show that proactive vitality management can be measured adequately and reliably on a weekly level and justify the use of a multilevel research design. The eight-item scale was developed and validated in earlier studies (Op den Kamp et al., 2018). The results of these studies also confirmed the onefactor model, and showed that the scale is reliable (Cronbach’s alpha was α = .88, on average). Moreover, the findings showed that the scale has convergent validity, as it was moderately correlated with other proactive constructs (e.g., proactive personality: r = .36, p < .001); it has discriminant validity as it was unrelated to, e.g., psychological detachment (r = .03, p = .473); and has criterion validity as it was related to well-being (e.g., cognitive liveliness: r = .48, p < .001) and various (work) outcomes (e.g., in-role performance: r = .30, p < .001, and objective performance on the Remote Associations Test: r = .14, p < .05). Creative work performance was assessed using five items developed by Zhou and George (2001), converted for use on the week-level. An example item is: “Last week, I came up
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw