Positive coping strengths are important personal resources in helping employees deal constructively with the complex interaction between the individual and the environment.
The present study examined the usefulness and validity of the factor structure of the positive coping behavioural inventory (PCBI) with the view to further refine the scale and increase its usefulness and application value in the South African workplace.
Valid and reliable multidimensional measures of positive psychological constructs are considered important in understanding the array of personal resources that help employees cope constructively with work–life stressors in today’s fast-paced and more turbulent work environment.
A cross-sectional survey design was utilised to collect primary data from a sample of (
The convergent validity and internal consistency reliability of the PCBI as a measure of three higher-order dimensions of positive coping behaviour (inventive, engaging and intentional coping behaviours) were demonstrated in this study.
Researchers may confidently use the three-factor solution of the PCBI to measure employees’ self-evaluations of their capacity to demonstrate positive coping behaviour in the workplace.
This study contributed to the emerging body of knowledge on the assessment of positive psychology constructs that contribute to employees’ well-being and flourishing in the South African workplace. The results provide preliminary evidence of the usefulness of the PCBI as a valid and reliable multidimensional measure that integrates a wide array of positive psychology attributes in a single measure.
Measures of positive psychological constructs are considered important in understanding the personal resources that help employees cope constructively with work–life stressors in today’s fast-paced and more turbulent work environment (Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert,
The initial theoretical development of the PCBI and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by Marx (
A review of the research literature revealed two core problems relating to the measurement of positive psychology constructs in the workplace. Firstly, a problem that arises is the availability of international and local measures of positive psychology constructs that can be applied with confidence in the South African workplace context. Scholars exert much energy in examining the psychometric properties, and especially the reliability and validity of internationally developed measures when applied in South African workplace settings (Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert,
Second, a review of the research literature on the measurement of positive psychology constructs revealed several measures that have a core construct focus such as, for example, emotional intelligence (Schutte et al.,
The present study contributes to the emerging positive psychology research literature by examining the reliability and validity of the factor structure identified by Marx (
Marx (
Four-factor constructs and definitions of the 41-item positive coping behavioural inventory.
Sub-dimension construct | Definition | Positive coping constructs |
---|---|---|
Inventive coping behaviour | Positive problem-solving behaviour relates to cognitive strengths anchored in the individual’s self-esteem and internal locus of control. The individual is open to life experiences and applies wisdom, optimism, humour and positive reframing in dealing with stressful or painful life events. | Cognitive attributes (innovative speciality), wisdom, self-esteem (worthiness), optimism, humour (amusement), locus of control, openness to experience (broad-minded practice) and positive reframing (resolute review). |
Engaging coping behaviour | Positive emotional behaviour relates to the capacity to generate and maintain positive emotions and feelings even in difficult or stressful circumstances. The individual feels self-efficacious in alleviating the stressful situation by demonstrating a happy and engaged attitude towards the self, the situation and others. | Positive affect, emotional granularity, happiness (euphoria), self-efficacy. |
Intentional coping behaviour | Positive motivational behaviour relates to the self-efficacious capacity to intentionally and conscientiously engage in positive goal-directed behaviours that encompass active detachment from unhealthy attachments, the deliberate achievement of optimal well-being and the building of strengths and resources to adjust proactively to stressful situations. | Self-efficacy, resilience, flourishing, intention for positive health, proactive coping, conscientiousness, adaptability. |
Influential coping behaviour | Positive social behaviour relates to extroverted behaviour that facilitates positive interaction with others through positive self–other evaluations. | Extroversion, social support and agreeableness. |
Positive coping behaviour | Positive coping behaviour denotes individuals’ positive self-evaluations regarding their problem-solving and cognitive strengths, self-efficacious capacity to intentionally and conscientiously generate and maintain positive emotions and engage in positive goal-directed and extroverted behaviour in adjusting successfully to stressful situations. | Positive problem-solving behaviour, positive emotional behaviour, positive motivational behaviour and positive social behaviour. |
Scholars engaged in positive psychology research generally argue in favour of multidimensional measures of well-being to understand positive coping behaviour (Luthans et al.,
Flourishing theory (Keyes & Annas,
Research indicates that mental health is supported by cognitive orientations and traits such as wisdom, self-esteem, humour, internal locus of control, openness to experience and positive reframing. These positive coping constructs have been associated with well-being and creative (inventive) problem-solving behaviour (Ardelt & Edwards,
The research followed a cross-sectional quantitative research approach. Non-probability convenience sampling was utilised to collect primary data.
Marx’s (
The 41-item PCBI developed by Marx (2017) was examined in terms of its structural validity in the present study. The initial EFA conducted by Marx (2017) revealed four dimensions: inventive coping behaviour (10 items, e.g. ‘I believe most problems can be overcome by viewing them in a positive light’), engaging coping behaviour (8 items; e.g. ‘I feel happy, joyful and excited most of the time’), intentional coping behaviour (18 items, e.g. ‘I constantly strive to improve my ability to deal with difficult situations’) and influential coping behaviour (5 items; e.g. ‘I am not afraid to expose myself to risks’). A six-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely agree; 6 = definitely disagree) is utilised to capture responses. Low scores imply positive self-evaluation about the capacity to demonstrate the behaviour while high scores imply negative self-evaluation about the capacity to demonstrate the behaviour. Marx (
Data were collected electronically by means of e-mail and by means of fieldwork (site visits) during which hard copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the participants.
The research institution granted permission for the research, and permission to conduct the study was obtained from the company management. Informed consent was obtained from the participants. Ethical considerations such as anonymity, voluntary participation and confidentiality were adhered to in the data collection process.
The SAS Version 6.1 (
The path coefficients of the best fit CFA model were evaluated in order to assess the convergent validity of the structural model. A significant standardised regression estimate (path coefficient) of 0.50 and higher was used as threshold value for evidence of convergent validity (Kline,
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliability (CR) coefficients (a less biased estimate of reliability than Cronbach’s alpha: Alarcón & Sánchez,
The initial four-factor best fit CFA model was examined in terms of descriptive statistics in order to identify items and factors with low internal consistency reliabilities. The descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations, internal consistency reliability coefficients, AVEs) and bivariate correlations are reported in
Descriptive statistics: Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, average variance extracted and bivariate correlations.
Number | Variable | Mean | Cronbach’s alpha | Composite reliability | AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Inventive coping behaviour | 2.33 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.44 | - | - | - | - | - |
2 | Engaging coping behaviour | 2.55 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.37 | 0.78 |
- | - | - | - |
3 | Intentional coping behaviour | 2.35 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.41 | 0.77 |
0.77 |
- | - | - |
4 | Influential coping behaviour | 2.59 | 0.96 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.44 | 0.63 |
0.63 |
0.72 |
- | - |
5 | Overall positive coping behavioural inventory | 2.42 | 0.78 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.42 | 0.87 |
0.89 |
0.96 |
0.80 |
- |
SD, standard deviation; AVE, average variance extracted.
,
The bivariate correlations among the four subfactors were all positive and significant (
The first step was to test for potential common method bias because of the cross-sectional nature of the research design and the subjective self-report approach of the PCBI. The Harman’s one-factor solution for the PCBI showed that loading the original 41 items onto one overall construct accounted for only 17.69% of the covariance among the scale variables. The one-factor CFA solution (all items of the PCBI loading onto one-factor) had poor data fit with CFI and NNFI values below 0.80 (see
Positive coping behavioural inventory model fit statistics: Competing measurement models.
Model | Chi-square/df | RMSEA | SRMR | CFI | NNFI | AIC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-factor CFA model | 4.24 |
0.08 | 0.06 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 3467.1523 |
Original four-factor CFA model | 2.83 |
0.06 | 0.05 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 2123.0028 |
Modified four-factor CFA model | 2.89 |
0.05 | 0.04 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 1734.5917 |
Three-factor CFA model | 2.48 |
0.05 | 0.04 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 1429.5063 |
CFA, confirmatory factor analysis; df, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardised root mean square; CFI, comparative fit index; NNFI, non-normed fit index; AIC, Akaike Information Criterion.
,
The CFA one-factor model was compared with a four-factor CFA model based on the original 41-item PCBI. As reported in
Model modification of the four-factor model was then done in order to improve the CFI and NNFI fit indices. This step involved removing two problematic items (path coefficients below 0.50) from the inventive coping behaviour subscale. This step reduced the original 41 items to 39 items.
Inspection of the modified four-factor solution model showed that although the influential coping subscale had a strong loading (0.87) onto the overall PCBI construct, its loading was the lowest in comparison with the other three subfactors (>0.94). The influential coping subscale also had the lowest correlations with the other three factors and overall PCBI scale (see
The third CFA model (34 items) involved calculating a three-factor CFA solution (items of the three PCBI factors – inventive coping behaviour, engaging coping behaviour and intentional coping behaviour – loading onto the three factors, and the three factors loading onto the overall PCBI construct – see
Standardised path coefficients for the three-factor structural model data.
Coping behaviour | Observed variables (positive psychology coping constructs) | Latent variable | Estimate | Standard error | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subscale dimension: Inventive coping behaviour (8 items) | (P6) Wisdom | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.53 | 0.03 | 15.86 |
(P8) Self-esteem | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.70 | 0.02 | 28.39 | |
(P12) Optimism | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.57 | 0.03 | 18.11 | |
(P13) Humour | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.53 | 0.03 | 15.93 | |
(P14) Humour | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.52 | 0.03 | 15.49 | |
(P16) Locus of control | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.68 | 0.03 | 26.48 | |
(P18) Openness to experience | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.67 | 0.03 | 25.16 | |
(P19)Positive reframing | Inventive coping behaviour | 0.62 | 0.03 | 21.26 | |
Subscale dimension: Engaging coping behaviour (8 items) | (P20) Positive affect | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.70 | 0.02 | 28.48 |
(P21) Emotional granularity | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.65 | 0.03 | 23.32 | |
(P22) Happiness | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.68 | 0.03 | 26.58 | |
(P23) Happiness | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.62 | 0.03 | 21.43 | |
(P24) Happiness | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.56 | 0.03 | 17.26 | |
(P25) Happiness | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.64 | 0.03 | 23.32 | |
(P26) Happiness | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.79 | 0.02 | 42.56 | |
(P28) Self-efficacy | Engaging coping behaviour | 0.67 | 0.03 | 26.03 | |
Subscale dimension: Intentional coping behaviour (18 items) | (P27) Self-efficacy | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.70 | 0.02 | 29.54 |
(P29) Self-efficacy | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.70 | 0.02 | 28.61 | |
(P30) Resilience | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.71 | 0.02 | 30.13 | |
(P31) Resilience | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.76 | 0.02 | 36.76 | |
(P33) Flourish | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.60 | 0.03 | 20.60 | |
(P34) Flourish | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.60 | 0.03 | 20.68 | |
(P35) Flourish | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.67 | 0.03 | 26.24 | |
(P36) Flourish | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.61 | 0.03 | 20.97 | |
(P37) Flourish | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.53 | 0.03 | 16.11 | |
(P38) Intention for positive health | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.59 | 0.03 | 19.87 | |
(P39) Proactive coping | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.66 | 0.03 | 25.50 | |
(P40) Proactive coping | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.68 | 0.03 | 26.58 | |
(P41) Proactive coping | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.54 | 0.03 | 16.68 | |
(P42) Conscientiousness | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.64 | 0.03 | 23.68 | |
(P43) Conscientiousness | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.68 | 0.03 | 26.76 | |
(P44) Conscientiousness | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.62 | 0.03 | 21.76 | |
(P45) Conscientiousness | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.55 | 0.03 | 17.09 | |
(P46) Adaptability | Intentional coping behaviour | 0.63 | 0.03 | 22.47 | |
Overall construct: Positive coping behaviour (34 items) | Inventive coping behaviour | Positive coping behaviour | 0.98 | 0.01 | 80.67 |
Engaging coping behaviour | Positive coping behaviour | 0.97 | 0.01 | 89.50 | |
Intentional coping behaviour | Positive coping behaviour | 0.94 | 0.01 | 85.37 |
P, original positive coping behavioural inventory item.
Closer inspection of
The present research contributed to the positive coping behaviour literature and research by examining the construct validity of a multidimensional scale that was developed to measure positive coping behaviour in the South African organisational context. Overall, the PCBI showed satisfactory internal structural validity and can be regarded as a reliable and useful multidimensional measure of positive psychology constructs. The study extended the findings of the initial EFA conducted by Marx (
Comparing the one-factor CFA model with the initial four-factor solution also provided initial evidence of the internal discriminant validity of the PCBI. However, the somewhat low AVE values indicated the presence of measurement error, which could potentially negatively influence the discriminant validity of the PCBI. Although the bivariate correlations were below
The current results suggest that the PCBI may be a useful and reliable alternative to other internationally developed measures of positive psychology constructs in the workplace. The contribution made by the PCBI alludes to the scale developer’s effort to integrate the measurement of a wide array of positive psychology constructs into a single multidimensional measure. This feature of the PCBI points to further research on the psychometric properties of the PCBI as being a worthwhile endeavour that could extend the assessment of positive psychology behaviour in the South African organisational context in a cost-effective manner. Future research in various organisational settings with occupational and socio-demographic diverse groups should therefore further investigate the external construct (convergent and discriminant) validity of the PCBI in relation to other scales measuring similar positive psychology constructs. Examples of such scales include (but are not limited to) the assessing emotions scale (Schutte et al.,
Because of the cross-sectional design of the research, the results cannot be generalised to other industry settings. It is therefore imperative that the study be replicated in relation to other measures of positive psychology construct measures across a wider, more representative South African sample in various industry settings. The low AVE values indicated the presence of measurement error, which was not further investigated in the study. Consideration of confounding factors that could influence self-report measures such as the PCBI and therefore contribute to measurement error should be incorporated in future research endeavours.
This study contributed to the emerging body of knowledge on the assessment of positive psychology constructs that contribute to employees’ well-being and flourishing in the South African workplace. The results provide preliminary evidence of the usefulness of the PCBI as a valid and reliable multidimensional measure that integrates a wide array of positive psychology attributes in a single measure. The convergent validity of the PCBI as a measure of three higher-order dimensions of positive coping behaviour (inventive, engaging and intentional coping behaviours) was demonstrated in this study. Researchers may confidently use the three-factor solution of the PCBI to measure employees’ self-evaluations of their capacity to demonstrate positive coping behaviour in the workplace.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
M.C. conducted the data analysis and wrote up the research article. A.A.M. collected the data and contributed to the literature review. I.L.P. contributed to the literature review.