Measurement of Person-Environment Fit in Community
Settings Industrial-Organizational PerspectivesChristopher R. Beasley
Leonard A. JasonSteven A. Miller2011 SCRA Biennial
Mental Health & Community
(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
I/O Conceptualization of FitIntroduction Implications GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat
ion
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
I/O Conceptualization of Fit
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
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
I/O Conceptualization of FitIntroduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat
ion
Needs Supplies
I/O Conceptualization of Fit
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
Needs Supplies
I/O Conceptualization of Fit
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
Needs Supplies
I/O Conceptualization of Fit
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
Needs Supplies
I/O Conceptualization of Fit
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
Introduction Conceptualization
General Environment Fit Scale
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
Introduction Conceptualization
General Environment Fit Scale
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
General Environment Fit Scale
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
General Environment Fit Scale
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
General Environment Fit Scale
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
General Environment Fit Scale
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
Sample
246 attendees of the annual Oxford House World 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
Measures
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 your Oxford
House? Years? Months?
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods
Descriptive StatisticsIntroduction Conceptualizat
ion GEFS Results DiscussionMethods Results
Variable means and standard deviationsMin Max Mean SD
GEFS 33 60 50.02 5.19Satisfaction 6 35 30.49 4.36Tenure 0 117 21.08 46.9
GEFS Subscales
Subscale internal consistency, descriptive statistics, and inter-scale correlations
Subscale α Min Max Mean SD VC IS UR NSValue 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
CFA Results
CFA Model Fit Statistics
Models χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA RMSEA C.I.
SRMR
Model 1a 124.37** 80 .94 .92 .05 [.03, .07] .06Model 1b 126.48** 80 .92 .90 .06 [.04, .07] .06Model 2 389.17** 90 .57 .50 .12 [.11, .14] .12Model 3 338.44** 89 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .13] .11Model 4 336.04** 87 .64 .57 .11 [.10, .13] .11Model 5 338.13** 90 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .12] .19Model 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
Prediction of Satisfaction
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
Prediction of Tenure
Interpersonal Similarity β = .20, t(122) = 2.43, p = .02, rp
2 = .04 Explained 4% of the variance
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results
Summary
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
Limitations
Convenience sample Limited range Limited validity Internal consistency of Demands-
Abilities Fit and Value Congruence
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion
Future Directions
5-point scale Other settings Multiple setting fit and global
outcomes Benefits of misfit Program-environment fit
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion
References1.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.
NE
T
D
HE
?