r A-A094 040 AIR FORCE INST OF TECH WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFO OH SCHOOLIZTC F/65/FACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND FACTOR SCORE ESTIMATION IN nRGANIZATI--ETC(U)NOV 80 W H HENDRIX

UNCLASSIFIED AFIT-LS-4-80 NL

.~'~uuuuuuuumIIlfI

S TICEL ECTE

ADjTjmE 111 STATEMEvr A S JAN 23 1981Dpl-r), 1 -':r relougs;

DEPARTMENT' OF THE AIR FORCE EAIR UNIVERSITY (ATC)

3~AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

81 1r 22 025

FACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND FACTOR SCOREESTIMATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

William H. Hendrix, Lt Col. USAF

AU-A.FIT-LS-4- 80

.T A

UNCLASS IFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ("oen Data Entered) __________________

READ INSTRUCTIONSREPOT DCUMNTATON AGEBEFORE COMPLETING FORM1. RE NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CAWALOG NUMBER

Ad F~iIT-LS-4-8e JAI -4o 0// 4"/C,~ ________

___-_____ 4. S. -. TYPE OF REk2AXga0..VU.AZ

ACTOR.;DENTIFICATION AND ZACTOR SCORE ESTIMATION AU-AFIT-LS JFechnical ,)ep~tIIN ORGAN&IZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT S~. ______________

6. PERFORMING 01G. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) IS.

CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERts)

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT PROJECT. TASK(AREA & NORK J NIT NUMBERS

School of Systems and Logistics /Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB OH

ItI. CONTROLLING OFFICE N AME AND ADDRESS 12,- REPORT DATE

Department of Communication and Humanities I ovge==UPA -AFIT/LSH, WPAFB OH 45433 V. -NUMB ER OFPAE)

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(iI different from Controling Office) IS. SECURITy CltASS. '01 this report)IUNCLASSIFIEDIS&. DECLASSIFICATION 3OWNGRADING

SC EDuLE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of I.me abstract entered in Block .0, if different fromt Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

FRIIDRIC C-. LYNCH. Major. USAF

ioi Public i!airs C

Wright-Pattersoll AFS, OH 453 1 OEC 198019. KEY WORDS (Continue an revers, side 4f ecsssary and identily by block number)

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS MANAGEMENT STYLEORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATEJOB SATISFACTION

20. AB3STRACT rContinue on reverse side If necessary end identify by block number)

DD 1473 EDITION OFP I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE UCASFE

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ,Whon Dore Entered)

UNCLASSIFIEDSUCUP"tY CLASSIFICATION OF TWIS PAGQlha Data &atomed)

)A series of factor analyses were performed to extract organizational factorsfrom data collected (N-4786) on Air Force personnel using the OrganizationalAssessment Package (OAP). The 22 factors extracted were orthogonally rotatedand then each rotated factor had its internal consistency computed using theCronbach Alpha technique. In order to reduce the number of items within the

OAP, a factor score estimation methodology was developed. This included com-puting factor coefficients for use in deriving factor scores. Then a sub-setof items for each factor was regressed against factor scores as a means offactor score estimation. Factors, factor score coefficients, and factor scoreestimation results are presented.

/" \

._ CLASSIFIED.. CcR. Y LAS . . . c. T .C OF 3E'P.*n tao s

AU-AFIT-LS-4-80

FACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND FACTOR SCORE ESTIMATION

IN ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

A School of Systems and Logistics AU-AFIT-LS Technical Report

Air University

Air Force Institute of Technology

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio

f -rn For

D i

. .. - .

By ,' "-!: a

William H. Hendrix .. :. c

Lieutenant Colonel, USAF

November 1980

Approved for public release:

distribution unlimited

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES iii

INTRODUCTION..............................1

PROBLEM ................................. 1

SUBJECTS................................2

PROCEDURE ................................ 2

DATA ANALYSIS.............................2

RESULTS ..................................

CONCLUSION...............................4

REFERENCES... ........................... 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 OAP SECTION FACTOR ANALYSES (Rotated Factors) .. ...... 3

2 OAP SECTIONS DETAILED FACTOR ANALYSES .... .......... 5

3 ESTIMATED FACTOR SCORE REGRESSION VARIABLES ... ....... 7

lii

V

FACTOR IDENTIFICATION AND FACTOR SCORE ESTIMATION

IN ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

Introduction

Within organizations, management is concerned with how well their

organization meets their objectives. These objectives are frequently

measured in terms of productivity, cost savings, and retention of personnel.

The Air Force continues to be vitally concerned with this area of organizational

effectiveness. This interest includes organizational behavior research,

implementation of organizational effectiveness programs such as job enrich-

,ment, and evaluation of organizational development programs Air Force wide.

Problem

The Organizational Assessment Package (OAP) (Hendrix & Halverson, 1979)

was developed by the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory for use by the

Air Forces' Leadership and Management Development Center in assessing

organizational effectiveness. The OAF was developed within a contingency

model of management framework. The model assumed organizational effectiveness

to be a function of the manager, the situational environment, and criteria of

success. The OAF was composed of a Background Information section and five

attitudinal sections which were entitled: Job Satisfaction Questionnaire,

Organizational Climate Inventory, Perceived Productivity Inventory, Job

Inventory, and Supervisor Inventory. This paper reports results of a series

of factor analyses performed on data collected using the Organizational

This research was presented at the Eighty-seventh Annual Conventionof the American Psychological Association, New York, New York, 1-5 September1979.

Assessment Package (OAP). The problem was to identify those organizational

factors measured by the OAP, and develop a method for efficiently measuring

individual factor scores.

Subjects

The subjects were 4786 military anid civilian personnel at 5 Air Force

bases representing 6 major commands. Of these, approximately 86% were male,

14% female, 17% officers, 65% enlisted, and 18% civilians.

Procedure

The Organizational Assessment Package (OAP) was administered to Air

Force personnel by consultants from the Air Force's Leadership and Management

Development Center. Respondents completed the OAP by providing their responses

on an optical scan answer form. The optical scan answer sheets were shipped

to the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory for data analysis.

Data Analysis

Data collected using the Organizational Assessment Package (OAP) was

subjected to a series of orthogonally rotated factor analyses. Five separate

factor analyses were performed; one on each of the 5 attitudinal sections in

the OAP. In addition, factor score coefficients for each factor were computed.

This provided a means of computing a factor score for each individual on a

6iven factor. The next analysis involved establishing the internal consistency

of each factor using the Cronbach Alpha (Cronbach, 1951) technique. The highest

loading two items had their Cronbach Alpha index computed first, and iteratively

the next highest loading item was added until all items logically loading

together were computed. The final analysis involved developing prediction

equations to predict factor scores from a small sub-set of items for each factor.

Results

"he five separate factor analyses resulted in twenty-two factors being

extracted. Table I lists the factors extracted, the percent total variance

extracted. Table 1 lists the factors extracted, the percent total variance

accounted for by each factor, each factor's highest loading, and the nwnber

of loadings above .50.

IahI OAI'Seciaoa Iacl~ur Aaliyses

Perent LOA111011Total "beheal ^Dow*

section/10acler Vafla"e Loadins .50

Job Inventtory

Jub Einuchuient 12.24 .73 9Frcdomh-Autwomy 6.34 .79 3Twite Manadgemewnt b.2 h80 4Supervisor Influence 7.33 .77 4Advaziceincrit 4.95 .80 3Work Group Performanwce 5.90 .74 3Lquipmnt - Work Space 3.90 .74 2Work Repetition 4.11 .812rask Acc.otnplisthjiicat 4.06 .64 3

Total 55.70

OraiLationaJ Climisate InventoryGeaicral Cliuttale 33.56 .76 17Cuumkiattuns/Plantng 24.62 .86 8

Total 5b. 18

Supervibury In~ventiory

MilAKwC ment -Supervision 30.56 .77 27Supervsor Assance/ Feedback 2b.5 1 .76 20Autonomtous Control 5.59 .69 4

Total 62.03

Need for Enrichmnt (NEI)Mealninglul.Responiabie Work 49.17 .87 8Repetitve-Easy Job 15.92 .85 2

Total 65.09

Perc~eived ProductivityItigil ViodUctivity 43.82 .83 SPertusiance Disruption 17.51 .78 2

Total ol .32

Job Satisfaction

General Sataib -Action 3b.50 .77 16HIm aLe itiites 8.70 .79 3Training i.37 .532"-ual Area Social 5.17 .67Z

Total 55.74

3

The Coefficient Alpha indices computed for items on each factor served as a

cutting point for establishing the sub-set of reliable items in each factor

to use in predicting the factor scores obtained by using all items loading on

a given factor. Table 2 lists the factor loadings for OAP variables and the

Coefficient Alpha indices. The data indicate a small sub-set (e.g., 3-10)

could be reliably used to measure the larger set of factor items (e.g., 30).

The results associated with the development of regression equations for

predicting factor scores from a small number of variables is provided in

Table 3. The R2 values associated with each factor indicates that most of

the predictive variance can be accounted for by the factor estimate

equations which contain significantly fewer variables than used to compute

the original factor scores.

Conclusion

The Organizational Assessment Package (OAP) provides the Air Force with

an attitudinal survey which measures 22 orthogonal organizational factors.

Not all items in the OAF were required in order to reliably compute individual

factor scores. They could be reliably estimated from a smaller sub-set. The

OAP, therefore, can be reduced in length by deletion of those items not required

4

1ible. I t)AV hir-Aluia DI) dc~mJ IlOlUt AnalYSCI

Val. 1,64ding Alpha Val L0ading Alpha Val Loading Alfbil Var. Lmdifl Aloof

SitualpiiJ Laivu-maicnl

Job La.,,d~u..mnI a& AuIA-uiva.y in amalw~cmeng saupevm innfIpa4

20 ~ 73 21 3 79 2214 so 247 .71244 7o sod~ 211A 7h aid 223 66 .71 d 246 .14 7921(1 63 7g41 214 0. hM1 22S b61 .71 d 245 74 62o3 61 ifId 2411 49 dd 2122 .59 .7o34 246 60 8201 5 u ILI -Ills 41 814 219 AS .70d 216 .44 K421-1 S4 214.1 .1 (r 36 bb 229 39 .7 1 241 .38 as2,10 52 8... to 35 .86 232 16 .73A 217 3 1 .85log9 .3 tibd 246 2K 231 J) .1 244 31 56l217 49 *Ou 2.11 .25 3 33 74 220 .27

102 .49 .71 202 .25 241 .2523 .2

Ativanuceamij kLquipaca/Wusil.______________ SPAmjtGU&I Ciaihtyb Wock kepatillum Tak Acahapliamil

239 .110 2li5 .14 22b -11 218 .64240 64 a9g~I 2017 .63 .*id 227 .841 .*ISd 206 _S2 .32J214 61 (")'1 2 2t) 14 56 2211 47 .62 228 .51 411.241 4 b 7541 211 , 62 225 .13 212 .42 .46d213 27o 111 II 703 244 22 201 .41 sad231 2 1 217 SO 75 215 .07 20 2 .32 6 -'2J5 2 1 221 25 223 A7 230 .31 .b244 .111 13 26 2136, 7 2 '202110 19 2012 2.1 2012 .6 221 .27221 .19 214 23213 217 .22

Managsmueaiviviutyu pln AuiOdmtl

SuipeAnsum Asaaaaactcleoodbaai Aullosaa O)ussim

4U4 .17 435 76 4211 b412 .7b 80 - 437 74 SO5' 419 .65 .34413 73 5913 442 71 aid 415 Sod416 72 gild 4.13 .11 .91d 41 .!1 5l411 72 god 431 11 .92 434 .3s .55414 .71 9341 436 ti .92 425 .31 .604053 70 ij Id 4)9 .93 422 .29 .641f) .69 '944 4 111 I 94 443 .29440 65 95 425 .06 .95 4013 .21144.16 b) vs 427 . .95 426 .26

OMisil L11a111ae Pldaway Digitbut lis

111 1 1114 s 2611 111 262 78121 is did W.)3 54 sli 265 SO .74d3 263 .77 .34HO1 73 d54 Ills 71 .86d 261 78 .10 259 .16122 71 a1d 107 fil .87d1 259 72 a Id 264 us3101 61) #od 111 61 tj94 264 71 .8$ 260 u S1 12 69 9l1 1.14 )9 59 26.1 A4 261 uI

Ill 86. gd 104, Q2 90 26.2 .2 265 .311313 66 '92d 102 Il ) 1

H) 61,d 2(1 414 i1 14 61 II 1104 44 '

114 44 9

Table 2 (Continued)

Vet. Leading AI- Ve. Loa41i Alpha Valr. Loading AlPhe Vs?. Loading Alpha

Job Saddaction

Job Rdated LoWl Aets/SodcSatibAcion, Sags.ictionb Twainin Bu Fu~lidie

717 .75 707 .8 711 .80 721 .86

723 .72 .6 2d 708 .69 .6 3d 712 .79 .71d 720 .78 .75d

716 .69 .78d 706 .45 .64 704 .45 67 722 .71 .74d

718 .68 .79d 705 .39 .72 713 .43 .73 707 20719 .63 .S2

d 709 .36 .75 705 .39 .77 715 .18

710 .56 .84d 714 .35 .77 09 .38 .80 704 .17

715 .52 .83d 704 .33 .80 706 .35 .82 714 .t6

705 .50 .86d 71 3 .26 716 .31 .94 718 .14

713 .50 Sid 716 .28 719 .31 .86 717 .14

714 .42 .884 710 .27 723 .29 711 .12

Need fr Enrichment

Meanlnel Du.udi Repaetil IRespomible Wofk ag TAks

252 .87 255 .86253 .84 S d 258 .63 .64251 .84 .88d 254 .22250 .83 .91d 25t .19254 .82 .92 d 250 .18249 .69 .92 256 .14

256 .68 .92 252 .13257 .66 .91 253 .09255 .10 249 .04

258 .05 257 .04

aThis factor recommended for deletion since in the overall OAP factor analysis

variables listed here load on factor in the Supervisor Inventory.

bRecommend deletion since internal consistency index is low for variables

recommended for inclusion. Additional variables not recommended for inclusion

since they do not logically relate to the factor.

CThis factor is weak in terms of internally consistency. Should this factor be

included, additional items to strengthen it is recommended.

dRecommended for inclusion.

NOTE: OAP variable numbers listed identify specific OAP items. These numbers canbe found in Hendrix and Halverson (1979).

6

11____________

-77O

04 0, 0

(N C14 C1 N ..7I

0 LM a a7 a4 LA 14 n(N 04 (N 4 C4 C4 -T7 Iq I

"t -"44 "N 04 r M 1 1 M I - Ic 41r-. (lC1 N C4 (N -7 -

4)C;% -7 - ON -7 C4 - :$. CN4 04 CD 0- U' -4 " m m

(N (N .( 4- 4 r N (N (NC1 -7 1

1-4 (n f' LM a% Ln (N 'T -4 (N 07 NO ('- > 14 4 -4 C4 (N ( N -N (N (N (4 --7 -7 -7

cu r. Q).a aa a a. C

cc-.- 00 a- NO a0 (N -4 cn ' (N ' 0, c7'4(Cu C- cc en en ,- m N m N( (N IT I? IT (N IT -7 IT Ln t

mi aa-ao is a a a m .en oo o L a al M a 0 . aP4 'm IT 0-0' C'T C0C' U' -7' 10 NO M" C'N (N 1 IN (N 0T

Cf0 00. 0a a a a a a a ao al 0 a a aD a0 ao

Li w -4

~0 0

4.4 di-4 .1

Cu~~~~~1 0u a). Lo( ' 4 ( % 7 U O C- ~ O0 >u Cu60 (U'NC

00 4-h r_ > 41 u

Ai 0i

co jz w t'~' ~) 10 -- -- ' 7 NO U N ~ r- 7 I

(N~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ (N 0' 0 7 ~ C. N O C' ( ~ I 7 U .mi~0 -M Io j- Is. u- :0 0% 060 NOu~O

-4 N - 6

4-44

cc Il aU4-h .0 6.d i - C- .

0 0 a4 0 a) m 3cl

CO4 U-1 t"C 4M.

in the prediction sub-set. These factor scores when computed on work groups in

organizations provide reliable indices which can be used in a pre-test/post-test

design with control groups to establish organizational effectiveness due to

differential change strategies.

References

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 1951, 16(3), 297-334.

Hendrix, W. H., & Halverson, V. B. Development of an organizational survey

assessment package for Air Force organizations. AFHRL-TR-78-93.

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas: Occupation and Manpower Research Division,

Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, 1979.

f8