Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to test the properties of the well-known three-dimensional adjustment scale, established by Black et al. (1988, 1989), namely, its dimensionality and internal consistency. The theoretical basis of the construct is discussed in relation to formative and reflective measurement approaches.
Design/methodology/approach
– Two different ways of organizing the adjustment items (random/non-random) were used to assess the internal consistency of the three-dimensional adjustment scale. The quantitative analysis presented is based on survey data from 468 assigned expatriates in Asia that were subjected to an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as well as a structural equation modeling – more specifically the multiple indicators multiple causes model (MIMIC).
Findings
– The study revealed that the adjustment construct is possibly misspecified, especially the general adjustment dimension, that was tested as a formative, not a reflective scale. There is further evidence that the wrong measurement approach skewed the coefficient that connects adjustment to performance, which is the key construct in its nomological network. Moreover, the dimensionality and the internal consistency of the scale are deteriorated to a large extent by randomization of the items. The findings highlight the need for a clear concept definition that would lead to an appropriate operationalization of the construct.
Originality/value
– The study is one of the few rigorously testing the properties of a construct that has been used for almost 30 years, thus yielding some novel conclusions about its stability and consistency.
Concept definition study for an extremely large aerophysics range facility
