Project - Report

Occupational Testing and Measurement

Group - 01

Submitted by -

Ankit Singh H009-21

Julie Hansda H021-21
Sandal Singh Sidhu H052-21
Sarthak Kumar Sen H055-21

1
Introduction:
Here, we are trying to measure the personality trait of considering future
consequences (CFC).

Name of the Construct:

The Consideration of Future Consequences [CFC]. It can be conceptualized as a
personality trait that deals with the extent to which individuals consider the probable
future outcomes of the decisions that they take in the present. Individuals with a high
score in this personality trait are generally very careful about the future implications of
their recent decisions, and they would never sacrifice long-term benefits over short-term
gains.

On the contrary, people scoring low in this personality trait tend to prioritize short-term
pleasures over long-term results, which might require a lot of patience and
perseverance.

Effect of the Construct:

1) People with a high score on CFC tend to have a longer and healthier life 2)
Individuals who are concerned about CFC tend to achieve more when it comes to
academics or their professional careers 3) Investors with a high score on CFC have a
higher long term financial gains/returns 4) People scoring low on CFC tend to be a bit
aggressive and impulsive, even while taking critical life decisions that require a lot of
patience, calmness and introspection 5) A society where the average population is more
concerned about CFC, they live a healthier and sustainable environment for their future
generations.

Scope [what do you intend to do]:

Decision-making ability plays a vital role in our lives. It is an essential life skill for
corporate managers whose decisions will decide the future and direction of the
organization they are part of. Now, assessing the future consequences of their
immediate choices can make or break the situation for them. If they are too impulsive
while making rational decisions, the organization might crumble in the long run. On the
contrary, focusing too much on the future might result in losing out on immediate
opportunities on which the company could have capitalized. So, a balance between
short-term and long-term orientation is needed for practical organizational function,
which arises from the cumulative effect of individual decisions. The study and analysis
on CFC aim to introspect upon that harmonious balance.

2
Method:

Nature of Sample:
15035 respondents responded to the survey questions. The age of the respondents
was between 14 and 99 years. Out of the respondents, 6761 were identified as males,
and 8049 were identified as females. The rest identified themselves as others.

Scale Details:
A 5-point Likert scale was used to collect the data where;

1=extremely uncharacteristic, 2=somewhat uncharacteristic, 3=uncertain, 4=somewhat

characteristic, 5=extremely characteristic (0=no answer chosen). The total number of
items used in the initial questionnaire is 12.

Results:

At first, the reliability test reveals that five items are negatively co-related. The five items
are Q1, Q2, Q6, Q7, and Q8. Since the scale we used was a 5-point scale, we

3
subtracted the values of negatively correlated items from 6, i.e., n+1, where n is the
number of ratings used. This resulted in the data of the items being consistent.

This is the final consistent data with which we have done further analysis. After that, we
have done the principal component analysis, a variant of factor analysis. As a result, we
got two different components and gave names to these factors after analyzing the
questionnaire.

4
The two components are RC1 and RC2. The items which compromise them are:

RC1 [Immediacy Effect]: Q3, Q4, Q5, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12
RC2 [Future Orientation]: Q1, Q2, Q6, Q7, Q8

Together, these two components explain 50.5% variance in the “Consideration of Future
Consequences” construct. The individual percentage contribution is RC1 (28.2%) and
RC2 (22.3%)

Now, doing reliability tests for each of RC1 and RC2.

Reliability Test for RC1:

5
The value for initial Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.831. Now reducing the component RC1 to an
item of two scales while maximizing the value of Cronbach’s Alpha [reliability], we get:

6
The reduced scale that we get are:
RC1: Q3, Q11
The new value of Cronbach Alpha is 0.756.

Reliability Test for RC2:

The initial value of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.740.

Now, reducing the number of items for the component RC2, we get:

7
After reducing the items of RC2 while maximizing the value of Cronbach’s Alpha
[reliability], we are left with two things for RC2, that is, Q1 and Q2.

RC2: Q1, Q2

The new value of Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.676.

Therefore, the final reduced scale is:

RC1: Q3, Q11

RC2: Q1, Q2

Now, doing the principal component analysis with Q3, Q11, Q1, and Q2; we get:

8
Thus, we can see that these four items, Q1, Q2, Q6, and Q11 explain 56.3 percent of
the total variation. Since the percentage variation is above 50 percent, we accept the
reduced scale.

Final Cronbach’s Alpha:

9
Performing the reliability analysis with the reduced items, we get the final Cronbach’s
Alpha value as 0.782.

Network Diagram:

The network diagram has been drawn with the items we got as a part of the reduced
scale. It shows a very strong correlation between Q1 and Q2 and a moderately strong
correlation between Q6 and Q11.

Discussion and Comparative Analysis:

10
 Initi Initial Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
al Cumu Set of Set of Value Value Set of Set of Value Value
Item lative Items Items of of Items Items of of
s Varia for for Cronba Cronba for for Cronba Cronba
nce RC1 RC1[Re ch’s ch’s RC2 RC2[Re ch’s ch’s
[Value duced Alpha Alpha [Value duced Alpha Alpha
of Scale] for for of Scale] for for
Cronb RC1 RC1 Cronb RC1 RC1
ach’s [Reliab [Reliab ach’s [Reliab [Reliab
Alpha ility] ility] Alpha] ility] ility]
]
Q1, 50.5 Q3, Q3, Q11 0.831 0.756 Q1, Q1, Q2 0.740 0.676
Q2, % Q4, Q2,
Q3, Q5, Q6,
Q4, Q9, Q7, Q8
Q5, Q10,
Q6, Q11,
Q7, Q12
Q8,
Q9,
Q10,
Q11,
Q12

Conclusion:
Even after the scale reduction, the reliability is not compromised to that extent, as is
evident from the degree of removal of the value of Cronbach’s Alpha. Hence, we can
say that we can accept the reduced scale.

Data Resources: http://openpsycmometrics.org/_rawdata/

11