Multistudy Report

The Adaptability Scale

Development, Internal Consistency, and Initial Validity
Evidence
Karen van Dam1 and Michel Meulders2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1
Faculty of Psychology & Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2
Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Belgium

Abstract: Although dynamics within and outside organizations emphasize the importance of employee adaptability, a validated scale that
assesses employee adaptability as an individual difference construct is still lacking. Five studies were conducted to develop (Study 1, N = 235)
and validate a 10-item scale for employee adaptability and investigate its factor structure and measurement invariance (Study 2, N = 331;
Study 3, N = 375), convergent validity and discriminant validity (Study 4, N = 117), and concurrent validity, predictive validity, and
measurement stability (Study 5, N = 263 T1, N = 113 T2). Overall, the findings revealed good internal consistency, convergent, discriminant,
concurrent and predictive validity, and adequate measurement invariance. Potential applications for the adaptability scale are discussed.

Keywords: adaptability, organizational change, scale development

Employee adaptability is considered a key quality for
today’s workers in a dynamic work context (Jundt, Shoss,
& Huang, 2015; Ployhart & Bliese, 2006). Organizations
increasingly face pressures to change and innovate owing
to forces such as economic instability, global competition,
and technological advances (Baard, Rench, & Kozlowski,
2014). These dynamics emphasize the importance for
employees to be adaptable, versatile, and tolerant of uncer-
tainty (Ployhart & Bliese, 2006). Employee adaptability is
important for both organizations and individuals, as it
enhances employee performance and well-being in
dynamic, changing and uncertain work situations (Pulakos,
Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000; Van Dam, 2013).
Realizing the growing importance of employee adapta-
tion to changing work contexts, researchers have recently
begun to address this issue. Generally, two approaches
can be distinguished, a performance construct approach
and an individual difference construct approach (Baard
et al., 2014). The performance construct approach focuses
on adaptive performance, that is, the adaptive behavior that
is relevant to the goals of an organization (e.g., Griffin,
Parker, & Mason, 2010; Huang, Ryan, Zabel, & Palmer,
2014; Pulakos et al., 2000; Shoss, Witt, & Vera, 2012).
Researchers investigate, for instance, what happens when
features of a task change (e.g., LePine, Colquitt, & Erez,
2000) and how employees adapt to new work roles and
new work processes (e.g., Griffin et al., 2010). Individual
adaptation is either inferred from successful performance
(e.g., Kozlowski et al., 2001) or directly measured with
questionnaires such as Griffin et al.’s measure for task-
adaptivity and Pulakos et al.’s (2000) Job Adaptive
Inventory.
The individual difference construct approach views
employee adaptability as a set of underlying characteristics
that allow individuals to be effective under changing task
conditions (Jundt et al., 2015). This approach assumes that
there is a certain stability and generalizability in how indi-
viduals relate to changing, uncertain, and novel situations
(Baard et al., 2014). Knowledge on individuals’ adaptability
can be used to understand and predict how employees
respond in changing and new work situations (e.g., Ployhart
& Bliese, 2006). Individual adaptability has so far received
only limited research attention, possibly due to the lack of a
valid and reliable measure. Only few attempts have been
made to develop and validate a scale for employee adapt-
ability as an individual differences characteristic. Savickas
and colleagues, for instance, developed the Career Adapt-
Abilities Scale that refers to careers instead of dynamic
work situations (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Ployhart and
Bliese’s (2006) I-Adapt measure is based on Pulakos
et al.’s (2000) model of adaptive performance in the
military that identifies eight specific performance dimen-
sions that have shown relevance for (soldiers’) adaptive
performance. With 55 items, the I-Adapt measure is rather
long; moreover, reliability and validity evidence is not
presented. In conclusion, there is still an urgent need for
an economic, reliable, and valid measure for assessing
employee adaptability as an individual difference variable.

Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000591
 124
The main goal of this study was to develop and validate a
short scale for employee adaptability that helps to better
understand employees’ responses in times of change and
uncertainty. This new scale may be used in research to
investigate the precursors and consequences of employee
adaptability, and in practice for selection, development,
and coaching purposes.
An Individual Differences Approach
to Employee Adaptability
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This study follows Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006) conceptual-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ization of employee adaptability as individuals’ tendency to
be flexible, open-minded, resilient, and ready to actively
change or fit novel, changing, or ambiguous work environ-
ments. This conceptualization captures three key ele-
ments of adaptability. First, it emphasizes that adaptability
is an individual characteristic that underlies employees’
responses to dynamic work settings. Second, the inclusion
of “actively change or fit” stresses that adaptation can have
both proactive and reactive components, thus capturing the
subtle differences between affecting the environment,
reconfiguring oneself, and all combinations in between
(Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Huang et al., 2014). Third, this
conceptualization implies that adaptability should be con-
sidered a state-like capacity to respond to change (Ployhart
& Bliese, 2006; Van Dam, 2013) that can change over time
through, for instance, life and work experiences, training
and coaching (Zaccaro, Banks, Kiechel-Koles, Kemp, &
Bader, 2009). While traits and states represent the two
extremes of the trait-state continuum, state-like capacities
are more stable than purely momentary states, such as
moods and emotions; yet, they are more malleable than
the very stable “hard-wired” characteristics, such as cogni-
tive competencies and personality traits (Luthans & Yous-
sef-Morgan, 2017).
In the literature, different state-like characteristics have
been presented as important employee characteristics that
determine their responses to dynamic work situations, such
as Psychological Capital (PsyCap; Luthans & Youssef-
Morgan, 2017), resilience (Ong, Bergeman, Bisconti, &
Wallace, 2006), and approach-avoidance motivation (Elliot,
2008; Kozlowski et al., 2001). Reviewing this literature, Van
Dam (2013) noticed that adaptability has been approached
from cognitive, affective, and behavioral perspectives and,
subsequently, a distinction can be made between cognitive,
affective and behavioral resources of adaptability. Some
researchers have approached adaptability as a cognitive
capability, investigating a set of adaptive cognitions,
attitudes, and/or beliefs relevant for dealing with new or
changing situations, such as optimism, self-esteem, personal
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale
control, and hope (Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, &
Gruenewald, 2000). Additionally, research of individuals’
affective adjustment responses indicates that employees
adapt more effectively if they maintain in a positive mood,
apply adaptive emotion regulation strategies, and recover
more easily from negative emotions (Ong et al., 2006).
Finally, research also indicates that certain behavioral
tendencies are relevant for employees’ adjustment and
performance in dynamic organizations, such as proactivity
(Grant & Ashford, 2008), approach orientation (Elliot,
2008), and problem-focused coping style (Delahaij & Van
Dam, 2017).
Taken together, theoretical and empirical evidence sug-
gests that individual adaptability is an underlying tendency
toward change based on cognitive, affective, and behavioral
resources. These different aspects of adaptability should
not be considered as separate qualities, however, but
instead are intrinsically interconnected, with reciprocal
relationships (Van Dam, 2013). For instance, an employee
who is open to change (cognitive aspect), will be less afraid
of change (affective aspect) and inclined to participate in
the change (behavioral aspect); conversely, an employee
who is more anxious toward change (affect aspect) will be
less open to change (cognitive aspect) and more inclined
to avoid a change (behavioral aspect). In a synergistic com-
bination, these aspects contribute to employees’ ability to
deal with changing, uncertain, and novel work situations
(Van Dam, 2013). This approach to adaptability is in line
with appraisal and emotion theories (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers,
& Ter Schure, 1989; Lazarus, 1991) that regard cognitions,
affect and behavior as combined responses to the environ-
ment. Moreover, this conceptualization supports Zaccaro
et al.’s (2009) notion that adaptation implies a functional
cognitive, behavioral, and/or affective change in behavior
in response to or in anticipation of a change in the environ-
ment. This view of adaptability served as a starting point for
scale development.
The Present Study
The general aim of this study is to develop and validate a
scale for employee adaptability. As lengthy scales can cause
practical problems in research and field settings owing to
timely dropouts and concerns of overburdening respon-
dents, the goal was to develop an economic, one-factorial
measure with a limited number of items that would still ade-
quately cover the three aspects of adaptability. Five studies
were conducted to develop (Study 1) and validate a scale for
employee adaptability and investigate its factor structure
and measurement invariance (Study 2 and Study 3), conver-
gent validity and discriminant validity (Study 4), concurrent
Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing
 K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale
validity, predictive validity, and measurement stability
(Study 5).
Study 1: Scale Development
Study 1 set out to construct a short, generic scale for
adaptability that would cover cognitive, affective, and
behavioral aspects of adaptability (Van Dam, 2013), and
to examine its internal consistency.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Method
Scale construction followed a three-step procedure. First, to
enhance content validity, for each adaptability aspect eight
items in Dutch were generated, resulting in a pool of 24
items. Three independent expert reviewers, familiar with
the adaptability literature, assessed these items for face
validity and wording. As a result, 4 items were discarded
and 5 items were rephrased. Second, the resulting 20 items
were presented to 235 employees in the Netherlands (Mage =
35.27 years, SD = 13.0; Mtenure = 7.31 years, SD = 8.26; 50%
male; education included 31% lower and 47% higher voca-
tional training and 22% university) who gave their responses
on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (= fully disagree) to 5
(= fully agree). A factor analysis (Principal Axis Factoring)
was used to investigate the common factor underlying these
data. Third, as the scale needed to cover adaptability in a
broad sense, two independent expert reviewers looked at
the outcomes of the factor analysis, evaluated the relevance
of the items that contributed most to the general factor,
compared them to the other items, and indicated whether
they considered it necessary to exchange items. The aim
of this step was to ascertain that the 10 items of the adapt-
ability scale, in addition to loading high on the overall factor,
would cover the adaptability construct adequately.
Results and Conclusion
The factor analysis showed that the 10 items with the high-
est loadings on the general factor came from all three item
pools, with three, three and four items referring to cogni-
tive, behavioral and affective adaptability, respectively.
The expert judges both concluded that these items
appeared to adequately cover the adaptability construct.
Using the statistical package Jamovi 1.0.7 (Revelle, 2019),
McDonald’s omega (ω) was calculated to assess the scale’s
internal consistency; ω was .85. Given these results, it was
decided to include these 10 items in the adaptability scale,
and establish the scale’s factorial structure, reliability and
construct validity in the following studies.
Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing
125
Study 2: Factor Structure in a Dutch
Sample
Study 2 aimed to establish the factorial structure of the
10-item adaptability scale in a new sample.
Method
A convenience sample of 331 Dutch employees (Mage =
42.61 years, SD = 10.19; Mtenure = 9.50 years, SD = 8.79);
34% male; education included 16% lower and 47% higher
vocational training and 37% university) working in different
organizations were presented with a Dutch online version
of the adaptability scale. Table 1 describes the statements
used for the 10 items in the adaptability scale, and indicates
which adaptability aspect (cognitive, behavioral, affective)
each item measures.
To investigate the scale’s structure and fit with the data,
we used confirmatory factor analysis in R using the package
Lavaan version 0.6-3 (Rosseel, 2012). Datasets and R-code
for replicating the confirmatory factor analyses conducted
with Lavaan are provided in ESM 5 and ESM 4, respec-
tively. Two models were tested: Model 1 is a 1-factor model
with all items as indicators of a general adaptability factor.
Model 2 is a 3-factor model with the items of the three
adaptability aspects (cognitive, behavioral, and affective)
loading on separate yet correlated factors. Both models
include correlated errors for two pairs of items, namely
A2, A3 and A2, A4 as this considerably improved model
fit. Inspection of the items shows that the residual correla-
tions are most likely due to common elements in the word-
ing of the item pairs: items A2 and A3 are both about
affective responses associated with adapting to changes,
and items A2 and A4 both pertain to affective responses
associated with adapting to unexpected things/events.
The goodness-of-fit of the model was assessed with the
w2/df ratio, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI), root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)
and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).
Acceptable model fit is indicated by a w2/df ratio lower than
3; CFI and TLI values higher than .90; RMSEA values lower
than .08 and SRMR values lower than .06 (Greiff & Heene,
2017; Kline, 2011).
Results
Table 2 presents the fit measures and Table 3 shows the
estimated coefficients of Model 1. The estimated coeffi-
cients of Model 2 are reported in Electronic Supplementary
Material, ESM 1. Model 1 with one general adaptability
factor shows an acceptable fit (w2(df = 33) = 89.406, p <
.001; w2/df = 2.71; CFI = .951; TLI = .933; RMSEA = .072;
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
 126 K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale

Table 1. Items, means (M), and standard deviations (SD) of the Adaptability Scale items (Study 2)
Label M SD
Adaptability scale 3.53 0.62
Facet: Cognitive adaptability
C1 I am confident that I can handle every challenge (item 1) 3.73 0.93
Ik heb er vertrouwen in dat ik iedere uitdaging aankan
C2 I am always curious what development lies ahead of me (item 4) 3.57 0.96
Ik ben altijd benieuwd welke ontwikkeling me nu weer te wachten staat
C3 I prefer to do things that force me to learn something new (item 7) 3.44 0.97
Ik doe het liefst dingen die mij dwingen iets nieuws te leren
Facet: Behavioral adaptability
B1 I can handle new and unknown situations well (item 2) 3.80 0.72
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Ik kan goed met nieuwe en onbekende situaties omgaan

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

B2 I can quickly adapt to changes (item 5) 3.94 0.73

Ik kan me snel aan veranderingen aanpassen
B3 I always know different ways to deal with sudden changes (items 9) 3.62 0.82
Ik weet altijd verschillende manieren om met plotselinge veranderingen om te gaan
Facet: Affective adaptability
A1 If I have to change my plans, I stay relaxed (item 3) 3.44 0.98
Als ik mijn plannen moet omgooien, blijf ik relaxed
A2 I get energy from unexpected things and changes (item 6) 3.49 0.95
Ik krijg energie van onverwachte dingen en veranderingen
A3 I always like it when the situation changes (item 10) 3.02 0.93
Ik vind het altijd leuk als de situatie verandert
A4 I enjoy unexpected events (item 8) 3.24 0.99
Ik geniet van onverwachte gebeurtenissen
Note. N = 331. Answers are provided on a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = fully disagree; 5 = fully agree); the position of the item in the questionnaire is
indicated between brackets; C2 was originally worded: “I am always curious what development lies before me”.

Table 2. Fit measures of confirmatory factor models with one factor overlap. The internal consistency of the one-factor scale
(M1) and three correlated factors (M2) fitted to Study 2 and Study 3 (McDonald’s ω) equals .87.
Study 2 Study 3
Fit measure M1 M2 M1 M2
w2 89.406 64.176 125.989 98.975
Conclusion
df 33 30 33 31 Together, the results of the confirmatory factor analyses
w2/df 2.71 2.14 3.82 3.19 suggest that the 10 items of the adaptability scale measure
CFI .951 .970 .937 .954 one latent variable. Although a model with three correlated
TLI .933 .955 .914 .933 factors yields an improved fit, these three factors also show
RMSEA .072 .059 .087 .076 very high correlations, pointing at one higher-order factor.
SRMR .044 .037 .046 .042 Therefore, we continue with the one-factor 10 item scale
Note. In M2 of Study 3, ϕFC,FB was constrained to 1 to avoid an estimated for assessing employee adaptability.
correlation larger than 1. All models include correlated errors for item pairs
(A2, A3) and (A2, A4). CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index;
RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; SRMR = Stan-
dardized Root Mean Square Residual.
Study 3: Confirmation of the Factor
SRMR = .044). Furthermore, Model 2 with three correlated Structure in an International Sample
factors that respectively aim to explain cognitive, behavioral
and affective adaptability shows a better fit (w2(df = 30) = Study 3 aimed at investigating the scale’s factor structure in a
64.176, p < .001; w2/df = 2.14; CFI = .970; TLI = .955; new, international sample using an English translation of the
RMSEA = .059; SRMR = .037). However, the estimated scale. As adaptability is especially valuable during organiza-
correlations between the three latent factors FA, FB, and tional change, the setting of this study was an international
FC are very high (.82, .82, and .92), indicating substantial company that was undergoing a number of transitions.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134 Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing
 K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale 127

Table 3. Standardized coefficient estimates and standard errors (SE) Measure

for one-factor models (M1) fitted to Study 2 and Study 3
To obtain an English version of the scale, a translation-
Study 2 Study 3 back-translation procedure was applied using a native
Parameter Estimate SE Estimate SE English speaker. All participants received the English
λC1 0.529*** 0.044 0.612*** 0.036 version of the scale. The English and Dutch items are pre-
λC2 0.597*** 0.040 0.562*** 0.039 sented in Table 1. McDonald’s ω was .89 (full sample),
λC3 0.624*** 0.038 0.607*** 0.036 .89 (Dutch sample) and .88 (international sample).
λB1 0.678*** 0.035 0.750*** 0.027
λB2 0.677*** 0.035 0.733*** 0.028
Analyses
λB3 0.630*** 0.038 0.655*** 0.033
Similar to Study 2, two models were estimated to investi-
λA1 0.679*** 0.035 0.624*** 0.035
gate the scale’s structure and fit with the data: (1) Model 1,
λA2 0.630*** 0.038 0.691*** 0.032
a 1-factor model that includes a general adaptability factor,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

λA3 0.608*** 0.040 0.632*** 0.035

and (2) Model 2, a 3-factor model with the items of the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

λA4 0.660*** 0.036 0.690*** 0.031

three adaptability aspects (cognitive, behavioral and affec-
θA2,A3 0.217*** 0.053 0.178*** 0.053
tive) loading on distinct yet correlated factors. All models
θA2,A4 0.324*** 0.052 0.221*** 0.054
included correlated errors for the item pairs (A2, A3) and
θ2C1 0.720*** 0.047 0.625*** 0.044
(A2, A4). Datasets and R-code for replicating the confirma-
θ2C2 0.643*** 0.048 0.684*** 0.044
tory factor analyses with Lavaan are provided in ESM 5 and
θ2C3 0.610*** 0.048 0.632*** 0.044
ESM 4, respectively.
θ2B1 0.540*** 0.047 0.437*** 0.040
In addition, for Model 1, measurement invariance was
θ2B2 0.541*** 0.047 0.463*** 0.041
investigated by conducting multi-group analysis with the
θ2B3 0.603*** 0.048 0.571*** 0.044
R package Lavaan version 0.6-3 (Culpepper, Aguinis, Kern,
θ2A1 0.540*** 0.047 0.611*** 0.044
& Millsap, 2019; Rosseel, 2012). More specifically, starting
θ2A2 0.604*** 0.048 0.522*** 0.044
from a configural invariance model with group-specific
θ2A3 0.631*** 0.048 0.600*** 0.044
loadings, residual variances, intercepts, and correlated error
θ2A4 0.564*** 0.048 0.523*** 0.043
terms for item-pairs (A2, A3) and (A2, A4), we subsequently
Note. λj indicates the standardized loading of item j on the general tested for metric measurement invariance (i.e., factor load-
adaptability factor; θj,k indicates the correlation between the error terms of
items j and k; θ2J indicates the error variance of item j. ***p < .001. ings are constrained to be equal across groups), and strong
measurement invariance (i.e., factor loadings and intercepts
are constrained to be equal across groups). A description of
the measurement invariance models is given in ESM 2.
Method
Moreover, datasets and R-code for replicating the multi-
Procedure and Respondents group analyses with Lavaan are provided in ESM 5 and
Participants were employees of an IT department of a large ESM 4, respectively.
Dutch company with offices around the world that used Measurement invariance was studied for two group vari-
English as their main language. This department underwent ables: (1) In Study 3, the responses of the Dutch respon-
a continuous flow of changes related to management’s goal dents (N = 214) were compared with those of the
to be a truly international and more homogeneous enter- international sample (N = 161); (2) the responses of Dutch
prise, so that local traditions and cultures would become less respondents in Study 3 (N = 214) to the English version of
dominant, and cooperation would become easier. Changes the scale were compared to the responses to the Dutch ver-
varied between offices and included organizational restruc- sion of the scale (Study 2, N = 331).
turing to decrease the number of hierarchical layers, new
ways of working in projects, new forms of cooperation with
external partners and, overall, a different culture. All 2,000
Results and Conclusion
employees of this department (600 in the Netherlands and
1,400 outside the Netherlands – USA, India, and Europe) Table 2 presents the fit measures of Models 1 and 2, and
were invited to complete an online questionnaire. In total, Table 3 shows estimated coefficients for Model 1. The esti-
375 questionnaires were completed, 214 by Dutch partici- mated coefficients for Model 2 are described in ESM 2.
pants (36% response rate) and 161 (12% response rate) by Note that, in Model 2, the correlation between the cognitive
respondents located in the USA (n = 76), India (n = 24), and behavioral adaptability factors was constrained to 1, in
Europe (n = 36), and other countries (n = 25). Mean age order to avoid an estimated correlation larger than 1.
was 44.54 years (SD = 10.98); mean tenure was 13.27 years The fit measures obtained for Model 1 and Model 2 in
(SD = 7.48); 77% were male. Study 3 were similar to those obtained in Study 2 (see

Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
 128 K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale

Table 4. Assessing measurement invariance: Two comparisons

Invariance type Imposed constraints w2 df Δw2/Δdf CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Comparison 1: Dutch vs. International Respondents
Configural Unconstrained 173.428 66 2.63 .929 .904 .093 .049
Metric Equal loadings 188.964 75 2.52 .925 .910 .090 .065
Strong Equal loadings and equal intercepts 222.045 84 2.64 .909 .903 .094 .072
Comparison 2: Dutch vs. English Scale
Configural Unconstrained 178.024 66 2.70 .946 .926 .079 .043
Metric Equal loadings 201.687 75 2.69 .939 .926 .079 .062
Strong Equal loadings and equal intercepts 292.135 84 3.48 .899 .892 .095 .076
CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square
Residual.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Table 2). Model 1 with one general factor showed moderate
fit (w2(df = 33) = 125.989, p < .001; w2/df = 3.82; CFI = .937;
TLI = .914; RMSEA = .087; SRMR = .047), and Model 2
with three correlated factors showed an improved fit
(w2(df = 31) = 98.975, p < .001; w2/df = 3.19; CFI = .954;
TLI = .933; RMSEA = .076; SRMR = .042).
Further comparison of the standardized parameter esti-
mates indicates that the parameter estimates of Model 1
are similar in Studies 2 and 3 (see Table 3), whereas only
part of the parameter estimates of Model 2 are stable across
the two studies (see ESM 1). In particular, as in Study 2, the
correlations between the three latent factors were again
very high, ranging from 0.85–1.00, indicating substantial
overlap between the factors. On the other hand, unlike
Study 2, for Model 2 the correlation between the errors of
item-pairs (A2, A3) and (A2, A4) are not significantly posi-
tive in Study 3 (see ESM 1).
Table 4 presents the fit measures of models that assume
configural, metric, and strong measurement invariance.
The corresponding parameter estimates are shown in
ESM 2. The first set of analyses, comparing the responses
of the Dutch and international sample, showed that the
fit of the configural model was adequate (w2(df = 66) =
173.428, p < .05; w2/df = 2.63; CFI = .929; TLI = .904;
RMSEA = .093; SRMR = .049). A model that assumes met-
ric measurement invariance (i.e., factor loadings are con-
strained to be equal across groups) cannot be rejected
using a likelihood-ratio test (LR = 15.536, df = 9, p =
.077). In contrast, a model that assumes strong measure-
ment invariance (i.e., factor loadings and intercepts are
constrained to be equal across groups) fits less well than
the configural model (LR = 48.616, df = 18, p < .05).
However, except for RMSEA, a model that imposes strong
measurement invariance still shows acceptable fit (w2/df =
2.64; CFI = .909; TLI = .903; RMSEA = .094; SRMR =
.072). In sum, the assumption of metric measurement
invariance cannot be rejected, whereas strong measure-
ment invariance is not supported by the data.
The results of the second set of analyses, comparing the
responses to the Dutch and English version of the scale for
Dutch respondents indicate that the configural model has
acceptable fit (w2(df = 66) = 178.024, p < .05; w2/df = 2.70;
CFI = .946; TLI = .926; RMSEA = .079; SRMR = .043).
A model that assumes metric measurement invariance
(i.e., factor loadings are constrained to be equal across
groups) fits significantly less well than the configural model
(LR = 23.663, df = 9, p < .05). However, as CFI is only
reduced with .007 by imposing metric measurement invari-
ance, we may conclude that the violation of metric measure-
ment invariance is rather small. Furthermore, a model that
imposes strong measurement invariance is not supported by
the data (LR = 114.11, df = 18, p < .05) and shows a rather
poor fit (w2(df = 84) = 292.135, p < .05; w2/df = 3.48; CFI =
.899; TLI = .892; RMSEA = .095; SRMR = .076).
In conclusion, the findings reconfirmed the scale’s
structure and indicated that the scale has a certain degree
of measurement invariance when presented in different
groups and when presented in different languages.
Study 4: Investigating Convergent
and Discriminant Validity
Study 4 aimed to establish the scale’s convergent and dis-
criminant validity by examining the relationships with
related and unrelated measures.
Method
Sample
This study took place in a middle-sized general hospital in
the Netherlands that was merging with another hospital
and two nursing homes. All 300 employees of the clinical
and outpatient departments were invited to online complete
the Dutch version of the questionnaire. In total, 117 ques-
tionnaires (39% response rate) were completed. Respon-
dents had a mean age of 43.59 years (SD = 11.70), mean
organizational tenure of 13.06 years (SD = 9.47), and were
predominantly female (94.9%). Education ranged from

European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134 Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing
 K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale 129

Table 5. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), internal consistency estimates (ω), and correlations (Study 4)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Adaptability 3.35 0.54 (.87)
2. Handling emergencies 3.50 0.37 .45** (.62)
3. Managing work stress 3.58 0.61 .41** .38** (.74)
4. Dealing with uncertainty 3.51 0.35 .54** .52** .53** (.67)
5. PsyCap 3.69 0.36 .53** .56** .48** .58** (.82)
6. Change communication 2.46 0.67 .04 .27** .02 .09 .19* (.86)
7. Change participation 2.38 0.66 .08 .30** .03 .16 .21* .58** (.73)
Note. N = 117. PsyCap = Psychological Capital. Values in brackets indicate internal consistency estimates. *p < .05; **p < .01.

lower (40%) and higher (56%) vocational training to uni- Analyses

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

versity (4%). Validities were evaluated using Pearson’s product moment

Measures
All items could be answered on a 5-point Likert-scale rang-
ing from 1 (= fully disagree) to 5 (= fully agree). McDonald’s
ω of the adaptability scale was .87.
Convergent Validity Measures
For establishing convergent validity, no resource-based
scales were available. As an approximation, we used three
scales of the adaptability measure proposed by Ployhart
and Bliese (2006) and based on Pulakos et al.’s (2000)
model for adaptive performance: handling emergencies
(6 items; ω = .62), managing work stress (5 items; ω =
.74), and dealing with uncertainty (9 items, ω = .67).
Additionally, Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman’s
(2007) 15-item scale for Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
was used (ω = .82). PsyCap is an individual difference
construct that has been defined as a positive psychological
state characterized by self-efficacy, optimism, hope and
resilience. Theory and findings indicate that PsyCap is a
valid predictor of positive work behavior and attitudes
(Luthans & Youssef-Morgan, 2017), and an important
attribute in organizational change situations (Beal, Stavros,
& Cole, 2013).
Discriminant Validity Measures
To establish discriminant validity, two aspects of the
change process were assessed, change communication
and change participation, which have been related to
employees change behavior, such as change resistance, in
previous research (Oreg, 2006; Wanberg & Banas,
2000). Using these change process characteristics as dis-
criminant validity indicators is therefore a crucial test for
the assumption that the adaptability scales measures
employees’ habitual tendency to adapt and not their actual
change response. Communication was measured with a
5-item Likert type scale (ω = .86) and participation with a
4-item scale (ω = .73); both scales have been applied in
previous studies (e.g., Oreg, 2006; Van Dam, Oreg, &
Schyns, 2008; Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
correlation coefficients. Descriptives and correlations were
calculated with the statistical package SPSS 25.
Results and Conclusion
Table 5 presents descriptives and correlations of the
research variables. In line with expectations, the adaptability
scale related significantly to the convergent validity mea-
sures, handling emergencies (r = .45, p < .001), managing
work stress (r = .41, p < .001), dealing with uncertainty (r =
.54, p < .001), and PsyCap (r = .53, p < .001). As expected,
the associations of adaptability with the discriminant valid-
ity measures change communication (r = .04, p = .703)
and change participation (r = .08, p = .394) were not
significant.
Together, these findings provide evidence for the conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the adaptability scale.
It should be noted that it was difficult to find measures
for convergent validity and the scales that were used were
only approximations of adaptability. That might explain,
why the coefficients of two scales did not meet the .50
criterion for scales measuring the same ability (Kline,
1998). Moreover, it should be noted that the reliability of
the I-Adapt scales handling emergencies and dealing with
uncertainty did not meet the conventional standard of
.70; still, the associations of these scales with the adaptabil-
ity scale were substantial.
Study 5: Examining Concurrent
Validity, Predictive Validity, and
Measurement Stability
A two-wave study was conducted to examine the concur-
rent and predictive validity of the adaptability scale,
establish its measurement stability over time, and assess
the degree to which the scale measures a trait or a state.

Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
 130
As adaptability reflects a state-like way of responding to
changing, new or unexpected situations, it has both
unchangeable and changeable components, and therefore
adaptability is likely predicted by both personal (traits) and
contextual characteristics. Concerning the personal charac-
teristics, it was expected that employees who are emotion-
ally stable (i.e., low on neuroticism) will have more faith in
their ability to deal with changes and unexpected situations,
and therefore will show a higher level of adaptability.
Similarly, employees who are open to new experiences will
appreciate changes and unexpected situations, seeing them
as a challenge more than a threat, and therefore will report
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
higher adaptability (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Two contextual variables, job insecurity and Leader-
Member Exchange (LMX), were included. Organizational
changes often imply increased job insecurity (De Witte
et al., 2010). It is likely that employees whose job is at stake
may start to doubt their ability to deal with the change and
will develop a more negative response toward new and
uncertain situations. As such, a moderate negative relation-
ship was expected between job insecurity and adaptability.
There is also reason to believe that adaptability relates to
the LMX-relationship employees have developed with their
supervisor. LMX theory states that leaders form unique rela-
tionships with each of their subordinates, such that high-
quality LMX-relationships are characterized by high levels
of mutual support, trust, and loyalty (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). Such trusting, high-quality relationships and the
opportunities that are involved might strengthen employees’
adaptability. Therefore, a moderate positive relationship
was expected between LMX and adaptability.
Predictive validity was investigated by examining whether
the adaptability scale could predict employees’ resistance to
organizational change. As employees with higher adaptabil-
ity are more confident in their ability to deal with the
change, and even may view the change as a challenge, they
will develop less resistance to a change. In research, differ-
ent individual characteristics have been related to employ-
ees’ change responses. For instance, a defensive coping
style has been found to predict resistance to change (Bovey
& Hede, 2001), while personal resilience has been related to
higher levels of change acceptance (Wanberg & Banas,
2000). Based on this evidence, adaptability was expected
to be negatively related to change resistance.
Finally, we investigated the measurement stability of the
scale, and the degree to which the scale measures a stable,
trait-like quality and/or a state-like characteristic that fluc-
tuates over time. In the literature, it is generally noted that
most psychological characteristics are not either traits or
states, but instead have both trait and state components
(Geiser & Lockhart, 2012; Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt,
1992). We expected that this would also be the case for
adaptability.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale
Method
Sample
Data were collected at two times with a 4-week interval, in
eight organizations in different industries in the Nether-
lands, including a municipality, police department, general
hospital, bank, consultancy firm, indoor-climate firm,
energy supplier, and insurance company. All organizations
were in the middle of a change process, including structural
changes (restructuring, merger, takeover) and the adoption
of new methods or technology. At Time 1 (T1), 716 employ-
ees were invited to participate; 374 questionnaires were
returned of which 263 were fully completed (37% response
rate). At Time 2 (T2), 263 employees were approached;
177 questionnaires were returned of which 113 were fully
completed (43% response rate). Independent t-tests (with
SPSS 25) revealed that non-responders had reported higher
job insecurity at T1 than responders (M = 3.11, SD = .99 vs.
M = 2.61, SD = .97; d = .50; t = 4.12, p < .001). Responders
and non-responders did not differ on the other background
characteristics. At T1, mean age was 42.09 years (SD =
10.38); mean tenure was 13.35 years (SD = 11.3); 49% were
male. Education ranged from lower (32%) and higher
(42%) vocational training to university (26%). The changes
included structural changes (28%) and the adoption of new
methods/technology (35%).
Measures
The questionnaire was in Dutch. For all items, a 5-point
response scale was used, ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree)
to 5 (= strongly agree). Openness to experience was assessed
with a 5-item scale (ω = .79) of the Big Five Inventory (BFI;
Denissen, Geenen, Van Aken, Gosling, & Potter, 2008).
Emotional stability was measured with four items (ω =
.82) of Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP;
Goldberg et al., 2006) measure. To assess job insecurity, a
4-item scale (ω = .88) of De Witte et al. (2010) was used.
The LMX relationship was assessed with Graen and Uhl-
Bien’s (1995) 7-item LMX scale (ω = .94). Resistance to
change was measured with Oreg’s (2006) 15-item scale
(ω = .93 at T1 and T2). McDonald’s ω of the adaptability
scale was .90 (T1) and .87 (T2).
Analyses
Concurrent validity and measurement stability were
assessed with correlational analyses. To establish predictive
validity, a regression analysis using the observed scale
scores was conducted with resistance to change at Time 2
as dependent variable, and adaptability at Time 1 as predic-
tor, In order to control for base-line resistance, change
resistance at Time 1 was also included as a predictor.
These analyses were conducted with the statistical package
SPSS 25.
Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing
 K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale 131

Table 6. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), internal consistency estimates (ω), and correlations (Study 5)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Adaptability T1 3.64 0.54 (.90)
2. Adaptability T2 3.64 0.49 .74** (.87)
3. Openness 3.89 0.49 .42** .36** (.79)
4. Emotional stability 3.60 0.69 .48** .56** .03 (.84)
5. Job insecurity 2.90 0.99 .20** .29** .09 .28** (.88)
6. LMX 3.64 0.77 .20* .23* .02 .29** .13* (.94)
7. Change resistance T1 2.34 0.68 .40** .41** .02 .36** .36** .31** (.93)
8. Change resistance T2 2.24 0.64 .40** .38** .09 .28** .21* .18 .54** (.93)
Note. Time 1 (T1): N = 263; Time 1 (T2): N = 113. LMX = Leader-Member Exchange. Values in brackets indicate internal consistency estimates. *p < .05;
**p < .01.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Latent state-trait analysis (Steyer et al., 1992) was
conducted using the R package Lavaan version 0.6-3
(Rosseel, 2012) to investigate the degree to which the scale
measures a stable (trait-like) and/or a state-like quality.
More specifically, we estimated a latent state-trait model
that includes one latent trait factor and 2 state-residual fac-
tors (i.e., one for each time point). This model decomposes
the variance of each item as the sum of consistency (trait),
occasion-specificity (state), and error variance (see equation
5 in Geiser & Lockhart, 2012). The latent state-trait model
is described in ESM 3. Moreover, datasets and R-code for
replicating the latent state-trait analyses with Lavaan are
provided in ESM 5 and ESM 4, respectively.
Results
Table 6 presents descriptive statistics and correlations of
the research variables. In line with expectations, the per-
sonal characteristics related positively with the adaptability
scale at Time 1 and Time 2. Correlation coefficients were
for openness to experience r = .42 (p < .001) at Time 1,
and r = .36 (p < .001) at Time 2; and for emotional stability
r = .48 (p < .001) at Time 1, and r = .56 (p < .001) at Time 2.
As predicted, job insecurity showed a moderate negative
relationship with adaptability at Time 1 (r = .20, p = .001)
and Time 2 (r = .29, p = .002). Similarly, LMX was signif-
icantly associated with adaptability at Time 1 (r = .20, p =
.001) and Time 2 (r = .23, p = .014). Together, these find-
ings provide evidence for the concurrent validity of the
adaptability scale.
Adaptability at Time 1 was strongly related to employees’
change resistance at Time 1 (r = .40, p < .001) and at
Time 2 (r = .41, p < .001). The outcomes of the regression
analysis showed that adaptability predicted change resis-
tance at Time 2 (β = .22, p = .011) when controlling for
base-level change resistance at Time 1.
Regarding measurement stability, a strong association
(r = .74, p < .001) was found for adaptability at Time 1
and Time 2, four weeks later. The results of a latent
state-trait analysis showed that 75.8% of the common
variance can be accounted for by the stable, person-specific
trait, while 24.2% of the common variance is due to
occasion-specific latent state-residual factors. ESM 3 shows
the estimated coefficients for the latent state-trait model,
and consistency, occasion-specificity, reliability, and error
variance for each item in the adaptability scale.
Conclusion
The outcomes of this study provide support for the concur-
rent and predictive validity of the adaptability scale. Adapt-
ability was associated with both personal characteristics,
that is, openness and emotional stability, and contextual
variables, that is, job insecurity and LMX. Moreover, the
scale showed strong measurement stability over time. In
addition, the scale appears to measure a personal quality
that has a state-like component in addition to a strong stable
component. This stable component might explain why the
association with emotional stability was rather high.
General Discussion
The goal of the present study was to develop and evaluate a
self-report, one-factorial measure of employee adaptability.
Whereas existing measures (e.g., Pulakos et al., 2000)
focus on adaptive behaviors in various domains, such as
work stress and handling emergencies, the adaptability
scale aims to assesses employees’ underlying tendency to
be flexible, open-minded and ready to deal with changing,
uncertain and new work situations, and includes items that
refer to cognitive, affective and behavioral aspects of adapt-
ability (Van Dam, 2013). Five studies were conducted to
construct and evaluate this scale.
The first three studies set out to develop the scale and
investigate its internal consistency and factor structure in
different samples. While the internal consistency estimates
for the 10-item scale were well above cut-off points, it
appeared necessary in the confirmatory analyses to include
associations between the error terms of three affective

Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
 132
items which might be due to similar wording and focus.
Although model fit for the 3-factor model was better than
for the proposed 1-factor model, the outcomes also showed
that the three factors were strongly interrelated. These
outcomes indicate that although the scale covers differ-
ent aspects of adaptability, it still can be used as a general
1-factor measure.
The next two studies provided evidence for construct
validity by showing that the adaptability scale was positively
related to adaptive performance and PsyCap (conver-
gent validity), unrelated to change communication and
participation (discriminant validity), positively predicted
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
by emotional stability, openness-to-experience, LMX, and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
negatively predicted by job insecurity (concurrent validity).
Finally, the two-wave study established the incremental
predictive validity of the adaptability scale by showing that
the scale contributed to the prediction of change resistance
4 weeks later after controlling for base-level resistance.
While these findings support the reliability and validity of
the new scale, attention should be given to the sizes of
the validity coefficients. Ideally, coefficients for convergent
validity should be higher than coefficients for concurrent
validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). In Studies 4 and 5, some
of these coefficients had similar sizes. There are two possi-
ble explanations. First, in Study 4, a valid and reliable scale
of adaptability was not available to determine convergent
validity. Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006) scales are based on
a different conceptual model, namely, Pulakos et al.’s
(2000) model of adaptive performance in the military,
while our measure derives from Van Dam’s (2013) model
of individual adaptability that includes three interrelated
types of personal resources (cf. Hobfoll, Halbesleben,
Neveu, & Westman, 2018). This might explain why two
of the Ployhart and Bliese scales did not meet the .50 con-
vergent validity criterion for measures of ability (Kline,
1998), although the size of the coefficients was still substan-
tial. Second, in Study 5, the correlation coefficients of adapt-
ability with the traits, in particular emotional stability, were
quite high. This is an important conceptual finding because
it relates to the question how state-like or trait-like adapt-
ability (as measured by our scale) is. Luthans et al. (2007)
distinguish three categories of subjective characteristics
based on their level of changeability; “trait-like” character-
istics that are relatively stable and difficult to change;
“state-like” characteristics that are relatively changeable
and malleable; and “states” that vary significantly within
the same person over short periods of time and across sit-
uations. The outcomes of the state-trait analysis showed
that adaptability, as measured by our scale, has a strong
stable as well as a fluctuating component. Moreover, strong
positive associations were found with other characteristics
that are considered state-like, such as PsyCap (Study 4).
Also, there were moderate positive relationships with
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale
contextual variables, that is, job insecurity and LMX (Study
5), suggesting that adaptability is malleable and can be
affected by employees’ work context. At the same time,
the strong positive associations with emotional stability
(Study 5) indicate that employees’ stable traits might put
a limit to adaptability development. Together, the findings
suggest that the adaptability scale taps into a habitual yet
malleable ability to respond to changing, new and unex-
pected situations.
Limitations and Implications
Some limitations deserve mentioning. First, most studies
were conducted in the Netherlands with the Dutch version
of the scale. Although we found similar measurement qual-
ities for the Dutch version (Study 2) and English version
(Study 3) of the scale, future research could apply the scale
in different countries and languages, and establish its valid-
ity and reliability across nations (cf. Savickas & Porfeli,
2012). Second, the scale was validated with self-report
scales, which enhances the risk of method and source bias.
Future research could use information from other sources,
such as peer-ratings of employees’ change resistance, or
leader ratings of the LMX relationship.
Despite these limitations, the new adaptability scale has a
number of implications for future research. An important
issue is adaptability development. More research is needed
to investigate how adaptability develops and how it is
affected by life course and career events, workplace charac-
teristics, and development activities such as training and
coaching. In this study, a number of work context variables
were included; yet, work context characteristics at different
levels may play a role, such as task autonomy at job level,
team and leader adaptability at group level, and climate
for change and innovation at the organizational level.
Moreover, the interaction of specific stable traits with these
external characteristics should be studied, as events and
context characteristics may have a different impact on peo-
ples’ habitual stance toward changing and uncertain situa-
tions, depending on their genetic structure, temperament
and personality (Ployhart & Bliese, 2006).
In addition to a focus on adaptability development, future
research could investigate the consequences of adaptability.
In Study 5, adaptability was already linked to employees’
openness to a specific change. As employee adaptability
relates to individuals’ inclination for dealing with change,
a specific change might be appraised more as a challenge
than a threat (Fugate, Kinicki, & Prussia, 2008; Lazarus,
1991). Adaptability may also have consequences for
employees’ adaptive performance during change; it is likely
that high adaptive workers are more proactive and
approach oriented, showing supporting and adaptive behav-
iors, while low adaptive workers are less proactive and
Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing
 K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale
more avoidance oriented (Carpini, Parker, & Griffin, 2017).
Relatedly, adaptability might impact employees’ emotions
and well-being during change (Van Dam, 2013). Adaptable
workers may be less vulnerable to resource loss and more
capable of gaining resources; therefore, gain-and-loss cycles
(Hobfoll et al., 2018) may occur, with high-adaptive workers
experiencing challenge, control and well-being during
change, which may strengthen their adaptability, while
low-adaptive workers may experience threat, loss of control
and negative emotions during change, which may under-
mine their adaptability. Future research might look into
these adaptability-related loss-and-gain cycles. Additionally,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
future research might focus on the conditions that impact
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the relationship between individuals’ adaptability and
adaptive behavior. As Ployhart and Bliese (2006) note, this
relationship might differ in stable versus dynamic environ-
ments. Other moderators are also likely, such as perceived
organizational support, perceptions of organizational jus-
tice, and organizational climate.
The scale also appears promising for practical purposes
as it can be used as a general diagnostic tool for hiring
and placement decisions, human resources development
and counseling practice. During change situations, the
assessment of employees’ adaptability could be used to
assign employees with low adaptability levels to specific
interventions such as workshops, mentoring and coaching
to strengthen their belief in their ability to deal with change.
Additionally, employees with high adaptability could play a
specific role during change, for instance as change models,
discussion leaders, or mentors of low-adaptability worker.
Finally, organizations might try to increase employee adapt-
ability through the LMX relationship and by providing clar-
ity about possible job losses, and as such support employees
during organizational change.
Electronic Supplementary Materials
The electronic supplementary material is available with
the online version of the article at https://doi.org/
10.1027/1015-5759/a000591
ESM 1. Table with the standardized coefficient estimates
and standard errors for the three-factor models (M2)
fitted to Study 2 and Study 3.
ESM 2. Model description and six tables describing the
coefficient estimates and standard errors of different
models to assess measurement invariance.
ESM 3. Model description and parameter estimates for
the latent trait-state model.
ESM 3. Model description and parameter estimates for
the latent trait-state model.
ESM 4. R-code (text) for replicating analyses conducted
with Lavaan.
Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing
133
ESM 5. Datasets (R workspace) for replicating analyses
conducted with Lavaan.
References
Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work transi-
tions: An integrative approach. Research in Personnel and
Human Resource Management, 8, 1–39.
Baard, S. K., Rench, T. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Perfor-
mance adaptation: A theoretical integration and review. Journal
of Management, 40, 48–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206313488210
Beal, L. I., Stavros, J. M., & Cole, M. L. (2013). Effect of psycho-
logical capital and resistance to change on organisational
citizenship behaviour. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1136
Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organizational change:
The role of defense mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychol-
ogy, 16, 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006166
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discrimi-
nant validity by the multi-trait-multi-method matrix. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Carpini, J. A., Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2017). A look back and
a leap forward: A review and synthesis of the individual work
performance literature. Academy of Management Annals, 11,
825–885. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0151
Culpepper, S. A., Aguinis, H., Kern, J. L., & Millsap, R. (2019). High-
stakes testing case study: A latent variable approach for
assessing measurement and prediction invariance. Psychome-
trika, 84, 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-018-9649-2
Delahaij, R., & Van Dam, K. (2017). Coping with acute stress in the
military: The influence of coping style, coping efficacy and
appraisal emotions. Personality & Individual Differences, 119,
13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.06.021
Denissen, J., Geenen, R., Van Aken, M. A. G., Gosling, S. D., &
Potter, J. (2008). Development and validation of a Dutch transla-
tion of the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 90, 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845229
De Witte, H., De Cuyper, N., Handaja, Y., Sverke, M., Näswall, K., &
Hellgren, J. (2010). Associations between quantitative and
qualitative job insecurity and well-being: A test in Belgian
banks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40,
40–56. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825400103
Elliot A. J. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of approach and avoidance
motivation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among
emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A
psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14–38. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2008). Employee coping
with organizational change: An examination of alternative
theoretical perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 61, 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00104.x
Geiser, C., & Lockhart, G. (2012). A comparison of four approaches
to account for method effects in latent state-trait analyses.
Psychological Methods, 17, 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0026977
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton,
M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International
Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain person-
ality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
 134
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach
to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX)
theory over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at
work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
Greiff, S., & Heene, M. (2017). Why psychological assessment
needs to start worrying about model fit. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 33, 313–317. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1015-5759/a000450
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision
and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 174–182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017263
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The
reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–
128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., & Palmer, A. (2014).
Personality and adaptive performance at work: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 162–179.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034285
Jundt, D. K., Shoss, M. K., & Huang, J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive
performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36, S53–S71. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1955
Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology and
measurement. London, UK: Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M.,
& Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orienta-
tion traits on multidimensional training outcomes and perfor-
mance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 85, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2930
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-
relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–
834.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to
changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability,
conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psy-
chology, 53, 563–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.
tb00214.x
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007).
Positive Psychological Capital: Measurement and relationship
with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60,
541–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x
Luthans, F., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2017). Psychological Capital:
An evidence-based positive approach. Annual Review of Organi-
zational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 339–366.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A. (2006).
Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful
adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91, 730–749.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context and resistance to organiza-
tional change. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 15, 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13594320500451247
Ployhart, R. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). Individual Adaptability
(I-Adapt) theory: Conceptualizing the antecedents, conse-
quences, and measurements of individual differences in
adaptability. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive
European Journal of Psychological Assessment (2021), 37(2), 123–134
K. van Dam & M. Meulders, Adaptability Scale
Engineering Research, 6, 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-
3601(05)06001-7
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E.
(2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a
taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 85, 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
Revelle, W. (2019). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psycho-
metric, and personality research [R package]. Retrieved from
htpps://cran.r-project.org/package=psych
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation
Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities
Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence
across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661–
673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011
Shoss, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Vera, D. (2012). When does adaptive
performance lead to higher task performance? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33, 910–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.780
Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and traits in
psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 8, 79–98.
Taylor, S., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald,
T. L. (2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions, and
health. American Psychologist, 55, 99–109. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.99
Van Dam, K. (2013). Employee adaptability to change at work: A
multidimensional, resource-based framework. In S. Oreg, A.
Michel, & R. T. By (Eds.), The psychology of organizational
change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp.
123–142). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and
resistance to organizational change: The role of leader-member
exchange, development climate, and change process charac-
teristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 313–
334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00311.x
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of
openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.85.4.491
Zaccaro, S. J., Banks, D., Kiechel-Koles, L., Kemp, C., & Bader, P.
(2009). Leader and team adaptation: The influence and devel-
opment of key attributes and processes (Tech. Rep. No. 1256).
Arlington, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Science.
History
Received January 4, 2019
Revision received January 14, 2020
Accepted January 21, 2020
Published online June 17, 2020
EJPA Section/Category I/O Psychology
ORCID
Karen van Dam
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6240-0689
Karen van Dam
Faculty of Psychology & Educational Sciences
Open University of the Netherlands
Valkenburgerweg 177
6419 AT Heerlen
The Netherlands
karen.vandam@ou.nl
Ó 2020 Hogrefe Publishing