Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

How to promote the employability capital of

university students? Developing and validating
scales

Gloria Caballero , Paula Álvarez-González & María Jesús López-Miguens

To cite this article: Gloria Caballero , Paula Álvarez-González & María Jesús López-Miguens
(2020): How to promote the employability capital of university students? Developing and validating
scales, Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1807494

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1807494

Published online: 20 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1807494

How to promote the employability capital of university students?

Developing and validating scales
a b a
Gloria Caballero , Paula Álvarez-González and María Jesús López-Miguens
a
Department of Business Organization and Marketing, School of Economics and Business, University of Vigo, Vigo,
Spain; bDepartment of Business Organization, School of Economics and Business and Marketing, University of
Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

One of the challenges that today’s universities face is to ensure that their Received 18 March 2020
graduates find employment in line with their attributes. University Accepted 24 July 2020
students’ employability capital depends on many personal factors in
KEYWORDS
individuals such as human capital, social capital, cultural capital and employability capital; human
psychological capital. However, there is no consensus on how to capital; social capital; cultural
measure employability capital, and the scales developed to date have capital; psychological capital;
not been properly validated. The purpose of this paper is to develop scales
and validate, at the confirmatory level, a set of instruments for
measuring the factors of employability capital of university students. We
conduct three studies based on three samples of 816, 1,082, and 1,088
students. These studies show the structure of the scales resulting from
checking content validity, dimensionality, and reliability, as well as
convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. Moreover, the results
show that psychological capital is the most relevant of employability
capital followed by social capital, cultural capital and human capital.

Introduction
Employability is a critical concern for both employers and universities today (Donald, Baruch, and
Ashleigh 2019). On the one hand, while countries may be affected differently by the speed of globa-
lisation, technological change and innovation, they are all affected by transformation in many tra-
ditional occupations and the appearance of emerging economic activities (Au-Yong-Oliveira et al.
2018; Herbert et al. 2020). A constant change can be observed in how, where and by whom jobs
should be performed (Au-Yong-Oliveira et al. 2018; Bridgstock and Jackson 2019). Furthermore,
national policy frameworks have been traditionally designed for the purposes of a largely local
student base. However, the internationalisation agenda in many national higher education
systems means they are required to adapt to a new climate of cultural diversity (Tomlinson and
Nghia 2020). In addition, many students, when they finish their tertiary education or do not find
work or work in jobs that are not in line with their attributes may be under- or over-qualified for
them (Bridgstock and Jackson 2019; Herbert et al. 2020). In short, the situation is summarised by
demotivation, unemployment, and the migration of graduates away from countries that have
invested in them (OECD 2019). In this context the attributes of graduates should be improved by
adjusting them to the demands of the labour market.
Another important question is what factors influence employers to hire a graduate when they
choose between two graduates who completed the same curriculum. The answer is what Peeters

CONTACT Gloria Caballero gloriacf@uvigo.es Department of Business Organization and Marketing, School of Economics
and Business, University of Vigo, Leonardo Da Vinci, s/n, Vigo 36310, Spain
© 2020 Society for Research into Higher Education
2 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

et al. (2017, 2) called the employability capital. That is, ‘the personal resources with promote an indi-
vidual’s employability’. These factors are difficult to reproduce because they are inherent to the indi-
vidual and, moreover, the combination of them undoubtedly becomes more intangible (Rothwell,
Herbert, and Rothwell 2008). Yet, they have proved to be key for employability (Dacre, Qualter,
and Sewell 2014; Dacre and Sewell 2007; Vargas et al. 2018). In this context, the possession and devel-
opment of employability capital is what employers demand (European Commission 2016) and is
reflected in how job interviews have evolved. Employers have gone from analysing the students’ cur-
ricula and learning their aspirations in person to validating the curricula and using interviews to learn
the attributes—individual or team-based—of students in different situations that condition their inte-
gration in a company (Bridgstock and Jackson 2019; Dacre and Sewell 2007; De Guzman and Choi
2013).
In this paper, we analyse employability capital and the factors to measure it. As noted by Peeters
et al. (2017, 2), ‘an attempt to clarify which dimensions of personal resources can be distinguished
and which of these types are covered by existing measurements seems highly important for both
academics and practitioners’. Research in this domain is still insufficient. There is no consensus on
how to measure employability capital and the scales for measuring those factors are scarce and
they are inadequate validated, very few of them use confirmatory tests for validation and, when
they do, they do not perform a full analysis of their psychometric properties (Dacre, Qualter, and
Sewell 2014; Vargas et al. 2018) or their samples are small (De Guzman and Choi 2013; Yusof et al.
2012). This is a problem because it ‘inhibits our overall understanding of employability capital’
(Peeters et al. 2017, 2).
For all these reasons, this study has several strengths. From a theoretical point of view, we update
the existing literature on the factors of employability capital. First, we identify the factors that underlie
employability capital. Based on human capital theory (Becker 1993), social cognitive theory (Bandura
1986; Wood and Bandura 1989), the network theory of social capital (Lin 2008), and Bourdieu’s socio-
logical theory (1986), in this study we consider the following personal factors: knowledge, skills, net-
working, work culture, personal circumstances, ambition and self-efficacy for job searching. Although
there is some uniformity to considering the skills and self-efficacy for job searching as variables of
great importance in developing employability qualities (Andrews and Higson 2008; De Guzman
and Choi 2013; Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2011), few studies have considered knowledge, networking,
work culture, personal circumstances and ambition. From an empirical point of view, we have vali-
dated at the confirmatory level the scales to measure the identified factors of employability capital
translated or adapted from previous research, considering their reflective or formative character. It
fills the gap in the literature regarding the incomplete validation of these factors. The majority of
authors only performed exploratory validation (Chou and Shen 2012; Rothwell and Arnold 2007;
Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell 2008). Some performed incomplete confirmatory validation
(Dacre, Qualter, and Sewell 2014; Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2011; Yusof et al. 2012), while yet
others validated their scales on a single sample. Moreover, based on the results of the study, we
can understand how each factor of employability capital affects employability.
In what follows, we put propose a theoretical framework. Next, we explain the methodology fol-
lowed and the main results obtained. Finally, we discuss these results and present the implications for
practitioners, as well as the limitations and future research directions.

Theoretical background
In spite of the importance of employability, there is no consensus on how to define it (Andrews and
Higson 2008; Bridgstock and Jackson 2019; Clarke 2018; Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2017; McQuaid
and Lindsay 2005; Römgens, Scoupe, and Beausaert 2019; Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell 2008;
Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006). The concept of employability has evolved over the
years, from achieving full employment through attitude and self-image in publications from the
1950s and 1960s to obtaining and retaining a job or obtaining a new one based on the interaction
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

between personal characteristics and context in the1990s (Hillage and Pollard 1998). More recent
publications define employability as a set of achievements related to personal and external factors
that make individuals more likely to achieve appropriate, sustainable employment in relation to
their level of qualification (Rothwell and Arnold 2007) and to be successful in their chosen occu-
pations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and society as a whole
(Ashraf et al. 2018). Likewise, employability capital refers to the perception that individuals have
of the various forms of capital which are acquired through their live experiences that may
promote their employability (Donald, Baruch, and Ashleigh 2019; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth
2004; Peeters et al. 2017; Tomlinson 2017). Human capital theory (Becker 1993), social cognitive
theory (Bandura 1986; Wood and Bandura 1989), the network theory of social capital (Lin 2008),
sociological theory (Bourdieu 1986) and Granovetter’s (1995) theoretical foundations offer a valu-
able framework for studying factors of employability capital on university students. Based on this
theoretical foundation, in this study we have identified 7 factors of employability capital relevant to
university students: knowledge, skills, networking, work culture, personal circumstances, ambition
and self-efficacy for job searching. These factors are part of the university student’s capital, under-
stood in this study as key resources an individual possesses that encompass a range of human
(knowledge and skills), social (networking), cultural (work culture and personal circumstances)
and psychological (ambition and self-efficacy for job searching) capitals acquired through formal
and informal experiences. These capitals confer benefits on to individuals as leading to an
increased probability of positive economic or other personal outcomes relating to the area of
work such as their employability (Donald, Baruch, and Ashleigh 2019; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth
2004; Tomlinson 2017; Williams et al. 2016).

Human capital
Human capital refers to the knowledge and skills which university students acquire and which are a
foundation of their labour market outcomes (Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004; Peeters et al. 2017;
Tomlinson 2017). Human capital is the central concept of the theory of human capital developed by
Schultz (1961) and followed by authors such as Becker (1993), who, in brief, links economic success to
the education of the individuals. This capital, when not being able to be separated from the person
receives the name of human capital (Becker 1993). In this way, human capital is defined as the set of
productive capacities that an individual acquires through the accumulation of general or specific
knowledge that may affect one’s career advancement (Becker 1993; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth
2004; McArdle et al. 2007). One’s human capital may increase from different aspects such as
formal education, work experience as well as competence development (Becker 1993). Since this
work focuses on the employability capital of university students, who normally do not yet have
work experience, this variable is formed by the knowledge (‘I know’) and the skills acquired (‘I
can’) through university education. Both enable university students to enter the labour market in
relation to their level of qualification (Peeters et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2016). Employers perceive
graduation as an indication that a potential employee has the ability to ‘do the job’ (Hogan, Cha-
morro-Premuzic, and Kaiser 2013) and university students’ investment in human capital would be
important factors in determining their perceptions of the possibilities that exist for achieving appro-
priate employment (Berntson, Sverke, and Marklund 2006).

Knowledge
These refer to the specific knowledge and know-how which are meant to be used in a particular work
field related to the subject or discipline being studied (Zakaria, Yatim, and Ismail 2014) as well as con-
tinuous training (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006). In this study, we consider academic per-
formance as a proxy for specific knowledge that students acquire during their courses (Chhinzer and
Russo 2018). Thus, academic performance refers to the university students’ perception of the results
4 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

obtained from their studies and their satisfaction with them (Dacre, Qualter, and Sewell 2014;
Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell 2008). Furthermore, continuous training concerns their future com-
mitment to acquiring greater knowledge (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006).
Both academic performance (Dacre, Qualter, and Sewell 2014; Hillage and Pollard 1998; Rothwell,
Herbert, and Rothwell 2008) and continuous training (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006) are
considered in studies of graduate employability (Chhinzer and Russo 2018; Dacre and Sewell 2007;
Pinto and Ramalheira 2017; Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell 2008; Rothwell, Jewell, and Hardie
2009), unemployed (McArdle et al. 2007) and workers’ career development (Rothwell and Arnold
2007). Both variables would be vital aspects for the university students’ employability (Berntson,
Sverke, and Marklund 2006). The literature suggests that these are factors considered by employers
when evaluating graduates (Dacre and Sewell 2007; Chhinzer and Russo 2018), and graduates with
high academic performance and that invest in their own training are recognised positively by
employers and are more likely to be evaluated positively for a position (Chhinzer and Russo 2018;
Pinto and Ramalheira 2017). Therefore, it is expected that high academic performance and invest-
ment in continuous training can develop their human capital and can offer more opportunities for
career rewards for university students after graduation. In this manner, graduates can develop
their human capital, thereby building employability capital.
As pertains to employability measurement, Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell (2008) and Rothwell,
Jewell, and Hardie (2009) analysed academic performance at university using a single item, whereas
Dacre, Qualter, and Sewell (2014) considered it to be a key dimension in a variable they called the
‘employability development profile’ and Qenani, MacDougall, and Sexton (2014) consider it as a tra-
ditional academic factor within their staff capital variable. Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006)
considered workers’ commitment to continuous learning and improved learning and included
several items within the variable they call anticipation and optimisation, which improves employabil-
ity. However, as far as we know, no validated scales consider this dimension independently, nor for
samples of students.

Skills
Skills cover the abilities and competencies needed to obtain employment, retain employment, and
perform well on the job (De Guzman and Choi 2013; Nicolescu and Nicolescu 2019). To become com-
petent workers, the literature indicates that individuals must basically have general skills in addition
to the specific knowledge acquired during their studies (Zakaria, Yatim, and Ismail 2014). University
education is a source of these particular skills (Becker 1993) that are required for all types and levels of
work and can be transferred to different contexts (Bridgstock 2009; Dacre and Sewell 2007; De
Guzman and Choi 2013). These include time management, communication and leadership, personal
qualities such as problem solving and responsiveness and corporate work such as planning and
organisation, flexibility and adaptation and efficiency in the performance of tasks (Dacre, Qualter,
and Sewell 2014; Dacre and Sewell 2007; De Guzman and Choi 2013; Nicolescu and Nicolescu 2019).
Furthermore, the literature suggests that the acquisition and transferability of such skills can
enhance students’ human capital and, therefore, their employability (Andrews and Higson 2008;
Bridgstock 2009; Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2017; Kalfa and Taksa 2015; Nicolescu and Nicolescu
2019; Tymon 2013; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006). Such skills are well-known to university
students, given that they are commonly referenced by employers when evaluating candidates
(Chhinzer and Russo 2018) and possessing them greatly increases the likelihood of obtaining a job
(Nicolescu and Nicolescu 2019).
Unlike other factors of employability capital, skills have been considered not only at a theoretical
level (Andrews and Higson 2008; Dacre and Sewell 2007; Hillage and Pollard 1998), but also empiri-
cally. In fact, there are several scales of measurement that have been validated at both the explora-
tory and confirmatory level. At the exploratory level, Zakaria, Yatim, and Ismail (2014) tested the
reliability of their scale of competencies in a sample of 1,012 Malayan, Chinese, and Indian students.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

At the confirmatory level, De Guzman and Choi (2013) presented a useful measurement with good
reliability and good fit in the context of 191 students in Papua New Guinea. Dacre, Qualter, and
Sewell (2014) considered employability skills to be a factor in the employability development
profile of 807 British students and validated it by analysing factor loads and goodness of fit.
However, their confirmatory analysis is not complete, and the authors themselves point to the
need for research in the psychometric properties of the scale, ‘demonstrating its convergent and
discriminant validity’ (Dacre, Qualter, and Sewell 2014, 310). Finally, Yusof et al. (2012) proposed
a validated scale of employability skills for 280 engineering students in Malaysia by analysing
reliability, goodness of fit, multicollinearity, and convergent and discriminant validity. Although
in this case the psychometric properties were fully analysed, the authors stated that ‘to provide
stronger evidence for the adequacy of the instrument, future studies need to examine its validity
with larger samples’ (Yusof et al. 2012, 355).

Social capital
Social capital in relation to university students’ employability can be understood as capital derived
from networks between students and their immediate environment that promote (on a personal
level) their employability and their opportunities to find suitable employment (Fugate, Kinicki, and
Ashforth 2004; Mouw 2003; Peeters et al. 2017; Tomlinson 2017). The network theory of social
capital (Lin 2008) and the propositions of Bourdieu (1986) or Granovetter (1995) help to understand
how individuals can benefit from membership or connections to particular groups. In these groups,
the creation of immediate ties through networking may influence the employability opportunities
(Batistic and Tymon 2017; Granovetter 1995; McQuaid and Lindsay 2005). Therefore, together with
human capital, social capital greatly influences the ability to identify and realise employability oppor-
tunities (Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004). In this study, social capital is analysed through the net-
working of university students.

Networking
Networking refers to the practice of building and nurturing personal contacts (McQuaid and Lindsay
2005; Rothwell and Arnold 2007) or social networks (Bridgstock 2009; Rivera et al. 2012) that create a
bank of resources, including contacts, information and support that may help in job hunting or in the
development of a professional career (Batistic and Tymon 2017; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004;
Granovetter 1995). Although having a social network does not guarantee that these effects or
benefits will materialise (Batistic and Tymon 2017), strong social networks can elevate a university
student’s credentials by suggesting they bring resources beyond their own set of knowledge and
skills (Lin 2008). Therefore, creating social capital can have a direct effect on perceived and actual
employability (Batistic and Tymon 2017; Bridgstock 2009).
The role of personal contacts or social networks has been considered another aspect of the
employability of students (Álvarez-Gonzalez, López-Miguens, and Caballero 2017; Clarke 2018; Her-
nández-Fernaud et al. 2017), unemployed people (Rivera et al. 2012), and of workers for career devel-
opment (Rothwell and Arnold 2007).
As far as we can tell, few studies (Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2017; Rothwell and Arnold 2007) have
explored this role, to date, and no specific measurement scales have been drawn up for this deter-
minant of employability.

Cultural capital
Cultural capital refers to the form of culturally valued knowledge, dispositions and practices that
make up the background of an individual are aligned to the labour market that he or she seeks to
enter (Tomlinson 2017; Tomlinson and Nghia 2020). According to Bourdieu’s (1986, 1997) sociological
6 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

theory, university students employability is influenced by the situations which the individual has
experienced that ultimately determine functionality in the workplace.
The background circumstances of the university students include family, educational or socio-
economic backgrounds that impact their employment opportunities (Holmes 2013; Tomlinson and
Nghia 2020). In general, families invest in education according to their socioeconomic status (Bour-
dieu 1997). For example, individuals born into affluent families with a social status have better con-
ditions for nurturing employability (Tomlinson 2017). However, modern societies often support those
from economically disadvantaged social sectors to build their employability against the odds (Tom-
linson and Nghia 2020), through financial compensation, student loans, scholarships, etc. In this
context, in this study we focus on the culture of work that has been instilled in a university
student in their immediate environment and their personal circumstances as part of the cultural
capital of an individual that influences their employability.

Work culture
Work culture refers to ‘the existence of a culture in which work is encouraged and supported within
the family, among peers or other personal relationships and the wider community’ (McQuaid and
Lindsay 2005, 209). An individual’s work culture influences their attitudes and aspirations
(McQuaid and Lindsay 2005) as well as the way they present themselves and their profile to employ-
ers (Tomlinson and Nghia 2020) and thus ultimately impacts their employability. Employability is
associated with a proactive attitude towards career and work (Clarke 2018), and employers prefer
responsible individuals with positive job attitudes (Lim et al. 2016). This variable of culture work trans-
mitted by the environment has been considered from a theoretical point of view (Clarke 2018;
McQuaid and Lindsay 2005).

Personal circumstances
Personal circumstances are related to individuals’ social and household circumstances that affect
their ability to get a job (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005). Those factors add immediate value to the uni-
versity students’ employment profile on the basis of the additional value they can bring to a work-
place (Tomlinson and Nghia 2020), which may affect their willingness to change or adapt to
possible working conditions (Peeters et al. 2017), especially geographical mobility (Hillage and
Pollard 1998; McQuaid and Lindsay 2005) and working hours. These personal circumstances can
affect their ability to seek and benefit from different job opportunities and will vary during an indi-
vidual’s life cycle (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005). In this case, also the impact of personal circumstances
on employability has been studied from a strictly theoretical approach (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005).

Psychological capital
Finally, the literature describes employability as being based not only on human, social and cultural
capital but also aspects of character of the individual, and that the relationship between those capi-
tals and career success is only modest (Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Kaiser 2013). In fact, employ-
ability also concerns the capacity to present individual attributes and behaviour (Clarke 2018) which
enables university students to adapt and respond proactively to career challenges (Tomlinson 2017).
Those attributes and behaviours are related to the concept of psychological capital (Williams et al.
2016) and include aspects such as ambition and job search self-efficacy (Chou and Shen 2012; Wit-
tekind, Raeder, and Grote 2010), considered the focal point in social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986;
Wood and Bandura 1989). In this context, we consider the key factors of the psychological capital of
university students to be their ambition and their self-efficacy for job searching. The literature has
highlighted the relevance of psychological capital in connection to career trajectory (Chen and
Lim 2012). Psychological capital represents a beneficial resource for students, helping them to
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

perceive more employability (Luthans 2002), and is exceedingly relevant for new graduates so they
can withstand pressures and disruptions in the initial stages of their careers in the current uncertain
and volatile labour markets (Tomlinson 2017; Williams et al. 2016).

Ambition
Ambition measures individuals’ perceptions of success in a future career or future job searches
(Rothwell, Jewell, and Hardie 2009). Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell (2008) stated that ambition
affects the perception of employability because the fact that students are not yet workers explains
why ambition is a necessary indicator of the perception of success in the future. Ambition has
been proposed as a personality characteristic essential for career success (Jones, Sherman, and
Hogan 2017), as employers interpret ambition as a ‘willingness to work hard’ (Hogan, Chamorro-Pre-
muzic, and Kaiser 2013) and ambitious individuals are often more successful in finding a job (Jones,
Sherman, and Hogan 2017; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006).
This variable has been considered as both an individual factor of employability (Rothwell, Herbert,
and Rothwell 2008; Rothwell, Jewell, and Hardie 2009) and a dimension of employability self-efficacy
(Chou and Shen 2012). In both cases, the scales for measuring ambition proposed by Rothwell,
Herbert, and Rothwell (2008) and Rothwell, Jewell, and Hardie (2009), who used samples of British
university students, and by Chou and Shen (2012), who used a sample of Taiwanese university stu-
dents, are analysed for reliability at the exploratory level.

Self-efficacy for job searching

Finally, self-efficacy for job searching refers to an individual’s confidence and motivation to perform
across a specific situation, such as job searching (Chou and Shen 2012; Dacre and Sewell 2007; Her-
nández-Fernaud et al. 2017; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden 2006). It is not enough to have
knowledge, skills and networking; however, one must be able to integrate them and have a belief
system that facilitates this integration when facing life challenges (Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth
2004; Knight and Yorke 2002). Therefore, self-efficacy seems to be a good predictor of career
success (Bandura 1986; Wittekind, Raeder, and Grote 2010), especially for students (Chou and
Shen 2012). Students with high levels of self-efficacy are likely to have better university-to-work tran-
sition experiences and they perform significantly better than others (Bridgstock 2009; Hernández-
Fernaud et al. 2011).
Self-efficacy for job searching has been studied theoretically (Dacre and Sewell 2007) and empiri-
cally (Chou and Shen 2012; Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2011). From the latter point of view, measure-
ment instruments have been developed and validated at both exploratory and confirmatory levels. At
the exploratory level, Chou and Shen (2012) tested the reliability of the scale for measuring self-
efficacy in 413 students in Taiwan. At the confirmatory level, Hernández-Fernaud et al. (2011) pro-
posed a scale validated in a sample of 271 university students and graduates in Spain by analysing
factor loads and goodness of fit.

Development and validation of scales

The scale development and validation process included the best practice procedures for scale devel-
opment and validation in the organisational science compiled by Wright et al. (2017). In a total of
three studies, the proposed scales were validated by analysing their psychometric properties (i.e.
content validity, unidimensionality, reliability, and convergent, discriminant, and nomological
validity).
As a first step for the development of the measurement scales, we generated a set of indicators for
each variable, ensuring that each indicator was consistent with the definition of the variable in
8 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

question and that the vocabulary used was appropriate for the purpose of the research and the
respondents.
Then, in Study 1, the factorial structure of the items generated for each scale in the previous
phase was explored. After refining the scales at the exploratory level, we proceeded with a new
sample to confirm their structure and to examine their reliability, convergent validity, and discrimi-
nant validity (Study 2). Finally, we tested the nomological validity of each scale with a third sample
(Study 3).
Throughout the entire process, we guaranteed the content validity of the scales as follows: (a) by
identifying the items and dimensions for each of them based on a thorough review of the literature;
(b) by having the appropriateness, adaptation, or translation of the items and dimensions checked
by a group of experts, and (c) by guaranteeing, during the process of respecification of the
measurement models, that the items remaining in the model conceptually covered the full
extent of each variable.

Item generation
To build a valid tool for measuring each of the factors of employability capital, we performed a
thorough review of the specific literature. This generated 67 items that aim to cover all of the con-
cepts involved in these variables. The initial proposal for the number of items for each variable
and the studies on which they are based is given in Table 1. All the variables were rated using 7-
point Likert scales.
This initial selection of items was critically reviewed by a group of 5 higher education experts, with
three from the field of employability research and two from student employment management
research. The aim was to reach a consensus on the list of items that conceptualise, according to
their perspective, each variable. All experts accepted the invitation to participate.
Their mission was to guarantee that the full extent of each variable was considered, ambiguity was
avoided, and that all the items selected would be understandable for the target sample (Vandecas-
teele and Geuens 2010). To perform this analysis, we asked them to evaluate each item according to a
7-point Likert scale and to note down any comments. This led to changes in the wording of some
items.

Study 1
Purpose
The aim of the first study was exploratory so as to examine the factorial structure of the scales
through an exploratory factor analysis.

Table 1. Proposal for scales to measure the factors of employability capital.

Variable (Number of Items) Author(s)
Human Capital
Knowledge (8 items) Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell (2008)
Skills (34 items) Andrews and Higson (2008) and Dacre, Qualter, and Sewell (2014)
Social Capital
Networking (2 items) Hernández-Fernaud et al. (2017), McQuaid and Lindsay (2005) and Rothwell and Arnold
(2007)
Cultural capital
Culture work (2 items) McQuaid and Lindsay (2005)
Personal circumstances (2 items) McQuaid and Lindsay (2005)
Psychological capital
Self-efficacy for job searching (13 Dacre, Qualter, and Sewell (2014) and Hernández-Fernaud et al. (2011)
items)
Ambition (5 items) Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell (2008)
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

Participants and procedure

We studied a population made up of 6,242 students registered during the 2014–2015 academic year
in the last year of a graduate course at a spanish university. We used a probabilistic method with pro-
portional stratification to select the sample, considering the stratification variable to be the percen-
tage of last-year students registered in this university in each of the five fields of study laid down by
the spanish Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport. We compiled the information between April
and June 2015 from personal interviews.
The final sample, after data cleansing (processing of missing values, analysis of outliers, and nor-
mality tests), amounted to 816 students. Considering the sample size (816 students), at a level of 95%
confidence and under the conditions of p = q = .5, the sample error committed was 3.2%.
The sample consisted of 34.56% men and 65.44% women. A total of 80.51% of the sample was 25
or younger and only 5.15% were older than 30. With similar percentages to those for the whole popu-
lation, the best-represented field of study was social and legal science with 53.31% of the total, fol-
lowed by engineering and architecture with 22.06%, arts and humanities with 9.44%, health science
with 7.96%, and science with 7.23% (Table 2).

Results
To study the unidimensionality of the scales, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in
Study 1, and we executed a confirmatory factor analysis in Study 2. First, we considered whether
factor analysis was appropriate for analysing the data (Table 3). For this purpose, we checked that
the determinant for the correlations matrix for each scale was close to zero and that the result of
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was close to 1 (Lévy and Varela 2003). Then we performed EFA using prin-
cipal components as an extraction method and with varimax rotation, finding that the factor loads in
the rotated component matrix were, depending on the sample size, above 0.3. To determine the
number of dimensions in each scale, we required self-values above 1 and that the percentage of
explained variance was close to 60% or higher. Study of the communalities obtained, which in all
cases reached values above or very close to 0.50 (Hair et al. 1999), indicated that all the items
helped explain the factor solution obtained.

Study 2
Purpose
The purpose of Study 2 is twofold. On the one hand, we designed it to confirm the factorial structure
of the scales that resulted from Study 1 through a confirmatory factorial analysis, and on the other
hand it was meant to verify the psychometric properties of reliability and convergent and discrimi-
nant validity for each of the scales.

Participants and procedure

The population analysed in Study 2 was made up of 6,719 students who in the 2015–2016 academic
year were enrolled in the last year of a graduate course at a spanish university. We carried out the

Table 2. Students by fields of study (population and sample).

Population Sample
Fields of Study Total Total (%) Total Total (%)
Arts and Humanities 524 8.40 77 9.44
Science 406 6.50 59 7.23
Social and Legal Science 3,429 54.93 435 53.31
Engineering and Architecture 1,529 24.50 180 22.06
Health Science 354 5.67 65 7.96
Total 6,242 100 816 100
Note. Academic year 2014–15.
10 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

Table 3. Suitability at the exploratory level of factor analysis and unidimensionality at the exploratory level of the scales.
Kaiser-Meyer- Explained Rotated factor
Scales/Dimensions Items Determinant Olkin Variance load Communality
Ambition 4 .360 .762 59.40% .536–.651
Skills 4.32E-009 . 956 58.12%
Efficiency 6 .551–.654 .522–.702
Leadership 11 .516–.759 .438–.678
Responsibility 9 .580–.698 .489–.599
Communication 6 .546–.665 .469–.695
Knowledge .082 .788 64.87%
Academic performance 4 .562–.860 .526–.745
Continuous training 3 .718–.825 .516–.764
Self-efficacy for job .005 .893 57.53%
searching
Self-knowledge 7 .573–.854 .394–.757
Predisposition 5 .557–.803 .410–.668
Networking 2 .570 .500 82.77% .828–.828
Work culture 2 .585 .500 82.22% .907–.907
Personal circumstances 2 .639 .500 80.03% .800–.800

selection of the sample through a stratified random procedure in the same way as in study 1. Table 4
shows the percentages of participation of the sample and the population for each field of study,
which, as can be seen, are similar. We carried out the data collection through personal surveys
between the months of January and May 2016.
After data depuration, the sample amounted to 1,082 students. The sample error committed was
2.73% (under the conditions of p = q = 0.5 and at a confidence level of 95%). A total of 40.85% of the
sample were men and 59.15% were women; 82.44% were 25 or younger, 14.33% were between 26
and 30 years old, and 3.23% were older than 30.

Results
To study at a confirmatory level the unidimensionality of the scales, we then carried out a confirma-
tory factor analysis on the EFA solution (Lévy and Varela 2003). We used the asymptotically distri-
bution-free method for estimation because of the absence of data normality and the size of the
sample above 250 units (Willett and Sayer 1994). The initial models had to be respecified to take
into account (a) infringed estimations (standard errors; Hair et al. 1999); (b) the squared multiple cor-
relations indicator, which should not be below 0.5; or (c) the adjustment fit measures. To guarantee
the results, we performed a bootstrap analysis with 2,000 samples at a confidence level of 90%. All the
parameters were statistically significant. The final models showed very good fit rates (Table 5). As a
result, the scales for measuring ambition, networking, work culture, and personal circumstances were
seen to be unidimensional, and the scales for measuring skills, knowledge and self-efficacy for job
searching were seen to be second-order multidimensional.
We analysed scale reliability using four tests: (a) Cronbach’s alpha, (b) total item correlation, (c)
composite reliability, and (d) average variance extracted. We give the results in Table 5. The value

Table 4. Students by fields of study (population and sample).

Population Sample
Fields of Study Total Total (%) Total Total (%)
Arts and Humanities 542 8.07 114 10.54
Science 435 6.47 98 9.06
Social and Legal Science 3,591 53.45 533 49.26
Engineering and Architecture 1,766 26.28 240 22.18
Health Science 385 5.73 97 8.96
Total 6,719 100 1,082 100
Note. Academic year 2015–16.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11

Table 5. Dimensionality at a confirmatory level, reliability and convergent validity of the scales of factors of employability capital.
Bootstrap
Scale/Dimension/Items Factor Loads Confidence Intervals Cronbach’s Alpha Item Total CR AVE
Ambition .753 .938 .836
AMBIT1 .675 (.621–.728)*** .568
AMBIT2 .803 (.753–.855)*** .630
AMBIT3 .658 (.609–.706)*** .554
2
X = 0; df. = 0; CFI = 1
Skills .895 .985 .943
Efficiency .819 (.773–.853)*** .876 .973 .924
SKILL1 .862 (.824–.891)*** .744
SKILL2 .900 (.865–.934)*** .806
SKILL3 .908 (.883–.933)*** .745
Leadership .864 (.818–.899)*** .853 .979 .922
SKILL4 .771 (.731–.798)** .695
SKILL5 .873 (.827–.897)*** .753
SKILL6 .815 (.770–.839)** .705
Responsibility .786 (.738–.831)*** .761 .968 .911
SKILL7 .625 (.529–.668)** .533
SKILL8 .833 (.779–.858)* .648
SKILL9 .741 (.677–.780)*** .602
Communication .814 (.747–.858)*** .713 .900 .859
SKILL10 .688 (.619–.729)** .512
SKILL11 .791 (.738–.830)*** .577
SKILL12 .697 (.627–.737)** .507
X2 = 130.656; df. = 50; p = .000; X2/df = 2.613; GFI = .943; RMSEA = .039; CFI = .903
Knowledge .752 .910 .836
Academic performance .686 (.637–.734)*** .789 .955 .916
KNOW1 .892 (.840–.950)*** .670
KNOW2 .758 (.704–.806)*** .670
Continuous training .749 (.686–.815)*** .763 .948 .901
KNOW3 .763 (.697–.818)*** .619
KNOW4 .821 (.759–.880)*** .619
X2 = 3.634; df. = 1;; p = .057; X2/df = 3.634; GFI = .997; RMSEA = .049; CFI = .995
Self-efficacy for job searching .793 .943 .892
Self-knowledge .698 (.643–.744)*** .791 .958 .884
SELFK1 .717 (.681–.743)*** .592
SELFK2 777 (.745–.802)*** .671
SELFK3 .784 (.743–.817)*** .642
Predisposition .809 (.755–.855)*** .743 .947 .856
JOBSEA4 .707 (.667–.741)*** .532
JOBSEA5 .694 (.654–.724)*** .588
JOBSEA6 .730 (.680–.770)*** .592
2 2
X = 19.498; df. = 10; p = .034; X /df = 1.950; GFI = .989; RMSEA = .030; CFI = .981
Networking .752 .940 .888
NETW1 .883 (.825–.939)*** .610
NETW2 .691 (.633–.747)*** .610
X2 = 0; gl. = 0; CFI = 1
Work culture .795 .949 .865
WORKC1 .806 (.749–.856)*** .660
WORKC2 .823 (.775–.878)*** .660
X2 = 0; gl. = 0; CFI = 1
Personal circumstances .688 .892 .806
PERSOC1 .722 (.688–.753)*** .524
PERSOC2 .726 (.691–.756)*** .524
X2 = 0; gl. = 0; CFI = 1
Note. CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted.
***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1.

for Cronbach’s alpha fluctuated between 0.688 for the personal circumstances scale and 0.895 for the
skills scale, very close to or above 0.7 (Nunnally 1978). In all cases, correlations between the items on
each scale were in excess of 0.5, and for composite reliability and average variance extracted the
results were above to 0.7 (Hair et al. 1999) and 0.5 (Hair et al. 1999; Sharma 1996), respectively. It
can therefore be deduced that there is internal consistency and high reliability in all the scales.
12 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

We studied the convergent validity of the scales by reviewing the value of the factor loads of all
the items and their degree of significance. As shown in Table 5, all the loads were significant and
exceeded 0.5 (Hildebrandt 1987), proving convergent validity.
We analysed discriminant validity using two tests to check that (a) correlations between the vari-
ables were not above 0.8 (Hair et al. 1999) and (b) the square of the correlation between each pair of
variables was not above the average variance extracted for each of these variables (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). The results, listed in Table 6, show that there is discriminant validity.

Study 3
Purpose
The purpose of Study 3 is to verify the nomological validity of the previously developed and validated
scales.

Participants and procedure

The population analysed in Study 3 was made up of 7,190 students enrolled in the last year of a
graduate course at a spanish university during the 2016–2017 academic year. We carried out the
selection of the sample through a stratified random procedure in the same way as in study 1 and
2. The composition of the sample is similar to that of the population for each field of study
(Table 7). We collected data through personal surveys between January and March 2017.
Once we cleaned the data, the sample amounted to 1,088 students, which implies a sampling
error of 2.74%, with a confidence level of 95%, and under the conditions of p = q = 0.5. According
to gender, the sample was composed of 41.82% men and 58.18% women. A total of 84.74% of stu-
dents were 25 or younger, 10.75% were between 26 and 30 years old, and 4.51% were older than 30.

Results
We performed two tests to study nomological validation: (a) correlations between all the variables in
the study and their significance (Sharma and Chan 2011), and (b) the relations between these vari-
ables and the employability variable because, as explained in the literature review, they all turned
out to be antecedents of employability. According to the results of the first test, all the variables

Table 6. Discriminant validity of the scales of factors of employability capital.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ambition .836 .523 .413 .542 .157 .146 .145
Skills .273 .943 .522 .603 .167 .232 .220
Knowledge .170 .273 .836 .463 .082 .159 .199
Self-efficacy for job searching .294 .364 .215 .892 .223 .241 .224
Networking .021 .054 .025 .058 .888 .372 .078
Work culture .025 .028 .007 .050 .139 .865 .258
Personal circumstances .021 .048 .040 .050 .078 .067 .806
Note. AVE: values along the diagonal. Correlation: values above the diagonal. Correlation to the square: values below the diagonal.

Table 7. Students by fields of study (population and sample).

Population Sample
Fields of Study Total Total (%) Total Total (%)
Arts and Humanities 574 8.05% 106 9.74%
Science 458 6.42% 98 9.01%
Social and Legal Science 3,802 53.33% 423 38.88%
Engineering and Architecture 1,935 27.14% 283 26.01%
Health Science 361 5.06% 178 16.36%
Total 7,130 100% 1.088 100%
Note. Academic year 2016–17.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13

were mutually and significantly correlated at the 0.01 level (Table 6). For the second test, first we vali-
dated the employability scale, measured by three items adapted from Wittekind, Raeder, and Grote
(2010). The results are summarised in Table 8. We then checked that all the variables are antecedents
of employability (Table 9), and we found that the strongest relations were with the variables related
to self-efficacy for job searching, ambition, networking, work culture, skills and the weakest were with
knowledge and personal circumstances. We therefore deduced that there is nomological validity in
all the scales.

Descriptive analysis
The descriptive analysis scores were high, with employability showing an average of 3.476, and with
the means of each of the factors analysed being above 5 out of 7, except for networking (2.838) and
work culture (4.549) (Table 10). The respondents gave very positive scores to their ambition (5.449),
and their self-efficacy for job searching (5.214), their skills (5.235), their knowledge (5.199), and their
personal circumstances (5.069) received similar high scores.

Table 8. Validation of the employability scale.

Bootstrap
Scale/dimensions Factor Loads Confidence Intervals Cronbach’s Alpha Item-Total CR AVE
Employability .903 .977 .934
EMPLOY1 .764 (.735–.791)*** .734
EMPLOY2 .932 (.916–.947)*** .846
EMPLOY3 .920 (.903–.934)*** .839
Model fit 2 2
X = 3.202; df. = 1; p = .074; X /df = 3.202; GFI = .998; RMSEA = .045; CFI = .996
Note. CR: Composite Reliability; AVE: Average Variance Extracted.
***p < 0.01.

Table 9. Nomological validity of the scales of factors of employability capital (bootstrap results).
Bootstrap
Confidence X 2/
Relation Estimate intervals X2 df p df GFI RMSEA CFI
Ambition → Employability .424 (.365–.477)*** 33.871 8 .000 4.234 .984 .055 .966
Skills → Employability .393 (.331–.457)** 185.486 85 .000 2.182 .950 .033 .923
Knowledge → Employability .306 (.243–.372)*** 16.796 12 .157 1.400 .993 .019 .995
Self-efficacy for job searching → .432 (.373–.485)*** 53.489 27 .002 1.981 .980 .030 .974
Employability
Networking → Employability .404 (.340–.463)*** 23.756 5 .000 4.751 .991 .056 .978
Work culture → Employability .395 (.335–.449)*** 37.169 7 .000 5.310 .982 .060 .965
Personal circumstances → Employability .244 (.180–.310)*** 6.729 5 .242 1.346 .997 .018 .998
Note. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05.

Table 10. Descriptive statistics of the scales studied (mean and standard deviation).
Variable M SD
Employability 3.476 1.470
Ambition 5.449 1.458
Skills 5.235 1.336
Knowledge 5.199 1.207
Self-efficacy for job searching 5.214 1.450
Networking 2.838 1.596
Work culture 4.549 1.658
Personal circumstances 5.069 1.754
14 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

Discussion
Findings of three independent studies led us to develop and validate the scales of the factors of
employability capital, which until now had not been properly developed and validated, inhibiting
our overall understanding of the concept (Peeters et al. 2017). In line with previous research,
results suggest that ambition (Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell 2008), networking, personal circum-
stances (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005), and culture work (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005) are unidimen-
sional. The other variables of the study are multidimensional. Skills were measured based on four
dimensions relating to the efficiency of students in performing tasks, their leadership skills, their
responsibility, and their communication skills. These results are consistent with previous research
and the items include the key ‘transferable’ soft skills to graduate employability proposed by
authors such as Andrews and Higson (2008). However, unlike Rothwell, Herbert, and Rothwell
(2008), who included knowledge a component of employability, in this study knowledge was struc-
tured in two dimensions: students’ performance during their course of study and their commitment
to continuous training. Self-efficacy for job searching was measured using two dimensions: self-
knowledge about the future desired job and predisposition in the selection processes. These
results differ from those proposed by Hernández-Fernaud et al. (2011) that had proved the unidimen-
sional nature of job-seeking self-efficacy. In their research, the authors do not consider the self-knowl-
edge necessary to cope with the job search.
Moreover, based on results of the study, we can understand how the four areas of capital (human,
social, cultural and psychological) are linked to the employability and the transitions to the labour
market. This allows us to understand the importance of all types of capital in evaluating the employ-
ability of university students. In the literature, this has been raised either conceptually (Tomlinson
2017; Williams et al. 2016), in a different setting than the university (Berntson, Sverke, and Marklund
2006; McArdle et al. 2007; Wittekind, Raeder, and Grote 2010), or these capital employability factors
have been analysed only individually (Andrews and Higson 2008; De Guzman and Choi 2013; and
Yusof et al. 2012; Hernández-Fernaud et al. 2011). This makes it difficult to establish an order of rel-
evance between them for university students.
Thus, the results show that psychological capital (self-efficacy for job searching and ambition) has
the greatest impact on employability, followed by social capital (networking), the work culture of cul-
tural capital, human capital (knowledge and skills), and finally the personal circumstances of cultural
capital. These results contrast with recent research on the employability of university students where
specific domain knowledge and skills occupy positions superior to factors such as self-efficacy (Nico-
lescu and Nicolescu 2019). This difference could be due to the specificity of their sample which is
limited to business students, while the sample of this study is extended to students from all fields,
differentiating them by fields of study.
Our results show that psychological capital with components of ambition and self-efficacy is a core
construct in the employability of university students, which is in line with research on the intense
competition and uncertainty regarding employment in today’s labour market (Tomlinson 2017).
Today’s graduates, unlike those of previous generations, have learnt during their studies and
thanks to social media for what jobs there is greatest demand, what specific jobs they are interested
in, how to gain access to them and how to act in selection processes (Au-Yong-Oliveira et al. 2018;
Caballero, Vázquez, and Quintas 2015). In a labour scenario where employers can choose graduates,
these are the in-demand qualities that differentiate them (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005; Verhaest and
Van der Velden 2013). All this has a potentially significant effect of psychological capital on employ-
ability (Tomlinson 2017), where ambition and self-efficacy become factors that instil motivation,
security and a positive disposition towards work to employers (Hogan, Chamorro-Premuzic, and
Kaiser 2013).
The second most important capital in the employability of university students is the social capital,
referred to in this study as ‘networking’. This result supports the increased attention received by social
capital and the importance of networking in individuals with the ultimate view of ensuring
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15

employability and thus employment (Batistic and Tymon 2017; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004; Lin
2008). Students make an important investment in personal contacts and social networks to find a
suitable job that fits their attributes and goals (Bridgstock and Jackson 2019; Hernández-Fernaud
et al. 2017). This is an inevitable reality, given the crucial role played today by social contacts in
the students’ professional culture (Robertson and Pelaez 2016) and reinforces the personal worth
of students (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005; Rivera et al. 2012; Rothwell and Arnold 2007). Moreover,
this result confirms the need to reflect on the new profile of university students today, highly con-
nected and technologically innate (Au-Yong-Oliveira et al. 2018). This should therefore be a starting
point for those responsible for employability.
The next significant factor is the work culture that has been instilled in university students and is
included in their cultural capital. The work culture influences career opportunities as it may make an
individual consider a job either positive or negative (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005) and may influence
whether individuals are hardworking and eager to learn (Au-Yong-Oliveira et al. 2018) or weak, dis-
respectful and unmotivated (Myers and Sadaghiani 2010). On the other hand, the other dimension of
the cultural capital referred to the personal circumstances has turned out to be the least significant of
all the factors analysed. The low relevance of personal circumstances in student employability is
directly related to the age of graduates, their low geographical mobility, and relative inability to
swiftly adapt to possible working conditions (Hillage and Pollard 1998).
Next in order of importance, we find that human capital has been considered in the literature as
the first and most foundational form of capital valued and utilised by graduates (Tomlinson and
Nghia 2020). In our view, however, although human capital should be considered an important com-
ponent of employability, the psychological, cultural and social capital factors may be more important
predictors of employability for university students. The components of knowledge and skills are foun-
dational in building human capital. That is, it is not possible for university students to show motiv-
ation and capacity for self-management when the time comes to look for a job if they do not
recognise their own human capital. This indicates that investments in education may enhance uni-
versity students’ perceived prospects of achieving appropriate employment. Of the two human
capital factors considered, skills have proven more important. Although employers demand up-to-
date knowledge as a starting point for each specialised job (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden
2006; Au-Yong-Oliveira et al. 2018; Bridgstock and Jackson 2019), they demand more to complete
it with the skills that are evaluated through recruitment techniques through performances in
group cases (Dacre and Sewell 2007; De Guzman and Choi 2013).

Practical implications
The results of this study help to identify possible actions to improve the capital employability of uni-
versity students. The relevance that psychological capital has received forces us to think about an
imperative for the university in the creation of high-quality tutoring services for students. This
student monitoring service is a support that ensures that they gain the desired confidence and motiv-
ation in employability (Caballero, Vázquez, and Quintas 2015), develop their emotional intelligence
(Dacre and Sewell 2007), and enhance their educational preparation towards employability (Bridg-
stock and Jackson 2019). Another proposal is for the provision of support courses that reinforce
the skills needed for personal management on the path towards employment.
In terms of social capital, the university can include matching students with employers and the
possibility of scholarships and internships in companies or institutions (Batistic and Tymon 2017;
Qenani, MacDougall, and Sexton 2014) or the development of mobility programmes such as
Erasmus, which favour the generation of networks. The university can also try to link its students
with former graduates who are now employed (Weerts, Cabrera, and Sanford 2010) through
different actions, such as classroom, workshop or employment observatory visits. This would facili-
tate, in addition to passing on their experience, the development of a network of contacts in the
short term (McNally and Irving 2010).
16 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

With regard to cultural capital, we propose that the university should teach courses to instil in stu-
dents a positive attitude towards a work ethic of responsibility and effort, qualities which are highly
valued by employers (Lim et al. 2016; Tomlinson and Nghia 2020). We also suggest that the university,
in fulfilling part of its social responsibility, should develop communication actions geared towards
society as a whole that underscore the importance a work ethic of effort, responsibility and
commitment.
Finally, with respect to human capital, the university should implement activities that encourage
the development of the knowledge and skills required by employers today for students, especially in
terms of teaching staff, who should seek continuous improvement in the subjects they teach. Sec-
ondly, former students who are now employed should be encouraged by the university continue
to maintain contact with their teachers, thus helping to add value to and reinforce the human
capital of students (Bridgstock and Jackson 2019). Finally, universities to collaborate with employers
to ensure that they remain aware of the demands of new jobs or changes in existing ones (Au-Yong-
Oliveira et al. 2018; Herbert et al. 2020) or traditional jobs in which they can provide the knowledge
and the most relevant skills (Ashraf et al. 2018; Donald, Baruch, and Ashleigh 2019; Knight and Yorke
2002; Kucel et al. 2016).

Limitations and future directions

A first limitation of the research is the analysis of employability capital from the point of view of uni-
versity students. It would be very useful for a future line of research to analyze employability capital
from the point of view of employers. This would make it possible to perform a comparative analysis
between what students perceive as making them employable and what employers demand. Second,
as far as we know, this study considered most of the personal factors of capital employability,
however, it is possible that future researchers demonstrate the existence of other factors or items.
For example, as a future line of research, a Bourdieusian analysis could be developed including
other variables related to cultural capital.
Finally, to identify and explain the differences in employability capital among university students,
future research could segment students by degree, field of study, public or private character of the
university, or gender. We also suggest replicating this work in different international contexts, in
which the relative importance of each internal factor on employability could be different.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This research was supported in part by grants from the Committee of Activities and Services of the Social Council of the
University of Vigo with the aim of improving the employability of university students.

ORCID
Gloria Caballero http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0431-5977
Paula Álvarez-González http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4892-4355
María Jesús López-Miguens http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4986-024X

References
Álvarez-Gonzalez, P., M. J. López-Miguens, and G. Caballero. 2017. “Perceived Employability in University Students:
Developing an Integrated Model.” Career Development International 22 (3): 280–299. doi:10.1108/CDI-08-2016-0135.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 17

Andrews, J., and H. Higson. 2008. “Graduate Employability, ‘Soft Skills’ Versus ‘Hard’ Business Knowledge: A European
Study.” Higher Education in Europe 33 (4): 411–422. doi:10.1080/03797720802522627.
Ashraf, R. U., F. Hou, S. A. A. Kirmani, M. Ilyas, S. A. H. Zaidi, and M. S. Ashraf. 2018. “Student Employability via University-
Industry Linkages.” Human Systems Management 37 (2): 219–232. doi:10.3233/HSM-17236.
Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., R. Gonçalves, J. Martins, and F. Branco. 2018. “The Social Impact of Technology on Millennials and
Consequences for Higher Education and Leadership.” Telematics and Informatics 35 (4): 954–963. doi:10.1016/j.tele.
2017.10.007.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Batistic, S., and A. Tymon. 2017. “Networking Behaviour, Graduate Employability: a Social Capital Perspective.” Education+
Training 59 (4): 374–388. doi:10.1108/ET-06-2016-0100.
Becker, G. 1993. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. 3rd ed. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Berntson, E., M. Sverke, and S. Marklund. 2006. “Predicting Perceived Employability: Human Capital or Labour Market
Opportunities?” Economic and Industrial Democracy 27 (2): 223–244. doi:10.1177/0143831X06063098.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook for Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J.
Richardson, 241–258. New York, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1997. Capital Cultural, escuela y espacio Social. Madrid: Siglo XXI editores.
Bridgstock, R. 2009. “The Graduate Attributes We’ve Overlooked: Enhancing Graduate Employability Through Career
Management Skills.” Higher Education Research and Development 28 (1): 31–44. doi:10.1080/07294360802444347.
Bridgstock, R., and D. Jackson. 2019. “Strategic Institutional Approaches to Graduate Employability: Navigating Meanings,
Measurements and What Really Matters.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 41 (5): 468–484. doi:10.
1080/1360080X.2019.1646378.
Caballero, G., X. H. Vázquez, and M. A. Quintas. 2015. “Improving Employability Through Stakeholders in European Higher
Education: the Case of Spain.” Long Range Planning 48 (6): 398–411. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2015.09.005.
Chen, D. J., and V. K. Lim. 2012. “Strength in Adversity: The Influence of Psychological Capital on job Search.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 33 (6): 811–839. doi:10.1002/job.1814.
Chhinzer, N., and A. M. Russo. 2018. “An Exploration of Employer Perceptions of Graduate Student Employability.”
Education+ Training 60 (1): 104–120. doi:10.1108/ET-06-2016-0111.
Chou, C. M., and C. H. Shen. 2012. “Factors Influencing Employability Self-Efficacy of Engineering Students in Taiwan.”
International Journal of Engineering Practical Research 1 (1): 10–14.
Clarke, M. 2018. “Rethinking Graduate Employability: The Role of Capital, Individual Attributes and Context.” Studies in
Higher Education 43 (11): 1923–1937. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1294152.
Dacre, P. L., P. Qualter, and P. J. Sewell. 2014. “Exploring the Factor Structure of the Career EDG Employability
Development Profile.” Education + Training 56 (4): 303–313. doi:10.1108/ET-01-2013-0009.
Dacre, P. L., and P. J. Sewell. 2007. “The key to Employability: Developing a Practical Model of Graduate Employability.”
Education + Training 49 (4): 277–289. doi:10.1108 /00400910710754435.
De Guzman, A. B., and K. O. Choi. 2013. “The Relations of Employability Skills to Career Adaptability among Technical
School Students.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 82 (3): 199–207. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.009.
Donald, W. E., Y. Baruch, and M. Ashleigh. 2019. ““The Undergraduate Self-Perception of Employability: Human Capital,
Careers Advice, and Career Ownership”. Studies in Higher Education.” 44 (4): 599–614. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.
1387107.
European Commission. 2016. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A new skills agenda for Europe.
Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness. https://ec.europa.eu/
transparency/regdoc/rep/1 /2016/EN/1-2016-381-EN-F1-1.PDF.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104.
Fugate, M., A. J. Kinicki, and B. E. Ashforth. 2004. “Employability: A Psycho-Social Construct, its Dimensions, and
Applications.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 65: 14–38. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005.
Granovetter, M. 1995. Getting a job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1999. Análisis Multivariante. Madrid, Spain: Prentice Hall.
Herbert, I. P., A. T. Rothwell, J. L. Glover, and S. A. Lambert. 2020. “Graduate Employability, Employment Prospects and
Work-Readiness in the Changing Field of Professional Work.” The International Journal of Management Education 18
(2): 100378. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100378.
Hernández-Fernaud, E., Y. Ramos-Sapena, F. Negrín, C. I. Ruiz-de la Rosa, and B. Hernández. 2011. “Perception of
Employability and Self-Efficacy for job Seeking in University Students.” Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 27 (2): 131–142. doi:10.5093/tr2011v27n2a5.
Hernández-Fernaud, E., C. I. Ruiz-de la Rosa, F. Negrín, Y. Ramos-Sapena, and B. Hernández. 2017. “Efficacy of an
Intervention Program to Improve Employability of University Students.” The Spanish Journal of Psychology 20: 1–11.
doi:10.1017/sjp.2016.103.
18 G. CABALLERO ET AL.

Hildebrandt, L. 1987. “Consumer Retail Satisfaction in Rural Areas: A Reanalysis of Survey Data.” Journal of Economic
Psychology 8: 19–42. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(87)90004-3.
Hillage, J., and E. Pollard. 1998. Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis. London, England: Department
for Education and Employment.
Hogan, R., T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R. B. Kaiser. 2013. “Employability and Career Success: Bridging the gap Between
Theory and Reality.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6 (1): 3–16. doi:10.1111/iops.12001.
Holmes, L. 2013. “Competing Perspectives on Graduate Employability: Possession, Position or Process?” Studies in Higher
Education 38 (4): 538–554. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.587140.
Jones, A. B., R. A. Sherman, and R. T. Hogan. 2017. “Where is Ambition in Factor Models of Personality?” Personality and
Individual Differences 106: 26–31. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.057.
Kalfa, S., and L. Taksa. 2015. “Cultural Capital in Business Higher Education: Reconsidering the Graduate Attributes
Movement and the Focus on Employability.” Studies in Higher Education 40 (4): 580–595. doi:10.1080/03075079.
2013.842210.
Knight, P. T., and M. Yorke. 2002. “Employability Through the Curriculum.” Tertiary Education and Management 8 (4): 261–
276. doi:10.1080/13583883.2002.9967084.
Kucel, A., P. Robert, M. Buil, and N. Massferrer. 2016. “Entrepreneurial Skills and Education-job Matching of Higher
Education Graduates.” European Journal of Education 51 (1): 73–89. doi:10.1111/ejed.12161.
Lévy, J. P., and J. Varela. 2003. Multivariate Analysis in Social Sciences. Madrid, Spain: Pearson Education.
Lim, Y. M., T. H. Lee, C. S. Yap, and C. C. Ling. 2016. “Employability Skills, Personal Qualities, and Early Employment
Problems of Entry-Level Auditors: Perspectives From Employers, Lecturers, Auditors, and Students.” Journal of
Education for Business 91 (4): 185–192.
Lin, N. 2008. “A Network Theory of Social Capital.” In The Handbook of Social Capital, edited by D. Castiglione, J. Van Deth,
and G. Wolleb, 50–69. Norfolk: Oxford University Press.
Luthans, F. 2002. “Positive Organizational Behavior. Developing and Managing Psychological Strengths.” Academy of
Management Executive 16 (1): 57–72. doi:10.5465/ame.2002.6640181.
McArdle, S., L. Waters, J. P. Briscoe, and D. T. T. Hall. 2007. “Employability During Unemployment: Adaptability, Career
Identity and Human and Social Capital.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 71 (2): 247–264. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.003.
McNally, J. J., and P. G. Irving. 2010. “The Relationship Between University Student Commitment Profiles and Behavior:
Exploring the Nature of Context Effects.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17 (2): 201–215. doi:10.
1177/1548051810363810.
McQuaid, R. W., and C. Lindsay. 2005. “The Concept of Employability.” Urban Studies 42 (2): 197–219. doi:10.1080=
0042098042000316100.
Mouw, T. M. 2003. “Social Capital and Finding a job: do Contacts Matter?.” American Sociological Review 868–898. doi:10.
2307/1519749
Myers, K. K., and K. Sadaghiani. 2010. “Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective on Millennials’
Organizational Relationships and Performance.” Journal of Business and Psychology 25 (2): 225–238. doi:10.1007/
s10869-010-9172-7.
Nicolescu, L., and C. Nicolescu. 2019. “Using PLS-SEM to Build an Employability Confidence Model for Higher Education
Recipients in the Field of Business Studies.” Kybernetes 48 (9): 1965–1988. doi:10.1108/K-04-2018-0165.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2019. Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators.
Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/f8d7880d-en
Peeters, E., J. Nelissen, N. De Cuyper, A. Forrier, M. Verbruggen, and H. De Witte. 2017. “Employability Capital: A
Conceptual Framework Tested Through Expert Analysis.” Journal of Career Development, 1–15. doi:10.1177/
0894845317731865.
Pinto, L. H., and D. C. Ramalheira. 2017. “Perceived Employability of Business Graduates: the Effect of Academic
Performance and Extracurricular Activities.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 99: 165–178. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.005.
Qenani, E., N. MacDougall, and C. Sexton. 2014. “An Empirical Study of Self-Perceived Employability: Improving the
Prospects for Student Employment Success in an Uncertain Environment.” Active Learning in Higher Education 15
(3): 199–213. doi:10.1177/1469787414544875.
Rivera, M. C., L. Villardón, M. Álvarez, A. Moro, I. Elexpuru, and C. Yániz. 2012. “Perceived Employability and Competence
Development.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 69: 1191–1197. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.051.
Robertson, D. L., and M. Pelaez. 2016. “Behavior Analytic Concepts and Change in a Large Metropolitan Research
University: The Graduation Success Initiative.” Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 36 (2–3): 123–153.
doi:10.1080/01608061.2016.1200513.
Römgens, I., R. Scoupe, and S. Beausaert. 2019. “Unraveling the Concept of Employability, Bringing Together Research on
Employability in Higher Education and the Workplace.” Studies in Higher Education, 1–16. doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.
1623770.
Rothwell, A., and J. Arnold. 2007. “Self-perceived Employability: Development and Validation of a Scale.” Personnel Review
36 (1): 23–41. doi:10.1108/00483480710716704.
 STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION 19

Rothwell, A., I. Herbert, and F. Rothwell. 2008. “Self-perceived Employability: Construction and Initial Validation of a Scale
for University Students.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 73: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.12.001.
Rothwell, A., S. Jewell, and M. Hardie. 2009. “Self-perceived Employability: Investigating the Responses of Post-Graduate
Students.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 75 (2): 152–161. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.002.
Schultz, T. W. 1961. “Investment in Human Capital.” The American Economic Review 51 (1): 1–17.
Sharma, S. 1996. Applied Multivariate Techniques. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sharma, P., and R. Y. Chan. 2011. “Counterfeit Proneness: Conceptualisation and Scale Development.” Journal of Marketing
Management 27 (5-6): 602–626. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.489829.
Tomlinson, M. 2017. “Forms of Graduate Capital and Their Relationship to Graduate Employability.” Education+ Training
59 (4): 338–352. doi:10.1108/ET-05-2016-0090.
Tomlinson, M., and T. L. H. Nghia. 2020. “An Overview of the Current Policy and Conceptual Landscape of Graduate
Employability.” In Developing and Utilizing Employability Capitals: Graduates’ Strategies Across Labour Markets, edited
by Tran Le Huu Nghia, Thanh Pham, Michael Tomlinson, Karen Medica, and Christopher Thompson, 1–17. London
and New York: Editorial Routledge.
Tymon, A. 2013. “The Student Perspective on Employability.” Studies in Higher Education 38 (6): 841–856. doi:10.1080/
03075079.2011.604408.
Vandecasteele, B., and M. Geuens. 2010. “Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, Measurement and Validation.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing 27 (4): 308–318. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.08.004.
Van der Heijde, C., and B. Van der Heijden. 2006. “A Competence-Based and Multidimensional Operationalization and
Measurement of Employability.” Human Resource Management 45: 449–476. doi:10.1002/hrm.20119.
Vargas, R., M. I. Sánchez-Queija, A. Rothwell, and A. Parra. 2018. “Self-perceived Employability in Spain.” Education +
Training 60 (3): 226–237. doi:10.1108/ET-03-2017-0037.
Verhaest, D., and R. Van der Velden. 2013. “Cross-country Differences in Graduate Overeducation.” European Sociological
Review 29 (3): 642–653. doi:10.1093/esr/jcs044.
Weerts, D., A. Cabrera, and T. H. Sanford. 2010. “Beyond Giving: Political Advocacy and Volunteer Behaviors of Public
University Alumni.” Research in Higher Education 51 (4): 346–365. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9158-3.
Willett, J. B., and A. G. Sayer. 1994. “Using Covariance Structure Analysis to Detect Correlates and Predictors of Individual
Change Over Time.” Psychological Bulletin 116: 363–381. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.363.
Williams, S., L. J. Dodd, C. Steele, and R. Randall. 2016. “A Systematic Review of Current Understandings of Employability.”
Journal of Education and Work 29 (8): 877–901. doi:10.1080/13639080.2015.1102210.
Wittekind, A., S. Raeder, and G. Grote. 2010. “A Longitudinal Study of Determinants of Perceived Employability.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 31: 566–586. doi:10.1002 /job.646.
Wood, R., and A. Bandura. 1989. “Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management.” Academy of Management
Review 14 (3): 361–384. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279067.
Wright, T. A., J. C. Quick, S. T. Hannah, and M. Hargrove. 2017. “Best Practice Recommendations for Scale Construction in
Organizational Research: The Development and Initial Validation of the Character Strength Inventory (CSI).” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 38: 615–628. doi:10.1002/job.2180.
Yusof, H. M., R. Mustapha, S. A. Mohamad, and M. S. Bunian. 2012. “Measurement Model of Employability Skills Using
Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 56: 348–356. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.663.
Zakaria, M. H., B. Yatim, and S. Ismail. 2014. “A New Approach in Measuring Graduate Employability Skills.” AIP Conference
Proceedings 1602 (1): 1202–1208. doi:10.1063/1.4882637.