See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273334679

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL IN PORTUGUESE WORKERS: CONTRIBUTIONS TO

THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PSYCAP QUESTIONNAIRE

Conference Paper · September 2014

DOI: 10.5593/sgemsocial2014/B11/S1.042

CITATIONS READS

3 7,071

4 authors, including:

Lisete Mónico Leonor Pais

University of Coimbra University of Coimbra
297 PUBLICATIONS   1,348 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   558 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Work of Journalists and Commentators in the Transmission of Emotion Narratives of Political Parties View project

Subprojeto Interdisciplinar do Programa de Bolsa de Iniciação a Docência (PIBID) da Universidade Federal de Goiás/Regional Catalão (UFG/CAC) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lisete Mónico on 10 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

Mónico, L. M., Pais, L., dos Santos, N. R., & Santos, D. (2014). Psychological capital in
Portuguese workers: Contributions to the validity and reliability of the Psycap
Questionnaire. Proceedings of the SGEM Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts, 1,
319-326.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL IN PORTUGUESE WORKERS:

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE PSYCAP
QUESTIONNAIRE
Ass. Prof. Dr. Lisete Mónico1
Ass. Prof. Dr. Leonor Pais1
Ass. Prof. Dr. Nuno Rebelo dos Santos2
Dr. Diana Santos1
1
University of Coimbra, Portugal
2
Universidade de Évora, Portugal

ABSTRACT
Luthans et al. [10] suggested organizational behavior would focus on Positive
Organizational Behavior (POB). Adopting the positive emotions as the object of study,
hope, resilience, self-efficacy and optimism were presented as POB states that could
represent a superior order of configuration called Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Avey
et al. [1]. Luthans et al. [10] proposed the PsyCap Questionnaire for the American
population, in order to measure a new concept in the area of organizational psychology.
Despite Machado [12] having applied the questionnaire to centers for technological
research and development in Portugal, its application to another Portuguese
organizational context requires examination of its psychometric properties. This paper
intends to contribute to the study of those psychometric properties of the PsyCap
Questionnaire for the Portuguese population. We carry out confirmatory factor analysis
of a sample of 1117 workers (39.5% male and 60.1% female), aged between 18 and 69
years (M=39.74; SD=11.21), who have a bond of at least one year with the
organization. The tetra-factorial model of PsyCap with 22 items (two were excluded
from the original version, due to low regression weights) revealed a good quality of
adjustment, X2/201=3.62, p<.001, CFI=.949, NFI=.93, TLI=.941, and RMSEA=.048,
supporting the original four dimensions: F1 - Self-Efficacy (α=.84), F2 - Hope (α=.82),
F3 - Resilience (α=.81), and F4 - Optimism (α=.70). The global scale has α=.91.
Considering the validity and reliability scores, we conclude that the original
dimensionality of the PsyCap Questionnaire found support in this sample of workers.
Our results contribute to reliable use of the PsyCap dimensions/Questionnaire in an
organizational context.
Keywords: Psychological Capital, PsyCap Questionnaire, Validity, Reliability.

INTRODUCTION
 SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

Positive Psychology (PP) was a movement founded after the Second World War. It
began to defend the adoption of an optimistic interpretative schema, with physical and
psychological effects that could improve motivation [6]. The findings of PP can be
passed to the organizational field, since there was an awareness that a positive
organizational environment could result in positive effects on co-workers and
organizational performance [5]. From adaptation of PP to the organizational context,
two movements emerged: Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) and Positive
Organizational Behavior (POB). The first aims to identify the dynamics that lead
organizations and individuals to high-level performance, at a macro level. The second
refers to positive individual abilities which can be developed in order to achieve a
higher level of individual performance [3][7]. The main difference between the two
concepts is that POB can always be developed, which makes it state-like. The same
does not happen with POS [10]. We will devote this study to POB, since it is the one
opening the path to the emergence of Positive Psychological Capital in the
organizational field. Therefore, Luthans [7] began the study of POB to find a
sustainable, evidence-based positive approach to organizational behavior and human
resource management. Finding a construct that could represent this criterion needed a
strong theoretical background, a valid measure and a construct that could be developed.
So after a thorough review of PP, the constructs that can dovetail in these criteria were
found: Hope, Self-Efficacy, Resilience and Optimism – widely known in positive
psychology but less known in the organizational field [11]. This means these constructs
are individually used in positive psychology, but in the organizational context they fit
together in the POB concept and once combined are called Positive Psychological
Capital. This term means that PsyCap lies beyond human and social capital, consisting
of “who you are” rather than “what or who you know” [9].
Luthans and Youssef [8] proposed the concept of Psychological Capital, with four
factors that can be measured and developed. PsyCap was defined as:

An individual´s positive psychological state of development, characterized by: (1)

having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to
succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about
succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when
necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when
beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond
(resiliency) to attain success[10], (p. 3).
‫ازﯾن ﻗﺳﻣت ﻣﻔﺎھﯾم ﺑرداﺷﺗﮫ ﻧﺷده‬
Self-Efficacy refers to people who believe in their ability to mobilize the motivation,
cognitive resources and action required for successful performance. It is likely that an
individual with high self-efficacy chooses challenging tasks and perseveres in the face
of obstacles and difficulties, as opposed to people with low self-efficacy. Optimism
refers to people who expect positive outcomes, who attribute positive events to internal,
permanent and pervasive causes, and negative events to external, temporary ones. This
means that they take credit for favorable situations in their lives and distance themselves
from unfavorable events (diminishing the likelihood of depression, guilt, self-blame).
Optimists are more expected to formulate plans of action when facing difficulties. Hope
[15] is composed of two components: agency and pathways. The first refers to an
individual´s motivation to succeed at a specific task in a specific context and the second
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

refers to the way in which the task can be performed. People are motivated to achieve
their goals expressing their sense of agency and expressing internalized determination
and willpower to invest effort and energy in meeting their expectations. Those with
higher levels of hope have greater goal direction and develop alternative pathways to
accomplish their goals. Finally, Resilience refers to an individual’s ability to deal with
adversity, uncertainty, risk and failure, adapting to changes and stressful life demands.
Individuals with high resilience tend to be better at adapting when faced with negative
experiences and changes in the external surroundings [8].
Nowadays PsyCap seems relevant, as it has a direct link to people’s well being as well
as organizational performance and sustainability – which can only be accomplished by
people [10] For these reasons, it is important to have a valid and reliable scale to use in
Portuguese organizational contexts. Therefore, in the present study, we intend to deepen
the psychometric study of the PsyCap Questionnaire of Luthans et al., [10] translated to
Portuguese by Machado [12].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample
This is a non-experimental and transversal study. The sample is made up of 1132
participants who work in Portugal, with a bond of at least one year with an organization.
Participants are aged between 18 and 69 years old, with a mean (M) of 39.74 and a
standard deviation (SD) of 11.21 years. 39.5% are male (n=447) and 60.1% female
(n=680). All participants have a bond of at least one year in the organization, only 5.5%
being entrepreneurs, 66.3% have a contract of indefinite duration, and 64% are
employees (n=1126). Most participants (48%) have a net monthly salary between 501
and 1000 euros, a minority (2%) having a salary between 3001 and 3500 euros, and
3501 and 4000 euros (n=1122). About 4% of participants only know how to read and
write, 18.2% have basic education, 32.3% have secondary school education, and only
2.7% have a master degree (n=1123). In terms of leadership, 24.3% have a leadership
role (5.4% top leadership and 18.5% middle management), and 74.5% of them have no
leadership role in the organization (n=1120). Finally, 30.3% work in an organization
with between 10 and 50 employees, and 20.8% work in an organization with between
51 and 250 employees (n=1123).

Measure
The PsyCap Questionnaire, specific to the organizational context, developed and
validated by Luthans et al. [10] was used. This instrument was drawn up from measures
widely recognized and published in the literature, such as self-efficacy, hope, optimism,
and resilience [12]. This questionnaire has 24 items, six for each of the four dimensions
(hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience), to which respondents should indicate
their level of agreement using a six-point Likert scale, from 1 (“strongly disagree") to 6
("strongly agree"). The questionnaire has 3 inverted items, which are: 3 - When I´ve a
setback at work, I´ve difficulty in recovering and moving on; 20 - If something bad can
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

happen to me at work, it will happen; and 23 - At work, things never run as I would like.
The questionnaire by Luthans et al. [10] was adapted to the Portuguese context by
Machado [12].

Procedure and data analysis

All care was taken to ensure participants’ anonymity and to ensure the confidentiality of
the data, so that the answers were not skewed. All formal and ethical situations were
taken into account in this work. A group of master students received training in
collecting the sample following rigorous procedures. This was done in order to acquire a
greater number of participants in a short time. The data was compiled between
December 2013 and February 2014.
This is a non-experimental and transversal study. The data is processed in SPSS version
22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

RESULTS
Considering our objectives, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS
software. The composite reliability and the average extracted variance for each factor
were evaluated as described in Fornell and Larcker [6]. The existence of outliers was
measured by the square distance of Mahalanobis [15], and the normality of the variables
was evaluated by the coefficients of asymmetry (Sk) and kurtosis (Ku) univariate and
multivariate. None of the variables presented Sk or Ku values that could indicate
violations of normal distribution, since |Sk| < 3 and |Ku| < 10. The quality of the global
adjustment of the factorial models was determined by the X2, CFI, NFI, TLI, and
RMSEA indexes, considering the reference values [2] [15]. The adjustment of the
model was made by modification indexes (higher than 80).
The tetra-factorial model of the PsyCap Questionnaire with 24 items revealed a good
quality of adjustment X2/242 = 3.67, p < .001, CFI = .941, NFI = .921, TLI = .932, and
RMSEA = .049. The modification indexes correlated the residual variance of items 2
and 3, 10 and 12, 13 and 20, and 20 and 23. Due to low regression weights, we excluded
items 13 and 20 (regression weights of .19 and .08, respectively). The tetra-factorial
model of PsyCap with 22 items revealed a good quality of adjustment, X2/201 = 3.62, p
< 0.001, CFI = 0.949, NFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.941, and RMSEA = 0.048. Our results (see
tetra-factorial model of factorial validation of Psychological Capital Questionnaire in
Figure 1) supported the original four dimensions proposed by Luthans et al. [10]: F1 -
Self-Efficacy, F2 - Hope, F3 - Resilience, and F4 - Optimism.

Table 1 presents the estimates, standard errors, critical ratios, and standardized
regression weights for the confirmatory structural analysis, as well as the means and
standard deviations of each item. The highest score occurs in item 4 (I am able to define
set goals for my work area), and the lowest score in items 12 (Right now I am achieving
the professional goals that I defined for myself) and 23 (At work, things never go as I
would like; reversal item). All estimated parameters are statistically significant (see
critical ratios), and items have high standardized regression weights [15], ranging from
 SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

.56 to .82. The diagram of the estimated model is shown in Figure 1. The correlations
between the factors are high.

Table 1: Estimates, Standard errors (SE), Critical ratios (CR), and Standardized regression weights (SRW):
Confirmatory structural analysis of PsyCap, Means (M) and standard-deviations (SD)

Dimension Items M SD b S.E. C.R. SRW

Self- 1. I feel confident when I´m looking for a solution to 1.00 .61
a long-term problem 4.50 0.99
efficacy
2. I feel confident in representing my work area in 1.22 .07 18.26 *** .70
meetings with the organization management 4.57 1.05
3. I feel confident to contribute to discussions about
4.56 1.05 1.25 .07 18.54 *** .71
the organization´s strategy
4. I am able to define set goals for my work area 4.92 0.89 1.13 .06 19.58 *** .77
5. I feel confident when I need to make contact with
people outside the company (e.g. customers and 4.70 1.08 1.13 .07 17.02 *** .63
suppliers) to discuss problems
6. I feel confident to present information to a group 1.09 .06 18.48 *** .70
of colleagues 4.85 0.93
Hope 7. If I were in a difficult situation at work, I could 1.00 .64
think of many ways to get out of it 4.64 0.96
8. Nowadays, I try to achieve my goals with great 1.16 .06 19.19 *** .68
energy 4.79 1.04
9. For any problem, there are many ways to solve it 4.77 1.06 .97 .06 16.35 *** .56
10. Right now, I see myself as a successful 1.19 .07 18.38 *** .65
person at work 4.50 1.13
11. I can think of many ways to achieve my
4.63 0.95 1.27 .06 21.86 *** .82
goals at work
12. Right now I am achieving the professional
4.10 1.29 1.28 .07 17.42 *** .61
goals that I defined for myself
Resilience 14. In one way or another, in general I can manage
4.63 0.88 1.00 .72
work and its difficulties
15. At work, if necessary, I am able to stand "at my
4.83 1.06 1.01 .05 18.61 *** .60
own risk"
16. In general, I can easily step over the more
4.50 1.01 1.22 .05 23.30 *** .77
stressful things at work
17. I can overcome the difficult times at work,
because I already came through difficulties in the 4.72 0.97 1.09 .05 21.71 *** .71
past
18. I feel that I can handle many things at the same
4.60 1.02 0.97 .05 18.58 *** .60
time at work
Optimism 19. When things are uncertain for me at work, I
4.31 1.07 1.000 .61
usually expect the best
21. In my work, I always look on the positive side of
4.52 1.03 1.27 .06 19.72 *** .80
things
22. At work, I am optimistic about what will happen in
4.31 1.13 1.36 .07 19.53 *** .78
the future
 SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

Dimension Items M SD b S.E. C.R. SRW

23. At work, things never go as I would like (*) 4.10 1.32 0.42 .07 6.25 *** .21
24. I work with the conviction that every setback has
4.47 1.00 0.96 .06 16.79 *** .63
a positive side
(*) Reversal item *** p < .001

Figure 1 - Tetra factorial model of factorial validation of Psychological Capital questionnaire

Internal consistency was estimated by the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. For the global
scale we obtained an α = .908. The first factor (F1 - Self-Efficacy/Trust) presents an α =
.844; the second (F2 - Hope) shows an α = .821; the third factor (F3 - Resilience) has an
α = .736 and, finally, the fourth factor (F4 - Optimism) presents an α = .656. Although
the last two factors present low coefficients, we can consider that the scale shows
acceptable reliability [13].
SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

DISCUSSION
In this research we intended to deepen psychometric study of the PsyCap Questionnaire
in the Portuguese organizational context. This is important since positive concepts are
more significant in co-workers in order to improve their performance and well-being. It
is important to emphasize that results presented here are high, revealing quality of
adjustment, showing it is a strong scale that can be used in several contexts.
As we can see from the CFI = .941, NFI = .921, TLI = .932, and RMSEA = .049 index,
there is good adjustment of the model, proving it can be widely used. The highest values
were seen in the Self-efficacy dimension, and the lowest values in Hope and Optimism.
Those results can be understood considering the present crisis in Europe and particularly
in Portugal, which influences the feelings, emotions and behaviours of workers.
It is also important to mention that the questionnaire kept the 4 dimensions of the
Luthans et al. [10] questionnaire, Self-Efficacy, Hope, Resilience and Optimism, since
they are positive constructs that were seen to fit the organizational area as POB. That
means we can use the authors’ original dimensions [10] to measure the positive
behavior and use that assessment to take decisions and carry out actions in the
organizational field, keeping it closer to the positive organizational environment that the
original authors defended.

REFERENCES
[1] Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M. & Palmer, N. F., (2010). Impact of Positive
Psychological Capital on Employee Well-Being Over Time. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 15:1 (17-28).
[2] Bentler, P., (1990). Quantitative methods in psychology: Comparative fit indexes in
structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
[3] Cameron, K. S. & Caza, A., (2004). Contributions to the discipline of Positive
organizational Scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47.
[4] Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., & Cunha, R. C., (2007). Organizational Spiritualities: An
ideology-based typology. Business & Society, 45 (2).
[5] Fredrickson, B.L., (2003). The Value of Positive Emotion. American Scientist, 91,
330-335.
[6] Fornell, C. & Lacker, D. F., (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-
50.
[7] Luthans, F., (2002). The Need For and Meaning of Positive Organizational
Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706.
[8] Luthans, F., & Youssef, C.M,. (2004a). Human, social, and now positive
psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage.
Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143-160.
[9] Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., Luthans, B., C., (2004b). Positive Psychological
Capital: Beyond Human and Social Capital. Business Horizons, 47/1.
 SGEM 2014 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts

[10] Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., & Avolio, B.J., (2007). Psychological Capital:
developing the human competitive edge. New York: Oxford University Press.
[11] Luthans, F. (2012). Psychological Capital: Implications for HRD, Retrospective
Analysis and Future Directions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 23, no.
1.
[12] Machado, F.I.M.P., (2008). Capital psicológico positivo e criatividade dos
colaboradores: Um estudo exploratório em organizações de I&DT. Dissertação de
Mestrado em Gestão da Inovação e do Conhecimento, Departamento de Economia,
Gestão e Engenharia Industrial, Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal.
[13] Nunnally, J., (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[14] Snyder, R., Rand, L. & Sigmon, R., (2002). Hope Theory. In C. R. Snyder, & S.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology, 257-276. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
[15] Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S., (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

View publication stats