E Rips1 078 0049

Workplace Commitment Revisited: Adaptation and Cross-
Cultural Validation of a New Measurement Scale in a

Francophone Context
Alain Lacroux
In Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements
organisationnels Issue 78, 2023, pages 49 to 75
Publishers ESKA
ISSN 2262-8401
ISBN 9782747235068
DOI 10.3917/rips1.078.0049
© ESKA | Téléchargé le 16/12/2023 sur www.cairn.info via Audencia Business School (IP: 154.59.124.95)
Article available online at

https://www.cairn-int.info/revue-internationale-de-psychosociologie-de-gestion-des-comportements-organisati-
2023-78-page-49.htm
Discovering the outline of this issue, following the journal by email, subscribing...
Click on this QR Code to access the page of this issue on Cairn.info.
Electronic distribution Cairn.info for ESKA.

Reproducing this article (including by photocopying) is only authorized in accordance with the general terms and conditions of use for the website, or with the general
terms and conditions of the license held by your institution, where applicable. Any other reproduction, in full or in part, or storage in a database, in any form and by any
means whatsoever is strictly prohibited without the prior written consent of the publisher, except where permitted under French law.
Workplace Commitment Revisited: Adaptation and Cross-
Cultural Validation of a New Measurement Scale in a
Francophone Context
Alain LACROUX
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, PRISM
Abstract
Workplace commitment is a key concept in organizational behavior and for practitioners
because of its ability to enhance the predictability of highly desirable behaviors in contem-
porary organizations such as turnover intention, attendance or organizational citizenship
behaviors. Research is still active in this area and the predominance of the three-dimensional
approach of commitment initially proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991), has been regularly
questioned and alternative proposals have emerged. Of these proposals, one addresses seve-
ral fundamental problems raised by the three-component model (TCM) view by redefining
the pivotal concept of commitment in a more concise and precise format (Klein et al., 2012,
2014). This new approach is accompanied by a compact and versatile measurement instru-
ment, the unidimensional target neutral commitment measure (KUT), which has not yet been
fully validated in a Francophone context. The objective of this article is to argue the interest
of moving towards a new definition of commitment, and to contribute to the validation of the
KUT scale in a French context. We have carried out this operation in several stages, mobilizing
five samples comprising a total of 2096 employees working in four French-speaking countries
(France, Switzerland, Belgium and Canada). Overall, we show that the French version of the
KUT scale exhibits adequate psychometric properties and cultural invariance between the
four sub-samples.
Keywords:
workplace commitment, organizational behavior, psychometry, cross cultural, scale validation
1. INTRODUCTION
Workplace commitment has become a classical topic in organizational behavior, but it remains
a very dynamic field of research, subject to both conceptual and methodological debates
(Klein et al., 2020; van Rossenberg et al., 2022). It is also characterized by a conceptual
redundancy that has led specialists to develop typologies to address the topic (Cohen, 2003;
Morrow, 1983; Reichers, 1985). Definitions of the concept vary significantly according to the
authors but converge towards a central feature: commitment as a psychological bond between
persons and different objects or targets belonging to their work environment, leading them to
adopt behaviors to maintain and develop this link.
https://doi.org/10.3917/rips3.078.0049
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 49 23/10/2023 16:51

50 [2] Commitment at Work
Commitment is a key concept in organizational behavior and for practitioners because of

its capacity to increase the predictability of behaviors that are especially desirable in contem-
porary organizations, namely, retention, loyalty, work effort, attendance, and discretionary
behaviors (Meyer et al., 2002).
In academic publications, we observe the predominance of the three-dimensional approach,
or Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model (TCM). The TCM was originally
proposed for organizational targets but subsequently generalized to multiple targets or foci
(Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
The TCM has been the subject of debate since the early 2000s. Several studies found sup-
port for its generalization to multiple targets (Askew et al., 2013; Stinglhamber et al., 2002),
but in the same times, conceptual and methodological critics were addressed (Jaros, 2009;
Solinger et al., 2008), pointing a conceptual lack of unity and measurement problems. Despite
this ongoing debate, the TCM remains the dominant model used in empirical research: 83%
of the 47 studies using a multidimensional conceptualization of commitment mentioned in
van Rossenberg et al. (2022) review were based on the TCM.
Suggestions to redesign the TCM are struggling to gain acceptance. Among these propo-
sals, one in particular is of great interest because it addresses several fundamental problems
raised by the TCM approach (Klein et al., 2012, 2014). It is coupled with Klein et al.’s (2014)
compact and versatile measurement instrument, the unidimensional target neutral commit-
ment measure (KUT), which has not yet been validated in French-speaking context. However,
in organizational behavior, new concepts become more visible when they are associated with
a validated measurement instrument. The objective of this article is to contribute to this vali-
dation in a French context. We carried out this operation in several stages, based on recent
recommendations on measurement scale validation (Boateng et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2017).
We used five samples comprising a total of 2096 employees working in four French-speaking
countries (i.e., France, Switzerland, Belgium, and Canada). The procedure is detailed in the
second part of the study; the first section is devoted to the main limitations of the dominant
model and the arguments in favor of an alternative measure.
2. COMMITMENT AT WORK: A CONCEPT WORTHY

OF RE-EXAMINATION?
2.1. A Key Concept in Organizational Behavior

Research conducted on commitment has tended to converge towards a broader recognition
of the concept. Organizational commitment remains key – 84% of the 289 studies mentioned
in Van Rossenberg et al. review (2022) focused exclusively on commitment toward the orga-
nization – but other targets or foci are taken into account. These include work ethic (Blau &
Ryan, 1997), occupation (Meyer et al., 1993), workgroup (Stinglhamber et al., 2002), super-
visor (Vandenberghe et al., 2004), or union (Morin et al., 2021). The concept of commit-
ment integrates several dimensions, corresponding to different mindsets: these are referred to
as the internal multidimensionality or dimensions of commitment (Meyer, Allen & Gellatly,
1990; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). As we saw earlier, multidimensionality can also concern
the objects (targets or foci) of commitment, or external multidimensionality (Carmeli et al.,
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 50 23/10/2023 16:51

[2] commItment At worK 51
2007; Klein et al., 2020; Morrow & McElroy, 1986; Reichers, 1985). Finally, we end up with
a matricial conceptualization of commitment (Figure 1), which captures the complexity of
this concept.
Figure 1. The Multidimensional Matrix of Commitment

source: author
Some authors have pointed out that targets can be analyzed at different levels: an intra-or-
ganizational level, which includes proximal, concrete targets (colleagues, superiors, customers,
etc.) with low cognitive distance, and a more global level, which is more closely tied to the
individual and involves abstract entities such as occupation or work. The intra-organizational
approach (Becker, 1992; Reichers, 1985) is of particular interest to human resource manage-
ment practitioners and researchers, as it is based on the idea of commitment arising from the
relationship with the employee’s immediate contacts. The personal approach is more focused
on peoples’ personality; it describes their relationship with abstract entities (e.g., work, pro-
fession/occupation, and career) and is less dependent on the organization in which they are
working. The concept of multiple commitment or global work commitment gives a theoretical
coherence to the different objects by highlighting the common features between different
objects and constructs of commitment. This search for coherence is achieved through the
proposal of integrating models. The typologies most commonly used in research are those
proposed by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986), which distinguish between instrumental com-
mitment, identification and internalization, and above all the TCM proposed by Meyer et
al. (1993) and generalized by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001). The respective authors define
commitment as a force that compels the individual to pursue a course of action to attain one
or more targets. The force that binds the subject to a specific object of commitment can be
based on desire (“I want...”), calculation (“I need...”), and/or moral obligation (“I feel a duty
to...”). The model explicitly considers the affective, continuance, and normative dimensions
as universal components of commitment.
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 51 23/10/2023 16:51

52 [2] Commitment at Work
Research on the concept of commitment itself, its components, and its targets is dynamic.
Three major trends tend to structure the field’s recent evolution:
- A first trend of natural and tree-like development lead to a more complex and deeper
understanding of the various components and targets of commitment, through the
framework of multiple commitment, in accordance with the matricial model presented in
Figure 1;
- A second trend involves a shift in methodological perspective, with the adoption of a per-
son-centered approach (profile analysis);
- A third trend advocates a radical questioning of the existing system by proposing a sim-
plification and a unification of the concept of commitment.
In the first case, the complex nature of the studies reflects a natural evolution of a multi-
dimensional and complex concept. Research has led to specialization and fragmentation that
affects not only the facets of commitment, with the identification of new targets such as the
environment or particular activities (Meldrum & McCarville, 2010) but also the components
of the TCM model. There is now a consensus on the fact that continuance commitment has
two sub-dimensions: a lack of an alternative and the sacrifices associated with leaving the
organization (McGee & Ford, 1987; Vandenberghe & Panaccio, 2015). The normative com-
ponent has also been revisited: two sub-dimensions – moral duty and a perceived obligation
to reciprocate – have been identified (Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). Following from the TCM
approach, we are now facing a very complex vision of commitment that includes not three but
five components (i.e., affective attachment; a lack of alternatives; perceived sacrifices; moral
obligation; and perceived debt).
Parallel to this fragmentation, the dynamic nature of commitment has been taken into
account. This has resulted in the adoption of longitudinal designs (Abdelmoteleb, 2019; Klein
et al., 2017; Vandenberghe et al., 2011) that rely on correlational analyses between variables
(variable-centered approaches), but are beginning to reach their limits; their increasing com-
plexity can exceed the frameworks of standard statistical analyses based on complex regres-
sion models (Meyer et al., 2013).
The second trend in research on commitment is grounded in this complexity issue: faced
with what may constitute an insurmountable difficulty, Meyer and colleagues (2015) have
called for an approach that is based on the exploration of inter-individual differences (i.e.,
profile analyses or typologies). This person-centered approach differs from the variable-centered
approach in that it postulates that the surveyed population is fundamentally heterogeneous
and that the study of this heterogeneity can be informative (Meyer et al., 2015; Morin et al.,
2016; Somers, 2010). In HRM, a person-centered approach is of great interest, as it allows us
to isolate, with the help of more or less sophisticated typological analyses, typical profiles of
commitment that can be associated with adapted, even personalized HR policies. This second
line of research is more operational, but it does not avoid the risk of increasing complexity: the
interactions between targets, components, and antecedent or outcome variables are likely to
be very sensitive to modeling and interpretation.
The third trend stems directly from these criticisms of complexity, along with the questio-
ning of the psychometric validity of measurement instruments (Jaros, 2007; Ko et al., 1997)
and the proliferation and inconsistency of different definitions of commitment (Morrow,
1983) as well as the distinction between closely related concepts such as job satisfaction (Le et
al., 2010). All of these criticisms have led to a re-examination of the dominant model.
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 52 23/10/2023 16:51

[2] Commitment at Work 53
2.2. A “Stretched Concept?”

The TCM approach prevails as a way of operationalizing commitment. It is therefore natural
that this approach receives the majority of criticism, especially regarding organizational tar-
gets. On a theoretical level, this approach has been criticized for being conceptually incons-
istent (Solinger et al., 2008) because it combines an attitude towards a target (affective
commitment to the organization) with attitudes towards withdrawal behaviors or towards
the organization itself. The three fundamental dimensions of commitment in the dominant
model are based on distinct conceptual frameworks: a sociological analysis for the norma-
tive dimension; a typically economic cost-benefit analysis for continuance commitment; and
psychological theories of attachment and identification relating to the affective dimension
(Jaros, 2009).
Another critique concerns the dynamic aspect of the TCM, which appears to combine
temporally inconsistent constructs (Cohen, 2007). Normative commitment is a propensity
and appears to be an antecedent to affective commitment. It also seems that the meaning of
the three dimensions is subject to variations according to culture, especially for the normative
dimension (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Wasti, 2005), which is sometimes absent (Cheng &
Stockdale, 2003).
A more comprehensive and synthetic critique is that the TCM model measures more
things than commitment (Klein et al., 2012) and covers a wide range of reactions such
as evaluation, behavioral intentions, and even behaviors. Yet, as Pittinsky and Shih (2004)
pointed out, if one uses a definition and instrument to measure commitment that incorpo-
rates a behavioral dimension (e.g., an intention to remain a member of the organization),
dependent and independent variables overlap. This leads to artificially high correlations
between commitment and some of its outcomes (-0.35 in Guzeller & Celiker’s meta-analy-
sis in 2019).
From an empirical perspective, the main problem with the TCM is that it fails to pre-
dict specific outcomes of commitment such as absenteeism or job performance. The weak
correlations identified in meta-analyses with the affective dimension that is considered
to be the most predictive (for example, +0.21 for performance in the meta-analysis by
Jaramillo et al. (2005) and -0.2 for absenteeism in the meta-analysis by Meyer et al. 2002)
still raise questions.
2.3. A New Conceptualization and a New Measure

These criticisms led to a proposal for reconceptualization, initiated by an article that argued
for the need to “redress a stretched construct” (Klein et al., 2012, p. 130). The authors pre-
sented a radical solution: simplifying the definition and developing a reduced, multi-target
measurement instrument (Klein et al., 2014). Commitment was defined as a psychological
bond that was part of a continuum of bonds of increasing strength (from consent to identi-
fication) between the person and the objects of his or her attachment (Figure 2). Klein et al.
preferred the term bond to that of attitude because the evaluative dimension is absent; there
is no judgment on the target of commitment, whereas this judgment is central to the classical
conceptualization of attitudes as a combination of an inclination towards and an evaluation of
an object (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 2007).
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 53 23/10/2023 16:51

54 [2] commItment At worK
Figure 2. Continuum of Bonds

source: Adapted from Klein et al. (2012, 134)
The new definition considered commitment as “a volitional psychological bond reflec-

ting dedication to and responsibility for a particular target.” (Klein et al., 2012, p. 137).
The fundamental departure from the TCM approach is this conceptual reduction: the
stretch or extended commitment defined in the TCM approach covers most of the conti-
nuum, whereas the commitment redefined by Klein et al. appeared as a distinct element in
this continuum, focused on the feeling of responsibility and dedication. Klein et al. (2014)
argued for a unified definition and a single dimension of commitment that can be applied
to any identified target. The measurement scale associated with the new construct (the
Klein et al. unidimensional, Target free measure [KUT]) includes four statements (Table
1). This proposition was then tested across multiple targets and multiple samples (Klein
et al., 2014).
According to the authors, this proposition has three advantages: a more concise definition
that avoids the need for auxiliary concepts to describe the different types of links between the
subject and the targets of commitment; adaptability to a wide range of targets; and a stron-
ger conceptual coherence. There is no doubt that this radical simplification should make the
concept easier to implement and integrate into studies dealing with complex interrelationship
models.
Table 1. Commitment Scale: Items and Response Format (Klein et al. 2014, p. 225)
Items
1. How committed are you to [your/the/this] [target]?
2. To what extent do you care about [your/the/this] [target]?
3. How dedicated are you to [your/the/this] [target]?
4. To what extent have you chosen to be committed to [your/the/this] [target]?
Responses
1. Not at all; 2. Slightly; 3. Moderately; 4. Quite a bit; 5. Extremely
A cross-cultural validation project of this scale is currently underway. The present study is
part of this project. The following section proposes a translation and validation of the scale in
French through the analysis of four targets of commitment (organization, co-workers, job, and
occupation) using an overall sample of 2096 French-speaking employees.
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 54 23/10/2023 16:51

[3] Validation of the French Version 55
3. VALIDATION OF THE FRENCH VERSION OF THE KLEIN ET AL.

UNIDIMENSIONAL TARGET FREE MEASURE OF COMMITMENT
3.1. General Procedure
3.1.1. Samples and Measurement Instruments

We used five separate samples of employees and collected the data over two years through
an online survey company. This method is increasingly used in management research (par-
ticularly in marketing), and recent empirical work has shown that the quality of the data
collected (in terms of normality, reliability, and range restriction) and the results obtained
on an online panel did not differ from those obtained in organizational behavior research
relying on samples collected in companies (Roulin, 2015). Sample characteristics are pre-
sented in Appendix 1. It should be noted that the first sample differs from the other four
by an over-representation of employees with managerial status. This is explained by the fact
that the target of the survey in which the questionnaire was embedded comprised people
involved in recruitment processes.
To demonstrate the relevance of the new measurement instrument (KUT), we planned
measurements on several targets: co-workers (KUTC) and job (KUTJ) as proximal targets;
organization (KUTO) as an intermediate target; and occupation (KUTP) as a distal target.
Translation of the scale followed the recommendations in Vallerand (1989). The first translation
(into French) was carried out by the author and an experienced English teacher. The reverse
translation was carried out by an independent translator (an experienced English teacher). The
present author and a native English-speaking professional compared the two versions. The ques-
tionnaire was then pre-tested on a group of students (N = 18) and submitted to three senior
management researchers. The scale translation is presented in Appendix 2.
3.1.2. Validation Strategy

We used a sequential procedure with several samples for the cross-validation of results. We relied
on polychoric matrices and adapted estimators for the factor analysis which took into account
the fact that our data were ordinal (obtained from Likert-type scales). We also favored the use of
McDonald’s omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha, which is subject to recurrent criticism due to
its tau equivalent property, which assumes that the item loadings are equal. McDonald’s omega
index, which does not rely on this assumption, is considered more reliable and better suited to
non-normal distributions (Béland et al., 2017; Trizano-Hermosilla & Alvarado, 2016). The indices
and thresholds used are detailed in Appendix 3. Analyses were performed in the open source sof-
tware environment R, using psych (Revelle, 2021) and lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) packages.
3.2. Study 1: Validation of the French Translation of the KUT scale (N = 1246)
In this first study, we aimed to test the following hypotheses:
– H1: The French version of KUT scale has adequate psychometric properties
– H2: The three targets (organization, colleagues, and job) are distinguishable
– H3: KUT scale is distinct from the TCM affective and continuance scales
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 55 23/10/2023 16:51

56 [3] Validation of the French Version
Following Klein et al. (2014), we tested this distinction by hypothesizing that the associa-
tion between the KUTO scale and the affective dimension of the TCM was strong and the
association with the continuance dimension was weak. We also hypothesized that the associa-
tion with turnover intention or satisfaction was weaker for the KUTO scale than for the affec-
tive dimension of the TCM, illustrating the idea that the TCM measurement scale overlapped
with intention, resulting in an artificially high correlation.
3.2.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

Variables included in this first sample comprised three commitment targets (organization,
colleagues, job); two outcome variables identified in the literature (satisfaction and turnover
intention); and two variables representing the affective and continuance dimensions in the
TCM scale for organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The purpose of this explo-
ratory factor analysis (EFA) was to check that the structure of the measurement instrument
and its dimensionality were correctly replicated on the translated scale, and that the three tar-
gets were clearly distinct. The analysis was conducted on a random sample of 300 respondents
extracted from the sample collected for the first study.
Examination of the scree plot alongside the different tests and methods relevant for deter-
mining the number of factors (parallel analysis, Velicer MAP test, variance explained) leads
to a 3-factor solution (Appendix 3). The solution retained after extraction by maximum like-
lihood with promax rotation was clear: the three factors corresponded to the three targets of
commitment. The total variance explained was high (69%), and the reliability of the scales
representing each dimension was very good (0.93, 0.92, and 0.92 for the dimensions organi-
zation, colleagues, and job, respectively). However, there was a strong correlation between the
“organization” and “job” dimensions (r = 0.76), indicating a potential problem of discrimi-
nant validity.
3.2.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out on 946 respondents not selected for EFA
using structural equation modeling. Assessment of the multivariate normality of measurement
scales revealed a significant deviation from normality for all indicators (multivariate kurtosis
= 83.35, p < .001); we therefore used the WLSMV estimator, as recommended by Beauducel
& Herzberg (2006). Model fit indices were adequate (Table 2), according to recommended
cutoffs (Beauducel & Herzberg, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Xia & Yang, 2019). The cutoffs
used were CFI > 0.95, TLI > 0.95, SRMR < 0.08, and RMSEA < 0.06.
Convergent validity was assessed by checking the loadings and using the criterion of ave-
rage variance extracted. Results in Table 2 shows a sufficient convergent validity (loadings >
0.7, AVE > 50% for the three scales). Regarding discriminant validity, we compared the 3-fac-
tor model selected from the EFA with two concurrent models: a two-factors model (taking
in account the strong correlation between organizational and job targets by pooling them in
a first factor) and a four-factors model (suggested by the difficulty of discriminating between
three-factors and four-factors models in EFA). As shown in Appendix 3, the four-factors
model showed a better fit, but limited interpretability (the second factor contains only one
item with a loading > 0.5). The three-factors models is clear and interpretable and fits the
data very well.
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 56 23/10/2023 16:51

This confirmed that the three targets were distinct for the respondents: H2 is supported
despite the strong correlation between the job and organization targets identified in the
EFA.
Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Three Targets
Three-Factors model fit indices*: chi-square (51) = 90.6, p < .001. CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99;
SRMR = 0.02; RMSEA = 0.016; CI 90%RMSEA [0.011; 0.021]
Regression coefficients (loadings)
Target Organization (KUTO) Co-workers Job

(KUTC) (KUTJ)
Item 1 (commitment) 0.819 0.845 0.833

Item 2 (responsibility) 0.796 0.813 0.725
Item 3 (dedication) 0.795 0.808 0.781
Item 4 (volition) 0.807 0.830 0.784
Reliability (McDonald’s omega) 0.88 0.89 0.87
Average variance extracted (AVE) 0.64 0.66 0.62
Models CFI/TLI Chi-squared Chi-squared diff test
Two-factors model 0.91 / 0.89 262(53), p<.001

Three factors model 0.98 / 0.97 90(51), p<.001 30.9 (2), p <.001
Four-factors model 0.99/0.99 54(45), p=.043 13.8 (6), p = .03
Note: *WLSMV estimator, with robust standard errors (Yuan Bentler chi-square adjustment).
3.2.3. Concurrent Analysis

In order to assess the concurrent validity of KUT scale, we evaluated the magnitude of corre-
lations between the three commitment targets and four constructs (see Table 3):
– Overall job satisfaction (Cammann et al., 1983) : 3 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70;
– Turnover intention (Dwivedi, 2015) : 4 items, Cronbach alpha = 0.82;
– Affective organizational commitment (TCMA, Meyer & Allen, 1991) : 6 items, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.71;
– Continuance organizational commitment (TCMC, Meyer & Allen, 1991) : 6 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72.
We have chosen satisfaction and turnover intention as they generally correlate with commit-
ment and we selected two dimensions of TCM organizational commitment scale to assess its
distinctiveness from KUT.
Consistent with the findings of studies and meta-analyses on different commitment tar-
gets, organizational commitment was positively associated with satisfaction and negatively
associated with turnover intention (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002). The same
was true for job commitment (which was consistent with Brown, 1996; Cooper-Hakim &
Viswesvaran, 2005) and co-workers commitment (which was consistent with Randall & Cote,
1991; Vandenberghe et al., 2004).
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 57 23/10/2023 16:51

Table 3. Correlations Between Constructs (Concurrent validity)
Variables KUTO KUTC KUTJ TCMA TCMC Satisfaction
KUTO (organization) 1
KUTC (co-workers) 0.43** 1
KUTJ (job) 0.71**

0.44** 1
TCMA (affective) 0.51** 0.34** 0.43** 1
TCMC (continuance) -0.007 -0.04 -0.05 -0.10** 1
Satisfaction 0.46**
0.29**
0.46 **
0.65 **
-0.15** 1
Turnover intention -0.27** -0.17** -0.24** -0.60** 0.22** -0.68**
After testing the hypothesis describing the relationships with TCM’s affective and conti-
nuance dimensions, we noticed that the correlation between organizational commitment
(KUTO) and TCM’s continuance commitment was not significant (r = -0.07). We then com-
pared the magnitude of the correlations between commitment and outcome variables (satis-
faction and turnover intention) for the TCM and the KUTO variable. Consistent with the
results obtained by Klein et al. (2014), the differences in magnitude between correlations were
statistically significant (Table 4): the relationship between organizational commitment accor-
ding to the new measure (KUTO) and its outcomes was smaller than that in the TCM model.
Table 4. Comparison Test of Correlations Between TCM and KUTO Models (Organizational
Target)
Variables TCM Correlation with the Correlations with z-test

TCM model KUTO variables
Satisfaction TCM aff 0.65** 0.46** 8.76**

Turnover intention TCM cont -0.60** -0.27** -13.8**
Note: ** p < .001
The results obtained on this first sample lead us us to conclude that the translated version
of the KUT scale applied to three distinct targets presented good psychometric properties,
supporting H1, and differed from the TCM by a weaker predictive power on satisfaction and
turnover intention (supporting H2). In the following section, we test these properties on four
new samples, with the objective of cross-validation and cross-cultural invariance assessment.
3.3. Study 2: Cross-Cultural Validation of Four French-Speaking Samples (N = 850)

In this second study, we aimed to test the following hypotheses:
– H4: The addition of two variables (identification and engagement) confirms the concur-
rent validity of the KUT scale;
– H5: The KUT scale is invariant across four French-speaking countries (a prerequisite for
comparative use in a Francophone context).
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 58 23/10/2023 16:51

3.3.1. Samples and Measurement Scales

The analysis was conducted using four samples of French-speaking employees in Belgium,
Canada, France, and Switzerland. We deliberately targeted a general population, namely,
employees in the private sector. Two changes were made to the measurement instruments.
First, we replaced the “job” target with the “occupation” target. We took into account the fact
that the strong correlation between the dimensions “job” and “organization” may have led to
some confusion in the respondents’ minds as regards the job held and workplace. Substituting
the target job with a more precise and universally understood target (occupation) reduced
the risk. To further assess concurrent validity, we also added two variables which were used as
correlates in Klein et al.’s (2014) study:
– Organizational identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) : 6 items, Cronbach’s alpha =
0.88;
– Work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2006) : 9 items, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93.
3.3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Because the distributions of the indicators across all four samples were non-normal (multiva-
riate kurtosis = 69.2, p < .001), we once again used a WLSMV estimator. Fit indices of the
full confirmatory factor model were acceptable for the four samples (Table 5).
Table 5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Four Samples

Country Chi-square (ddl), p CFI/TLI RMSEA [CI 90%] SRMR
Belgium 780 (506), p < .001 0.99/0.99 0.028 [0.024; 0.032] 0.049
Canada 935 (506), p < .001 0.99/0.99 0.032 [0.029; 0.035] 0.048
France 765 (506), p < .001 0.98/0.97 0.028 [0.024; 0.032] 0.049
Switzerland 797 (506), p < .001 0.99/0.99 0.029 [0.025; 0.033] 0.050
3.3.3. Concurrent Validity

Examination of the correlation matrix for the five combined samples (Table 6) showed that
the addition of the two supplementary variables (organizational identification and work enga-
gement) provided additional information: the association with organizational identification
was positive for the three targets, and it logically appeared stronger for the organizational
target than for the other two targets. This is consistent with Klein et al.’s (2014) proposals
regarding the commitment continuum. Work engagement appeared positively related to the
three targets, and more strongly related to occupational commitment, in line with the results
of Lee et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of occupational com-
mitment. Full correlation matrices by country are displayed in Appendix 4.
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 59 23/10/2023 16:51

Table 6. Correlation Matrix between constructs (4 samples)
KUTO KUTC KUTP SAT OID ENG TI
KUTO (organization) (0.9)
KUTC (co-workers) 0.57 (0.9)
KUTP (occupation) 0.74 0.49 (0.91)
Job satisfaction (SAT) 0.58 0.43 0.57 (0.8)
Org. Identification (OID) 0.60 0.43 0.46 0.57 (0.87)
Work engagement (ENG) 0.63 0.46 0.65 0.74 0.60 (0.92)
Turnover intention (TI) -0.33 -0.23 -0.37 -0.80 -0.33 -0.51 (0.88)
Note: Reliability coefficients (omega) are reported on the diagonal
Results obtained from the second sample supported H4 and confirmed those from the first
sample, making it possible to carry out an invariance analysis (an additional validation step
required for multigroup comparisons).
3.3.4. Cross-Cultural Invariance Assessment

One purpose of using the KUT scale may be to compare commitment variables measured on
multi-item scales across different groups from different cultures. In the present case, it is impor-
tant that the factor structure of the measurement scale does not vary across cultures. A check of
measurement invariance is therefore necessary. The invariance analysis method we used is based
on a model comparison process (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000) applied to cross-cultural validation
(Milfont & Fischer, 2010). The objective was to build a measurement model and test it simul-
taneously on the different groups (multi-group CFA) according to a bottom-up constraint pro-
cess: at each step, a constrained model was compared with the previous less constrained model
using fit indices (chi-squared, RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR). If the constrained model was equally
or better fitted than the previous model, we would be able to accept the invariance and continue
the process. Successive levels of invariance were tested, starting from a minimal invariance called
configurational invariance to reach the invariance of the means that signaled that the two groups
were identical on the measured variable (Table 7). To decide whether to move from one stage to
the next, we looked at the differences between the fit indicators. We followed recommendations
from simulation studies (Chen, 2007; Pokropek et al., 2019) by considering changes in the CFI
and RMSEA indices first: a change of less than 0.005 in the CFI or a change of less than 0.01 in
the RMSEA between the more constrained model and its predecessor would suggest invariance.
Table 7. Levels of Invariance

Levels of invariance Definition
Configurational invariance Same structure for measurement patterns between groups
Weak or metric invariance Invariance of the indicator’s regression coefficients (loadings)
Strong or scalar invariance Invariance of loadings and intercepts
Strict invariance Invariance of loadings, intercepts, and residual variances
Invariance of means Previous invariance plus latent mean invariance
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 60 23/10/2023 16:51

[4] Discussion and Research Perspectives 61
Once a strong level of invariance was reached, we could consider making intergroup com-
parisons with some confidence in the reliability of the measurement model. Fit indicators
for the confirmatory multi-group measurement model (comprising the three target variables
KUTO, KUTC and KUTP) that served as the basis for invariance tests showed a good fit
with the data: chi-squared (204) = 332, p < .001; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.064
[0.052, 0.076]; and SRMR = 0.034. Regarding the test of the different invariance models,
an examination of the chi-square, CFI, and RMSEA indicator variations suggested that we
should stick to a strong invariance model. The CFI variation (-0.012) and the RMSEA varia-
tion (+0.06) between the strong and strict invariance models exceeded the recommended
thresholds. Full results are provided in Appendix 4.
We conclude that the structure of the instrument is identical in the four countries, sup-
porting H5. Simple comparative analyses can therefore be planned, such as inter-group
comparisons on composite variables (obtained by summing the items), or more complex
multi-group analyses comparing latent variables models (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). We
conclude the analysis by reporting results for multigroup comparisons on commitment tar-
gets on the control variables (gender, position and seniority) and between countries. With
respect to the control variables, results are consistent with previous findings from workplace
commitment studies. Gender had no impact on commitment levels, managers were as com-
mitted as their subordinates and younger workers are slightly less committed with their
occupation than senior ones. Levels of commitment between countries are also distinct,
with small effect sizes (Table 8).
Table 8. Multi-group comparisons testing
KUTO KUTC KUTP
Country F(3,846) = 19.5, p<.001 eta- F(3,846) = 8.64, p=.002 eta- F(3,846) = 21.03, p<.001, eta-
squared = 0.03 squared = 0.02 squared = 0.04
Age r = 0.058 (p = .09) r = -0.015 (p = .66) r = 0.10 (p = .003)
Gender* t(848) = -0.14, p = 0.88 t(848) = -1.19, p = 0.23 t(848) = -0.24, p = 0.81
Position* t(848) = 1.91, p = 0.06 t(848) = 0.77, p = 0.44 t(848) = 0.98, p = 0.32
* Note : reference group = male
4. DISCUSSION AND RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES
4.1. New Definition and a new Scale, but for what Purpose?
It is important at this point to return to the question of the usefulness of this new measure-
ment scale. Why compete with the TCM approach, which remains both widely accepted and
used (Somers et al., 2019)? Why participate in the proliferation of measurement instruments
that are regularly criticized, especially in the area of commitment (Morrow, 1983)? Three
types of arguments may be put forward to justify the added value of this new instrument.
First, at the conceptual level, the scale is precise and limited to the strict concept of commit-
ment defined as a voluntary psychological bond. The new definition reduces the scope of com-
mitment and facilitates its comparison with related concepts (antecedents or consequences); it
thus solves the problem of redundancy known to be a major obstacle in the study of commitment
(Morrow, 1983): According to van Rossenberg et al. (2022, p. 4), “Commitment is therefore just
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 61 23/10/2023 16:51

62 [4] Discussion and Research Perspectives
one of a number of workplace bonds ranging from acquiescence to identification”. Researchers

are therefore invited to conceptualize the links between the individual and any target of interest in
the form of a continuum of bonds (Figure 2). Using the organizational target as an example, the
definition of commitment as “a” bond and not “the” bond between the individual and his or her
organization allows us to understand the radical difference that can exist between a bond based on
resignation (which generates negative emotions) and a bond based on identification (which gene-
rates positive emotions and demonstrates a deep attachment to the organization). Until recently,
these two bonds were grouped together under the “umbrella concept” of workplace commitment.
A description as a continuum naturally invites researchers to examine the links between the diffe-
rent components of the continuum by showing, for example, how a chosen bond can be transfor-
med into a constrained bond in an organization and the consequences of this transformation on
employees’ attitudes. For example, KUTO may easily be combined with the continuance dimen-
sion of commitment according to the TCM model, or even with organizational identification, to
assess three distinct types of bonds in a nomological network.
Second, at the empirical level, when looking at the associations between different targets of
commitment and variables known to be outcomes or correlates of commitment (identification,
satisfaction, engagement, and turnover intention), the magnitude and sign of the correlations are
consistent with those found in available meta-analyses of commitment. This indicates that the new
measure is not an anomaly and that it measures a very specific construct (Klein et al., 2014). The
small magnitude of some relationships, such as the one between organizational commitment and
turnover intention, is paradoxically a strong characteristic of the instrument. This suggests that the
relationship between these variables is probably not direct and that we should look for potential
mediators to reach a more detailed understanding of the mechanisms of commitment.
Finally, at the practical level, the scale is short, precise, unidimensional, and versatile. As
a target is measured with four items, it is easy to include commitment measures in organiza-
tional behavior questionnaires. This conceptual and operational parsimony is an advantage; it
has been shown that the likelihood of respondents dropping out increases in proportion to the
length of questionnaires (Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009).
4.2. What Are the Limits of this New Scale?

We have shown that the new scale has good psychometric properties. However, it is not wit-
hout its limitations, particularly at the conceptual level. The KUT scale measures commit-
ment by using two items (Items 1 and 4) that directly ask respondents if they feel committed:
this raises the same basic problem as single-item scales that are used to measure a psycholo-
gical concept directly (e.g., “On the overall, are you satisfied overall with your job?”). Such an
approach is hardly compatible with the Likert model, according to which a construct must be
measured by a battery of indirectly related indicators. However, several studies have shown
that in certain cases, single and direct measures show good predictive properties compared
with multi-item measures (Gardner et al., 1998; Wanous et al., 1997).
A second limitation relates with the concept of commitment itself: it is legitimate to won-
der about the meaning given to this term by the people interviewed, given its complexity (as
evidenced by the debates in the literature described above). Klein et al. (2014) have addressed
this issue by proposing their own definition of commitment at the beginning of their ques-
tionnaire. In doing so, it may be possible that they induced an acquiescence bias or a demand
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 62 23/10/2023 16:51

References 63
effect, which would lead respondents to adhere to the proposed definition (Choi & Pak, 2004).
We attempted to estimate the existence of this potential bias by randomly deleting the defini-
tion for half of the French sample in Study 2. Means in commitment scores reported for the
group exposed to the definition (N = 108) were slightly higher than those for the unexposed
group (N = 109), that is, a difference of 0.02 for KUTO, 0.16 for KUTC, and 0.14 for KUTP.
Student’s t-tests showed that these differences for the three commitment targets were not sta-
tistically significant: respectively: t(215) = 0.23, p = 0.81 for KUTO; t(215) = 1.62, p = 0.11
for KUTC; and t(215) = 1.67, p = 0.09 for KUTP).
4.3. Research Perspectives

This new measure of commitment would appear to be useful, as research in this area remains
more necessary than ever, as a recent programmatic article has outlined (van Rossenberg et
al., 2018). Two important topics emerge: how to account for the complexity and dynamics of
the links between commitment targets and how to develop the notion of workplace commit-
ment in the context of an increasingly fragmented labor market and the breakdown of stable
employment relationships (the natural framework for the study of commitment until now)?
The recently proposed systems theory of commitment has attempted to provide an inte-
grative framework for the study of the dynamics of commitment links via a person-centered
approach that models commitment in the form of malleable and interconnected structures
(Klein et al., 2020). This approach, which has not yet been operationalized, seems promising
(as long as the challenge of measurement complexity is addressed). Finally, in light of recent
developments, previous research conducted on the commitment of voluntary and qualified
home-based employees (Martin & MacDonnell, 2012) might be complemented by studies of
populations of new teleworkers with more diverse profiles (Wang et al., 2020).
References
Abdelmoteleb, S. A. (2019). A New Look at the Relationship Between Job Stress and Organi-
zational Commitment: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study. Journal of Business and Psycholo-
gy, 34(3), 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9543-z
Askew, K., Taing, M. U., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). The Effects of Commitment to Multi-
ple Foci : An Analysis of Relative Influence and Interactions. Human Performance, 26(3),
171‑190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795571
Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus
means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation
Modeling, 13(2), 186-203.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Aca-
demy of management Journal, 35(1), 232-244. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/256481
Béland, S., Cousineau, D., & Loye, N. (2017). Using McDonald’s omega instead of Cron-
bach’s alpha. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 52(3),
791-804.
Blau, G., & Ryan, J. (1997). On measuring work ethic: A neglected work commitment facet.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(3), 435-448.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.1568
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 63 23/10/2023 16:51

64 References
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L.
(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and beha-
vioral research: A primer. Frontiers in public health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpu-
bh.2018.00149
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job commit-
ment. Psychological bulletin, 120(2), 235-255.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.235
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, M. G., & Klech, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and
perceptions of organizational members. In S.E Seashore, E.E. Lawler & P.H. Mirvis (Eds),
Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71-138). Wiley.
Carmeli, A., Elizur, D., & Yaniv, E. (2007). The theory of work commitment: A facet analysis.
Personnel Review, 36(4), 638-649. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710752849
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.
Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 14(3), 464-504.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organi-
zational commitment in a Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 465-489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00063-5
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2004). A Catalog of Biases in Questionnaires. Preventing Chro-
nic Disease, 2(1), A13.
Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Psychology
Press.
Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human resource management review, 17(3), 336-354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.05.001
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an
integrative framework. Psychological bulletin, 131(2), 241-259.
Dwivedi, S. (2015). Turnover intentions: Scale construction & validation. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 50(3), 452‑469. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24549107
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The Advantages of an Inclusive Definition of Attitude.
Social Cognition, 25(5), 582‑602. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.582
Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. (2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach.
Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1339-1358.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27752450
Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and
Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349-360.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031
Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., Dunham, R. B., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Single-item versus
multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educational and psychological
measurement, 58(6), 898-915.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0013164498058006003
Guzeller, C. O., & Celiker, N. (2019). Examining the relationship between organizational
commitment and turnover intention via a meta-analysis. International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research. 14(1), 102-120.
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 64 23/10/2023 16:51

References 65
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplina-
ry journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
organizational commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research. Journal
of Business Research, 58(6), 705-714.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.004
Jaros, S. (2007). Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment: Measurement Is-
sues. The Icfai Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6(4), 7-25.
Jaros, S. (2009). Measurement of commitment. In H.J. Klein, T.E. Becker & J.P. Meyer,
(Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 347‑381).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Klein, H. J., Brinsfield, C. T., & Cooper, J. T. (2020). The experience of commitment in the
contemporary workplace: An exploratory reexamination of commitment model antece-
dents. Human Resource Management, 60(6), 885-902 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22040
Klein, H. J., Brinsfield, C. T., Cooper, J. T., & Molloy, J. C. (2017). Quondam Commitments:
An Examination of Commitments Employees No Longer Have. Academy of Management
Discoveries, 3(4), 331-357. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0073
Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The Assessment of Commit-
ment: Advantages of a Unidimensional, Target-Free Approach. Journal of Applied Psycholo-
gy, 99(2), 222-238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034751
Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2012). Reconceptualizing Workplace Commit-
ment to Redress a Stretched Construct: Revisiting Assumptions and Removing Confounds.
Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 130-151. https://doi.org/10.5465/arma.2010.0018
Klein, H. J., Solinger, O. N., & Duflot, V. (2020). Commitment system theory: The evolving
structure of commitments to multiple targets. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 116-
138. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0031
Ko, J.-W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s three-com-
ponent model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of applied psychology,
82(6), 961-973. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.961
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redun-
dancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 112-125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational com-
mitment: Relations with person- and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(5), 799-811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.799
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the refor-
mulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior, 13(2),
103‑123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
Martin, B. H., & MacDonnell, R. (2012). Is telework effective for organizations? Management
Research Review, 35(7), 602-616. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211238820
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, corre-
lates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological bulletin, 108(2), 171-
194. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 65 23/10/2023 16:51

66 References
McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commit-
ment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of ap-
plied Psychology, 72(4), 638-641. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.638
Meldrum, J. T., & McCarville, R. (2010). Understanding commitment within the leisure ser-
vice contingent workforce. Managing Leisure, 15(1/2), 48-66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710903448004
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the
organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 710–720 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.710
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human resource management review, 1(1), 61-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general mo-
del. Human resource management review, 11(3), 299-326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00053-X
Meyer, J. P., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theo-
retical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 283-
294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.09.001
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupa-
tions: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of applied psy-
chology, 78(4), 538-551.
Meyer, J. P., Morin, A. J. S., & Vandenberghe, C. (2015). Dual commitment to organiza-
tion and supervisor: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 56-72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.001
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, corre-
lates, and consequences. Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), 20-52.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2013). A person-centered approach to the
study of commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 23(2), 190-202. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.07.007
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applica-
tions in cross-cultural research. International Journal of psychological research, 3(1), 111-130.
https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857
Morin, A. J. S., Gallagher, D. G., Meyer, J. P., Litalien, D., & Clark, P. F. (2021). Investigating
the Dimensionality and Stability of Union Commitment Profiles over a 10-Year Period: A
Latent Transition Analysis. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 74(1), 224‑254. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0019793919883815
Morin, A. J. S., Meyer, J. P., Creusier, J., & Biétry, F. (2016). Multiple-Group Analysis of Simi-
larity in Latent Profile Solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 231-254. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621148
Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work
commitment. Academy of management Review, 8(3), 486-500. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/257837
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 66 23/10/2023 16:51

References 67
Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1986). On assessing measures of work commitment. Journal
of Occupational Behavior, 7(2), 139-145.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3000179
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-
ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.
Journal of applied psychology, 71(3), 492-499.
Pittinsky, T. L., & Shih, M. J. (2004). Knowledge nomads: Organizational commitment and
worker mobility in positive perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 791-807.
Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2019). A Monte Carlo simulation study to assess
the appropriateness of traditional and newer approaches to test for measurement inva-
riance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 724-744.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1561293
Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work commitment constructs. Work
and Occupations, 18(2), 194-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888491018002004
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Aca-
demy of management review, 10(3), 465-476.
Revelle, W. R. (Photographer). (2021). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Ver-
sion 1-8-4) [R package]. Software. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.8.4.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statis-
tical Software, 48(5), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Roulin, N. (2015). Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Comparing Data Quality
of Crowdsourcing, Online Panels, and Student Samples. Industrial & Organizational Psy-
chology, 8(2), 190-196. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.24
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measure-
ment, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model
of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70-83. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70
Somers, M. (2010). Patterns of attachment to organizations: Commitment profiles and work
outcomes. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 443-453. https://doi.
org/10.1348/096317909X424060
Somers, M., Birnbaum, D., & Casal, J. (2019). An empirical test of conceptual arguments
to retire the three-component model of work commitment: Implications for commitment
research. Personnel Review, 49(3), 887-902. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2019-0246
Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the Three-Compo-
nent Model of Commitment to Five Foci: Development of measures and substantive test.
European journal of psychological assessment, 18(2), 123-138.
Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best Alternatives to Cronbach’s Alpha Re-
liability in Realistic Conditions: Congeneric and Asymmetrical Measurements. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 67 23/10/2023 16:51

68 References
Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Towards a methodology for cross-cultural validation of psychologi-

cal questionnaires: Implications for French language research. Canadian Psychology, 30(4),
662-680. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0079856
van Rossenberg, Y. G. T., Cross, D., & Swart, J. (2022). An HRM perspective on workplace
commitment: Reconnecting in concept, measurement and methodology. Human Resource
Management Review, 32(4), 100891.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100891
van Rossenberg, Y. G. T., Klein, H. J., Asplund, K., Bentein, K., Breitsohl, H., Cohen, A.,
Cross, D., de Aguiar Rodrigues, A. C., Duflot, V., & Kilroy, S. (2018). The future of work-
place commitment: Key questions and directions. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 27(2), 153-167.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1443914
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement In-
variance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Re-
search. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Vandenberghe, C., & Panaccio, A. (2015). Delving into the motivational bases of continuance
commitment: Locus of control and empowerment as predictors of perceived sacrifice
and few alternatives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(1), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.844126
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the or-
ganization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 64(1), 47‑71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00029-0
Vandenberghe, C., Panaccio, A., Bentein, K., Mignonac, K., & Roussel, P. (2011). Assessing
longitudinal change of and dynamic relationships among role stressors, job attitudes, tur-
nover intention, and well-being in neophyte newcomers. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
32(4), 652-671. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.732
Wang, W., Albert, L., & Sun, Q. (2020). Employee isolation and telecommuter organizatio-
nal commitment. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(3), 609-625. https://doi.
org/10.1108/ER-06-2019-0246
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal of applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252.
Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms
and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 290-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2004.07.002
Wright, T. A., Quick, J. C., Hannah, S. T., & Blake Hargrove, M. (2017). Best practice recom-
mendations for scale construction in organizational research: The development and initial
validation of the Character Strength Inventory (CSI). Journal of organizational Behavior,
38(5), 615-628. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2180
Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with or-
dered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior
Research Methods, 51(1), 409-428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 68 23/10/2023 16:51

References 69
Alain LACROUX is Professor in Human Resources Management at Université Paris 1

Panthéon-Sorbonne. His main areas of research are organizational behavior and personnel
selection. He is currently working on the measurement of attitudes in the workplace and the
impact of recruitment tools on discrimination in hiring.
alain.Lacroux@univ-paris1.fr
Titre : L’implication au travail revisitée : Adaptation et validation interculturelle d’une nou-

velle échelle de mesure en contexte francophone.
Résumé : L’implication (ou engagement) au travail est un concept clé pour les chercheurs
en comportement organisationnel et pour les praticiens car il aide à prévoir des comporte-
ments très recherchés dans les organisations contemporaines, tels que l’intention de départ,
l’assiduité ou les comportements de citoyenneté organisationnelle. La recherche est toujours
active dans ce domaine : la prédominance de l’approche tridimensionnelle de l’engagement
initialement proposée par Meyer et Allen (1991) a été régulièrement remise en question,
et d’autres propositions ont vu le jour. L’une d’entre elles s’attache à redéfinir le concept
clé d’implication dans un format concis et précis (Klein et al., 2012, 2014). Cette nouvelle
approche s’accompagne d’un instrument de mesure compact et polyvalent (KUT : Klein et
al., Unidimensional Target free measure of commitment). L’objectif de cet article est de démon-
trer l’intérêt de cette nouvelle définition de l’implication, et de contribuer à la validation de
l’échelle KUT en contexte français. Nous avons réalisé cette opération en plusieurs étapes, en
mobilisant cinq échantillons comprenant un total de 2096 salariés issus de quatre pays fran-
cophones (France, Suisse, Belgique et Canada). Nous montrons que la version française de
l’échelle KUT présente des propriétés psychométriques adéquates et une invariance culturelle
entre les quatre sous-échantillons.
Mots-clés : implication au travail, comportement organisationnel, psychométrie, validation

interculturelle
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 69 23/10/2023 16:51

70 Appendix
Appendix 1: Samples’ description (Ntotal = 2096)
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5

(N= 1246) (N= 201) (N= 213) (N= 219) (N= 217)
FR.1 BEL SWI CAN FR.2
Country France Belgium Switzerland Quebec France
Gender
Female 68,5% 71.1% 52.1% 52.5% 54.4%
Male 31,5% 28.9% 47.9% 47.5% 45.6%
Private sector
Private sector employees in employment
Target employees in
employment*
Age
Mean 36.4 39.4 39 42.7 41.4
Standard deviation 9.3 10.8 11.2 11.2 10.3
Scope 21-60 years 19-63 years 18-63 years 21-60 years 20-62 years
Hierarchical position
Manager 46.9% 22.9% 25.8% 21.1% 15.7%

Non manager 53.1% 77.1% 74.2% 78.9% 84.3%
Number of employees
in the organization
Less than 10 13.1% 23.9% 23.9% 13.7% 10.6%

11 à 49 25.8% 27.4% 16.9% 17.1% 20.7%
50 à 200 21.4% 17.9% 17.5% 21.9% 23.5%
More than 200 39.7% 30.8% 41.7% 47.3% 45.2%
Seniority in the
organization
Less than one year 16.5% 11.4% 13.1% 10.5% 7.4%

One to two years 36.5% 9.5% 19.7% 7.3% 14.3%
Three to five years 27.9% 17.9% 26.8% 15.9% 17.9%
More than 5 years 19.1% 61.2% 40.4% 66.3% 61.2%
Organizational commitment (KUTO): samples 1,2,3,4,5

Co-workers Commitment (KUTC): samples 1,2,3,4,5
Job commitment (KUTW): sample 1
Occupational Commitment (KUTP): samples 2,3,4,5
Job satisfaction (SAT): samples 1,2,3,4,5
Attitudinal variables
Turnover Intention (TO): samples 1,2,3,4,5
measured on the
Organizational identification (OID): samples 2,3,4,5
different samples
Work Engagement (ENG): samples 2,3,4,5
Affective Organizational Commitment (TCMA): Sample 1
Continuance Organizational Implication (TCMC): Sample 1
Socio-demographic variables common to all samples: age, gender, hierarchical level,
organization size, seniority
*Employees involved in the recruitment process in their company (review and pre-selection of applications, and/
or interviews).
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 70 23/10/2023 16:51

Appendix 71
Appendix 2: Measurement scaled used

English version
(Klein et al., 2014)
Responses on a 5-point scale
(1. Not at all; 2. Slightly; 3. Moderately; 4. Quite a bit; 5. Extremely)
Target organization (KUTO)
1 – How committed are you to your organization?
2 – How much do you care about your organization?
3 – How dedicated are you to your organization?
4 – To what extent have you chosen to be involved with your organization?
Target Colleagues (KUTC):
replace the term organization with “your colleagues”
Target Occupation/Profession (KUTP):
replace the term “organization” with “your occupation/profession”
Target Job/Current position (KUTW):
replace the term organization with “your job”
French version
Echelles de mesure de l’implication (Klein et al., 2014)
Réponses sur une échelle à 5 degrés (Pas du tout, Peu, Modérément, Plutôt, Extrêmement)
Cible organisation (KUTO)
1 – Jusqu’à quel point êtes-vous impliqué(e) envers votre organisation ?
2 – Dans quelle mesure vous préoccupez-vous de votre organisation ?
3 – Jusqu’à quel point êtes-vous dévoué(e) envers votre organisation ?
4 – Dans quelle mesure avez-vous choisi d’être impliqué(e) envers votre organisation ?
Cible Collègues (KUTC): remplacer le terme organisation par “vos collègues”
Cible Profession (KUTP): remplacer le terme organisation par “votre métier/profession”
Cible Travail/Emploi (KUTW): remplacer le terme organisation par “votre travail”
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 71 23/10/2023 16:51

72 Appendix
Appendix 3: Factor Analysis

Exploratory analysis: Methods for selecting the number of factors
The three methods methods are available in the Psych package
1. Parallel analysis (Holm): 3 factors suggested by visual inspection (decision rule : factors are
retained if they are above the intersection with the dotted line)
Figure 1. Scree plot
2. Elbow test (Catell): Visually, 3 factors suggested
3. Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial (MAP) test achieves a minimum with 3 factors
Factors MAP
1 0.121
2 0.048
3 0.044
4 0.061
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 72 23/10/2023 16:51

Appendix 73
Table 1. Three-factors solution

(3 factors extracted, total variance explained = 69.8%)
KUTC KUTO KUTW
KUTO1 -0,011 0,734 0,141
KUTO2 -0,052 0,864 0,045
KUTO3 0,070 0,905 -0,020
KUTO4 -0,007 0,774 0,017
KUTC1 0,898 -0,009 0,020
KUTC2 0,867 0,041 -0,097
KUTC3 0,860 0,108 -0,037
KUTC4 0,870 -0,143 0,146
KUTW1 0,009 0,042 0,879
KUTW2 0,006 0,028 0,836
KUTW3 0,040 0,211 0,644
KUTW4 -0,023 0,158 0,745
Reliability of scales
0.92 0.93 0.92
(McDonald’s Omega)
Extraction by the maximum likelihood method with Promax rotation
Correlations between factors:

KUTO – KUTC = 0.38 ; KUTO – KUTW = 0.76 ; KUTC – KUTW = 0.50
Table 2. Four-factors solution
(3 factors extracted, total variance explained = 68%)
F1 F2 F3 F4
KUTO1 0,87 0,01 0,03 -0,05
KUTO2 0,51 0,31 -0,04 0,05
KUTO3 0,01 1,00 0,01 -0,01
KUTO4 0,53 0,22 0,01 0,00
KUTC1 0,15 0,00 0,81 0,00
KUTC2 -0,01 0,13 0,75 -0,03
KUTC3 0,00 0,18 0,76 0,03
KUTC4 0,01 -0,01 0,77 0,13
KUTW1 0,01 0,11 -0,01 0,79
KUTW2 -0,05 0,17 0,00 0,71
KUTW3 0,05 0,24 0,03 0,55
KUTW4 0,35 -0,02 0,00 0,51
Extraction by the maximum likelihood method with Promax rotation
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 73 23/10/2023 16:51

74 Appendix
Appendix 4: Correlation matrix on four samples

Diagonal: Reliability (Omega coefficient)
Table 1. Correlation matrix on Belgian sample

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. KUTO 0.9
2. KUTC 0.437 0.92
3. KUTP 0.574 0.385 0.92
4. turnover intention -0.323 -0.303 -0.461 0.88
5. Satisfaction 0.460 0.344 0.535 -0.729 0.86
6. Identification 0.559 0.411 0.416 -0.299 0.427 0.88
7. Commitment 0.489 0.345 0.618 -0.525 0.625 0.478 0.9
Table 2. Correlation matrix on Canadian sample

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. KUTO 0.90
2. KUTC 0.712 0.86
3. KUTP 0.689 0.580 0.92
5. Satisfaction 0.560 0.406 0.510 -0.651 0.77
6. Identification 0.588 0.424 0.487 -0.238 0.508 0.89
7. Commitment 0.669 0.548 0.638 -0.365 0.624 0.694 0.93
Table 3. Correlation matrix on French sample
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. KUTO 0.91
2. KUTC 0.342 0.92
3. KUTP 0.649 0.363 0.88
5. Satisfaction 0.452 0.378 0.442 -0.737 0.84
6. Identification 0.450 0.328 0.358 -0.338 0.509 0.86
7. Commitment 0.502 0.428 0.545 -0.531 0.713 0.466 0.93
Table 4. Correlation matrix on Swiss sample

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. KUTO 0.86
2. KUTC 0.520 0.88
3. KUTP 0.707 0.393 0.91
5. Satisfaction 0.471 0.326 0.469 -0.625 0.74
6. Identification 0.578 0.370 0.404 -0.276 0.426 0.87
7. Commitment 0.640 0.348 0.626 -0.419 0.622 0.547 0.92
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 74 23/10/2023 16:51

Appendix 75
Appendix 5: Results of invariance tests (confirmatory model: 3 KUT scales)

Order of testing of the models
Model 1: fit.configural = configural invariance (factorial structure)
Model 2: fit.loadings = weak or metric invariance (loadings)
Model 3: fit.intercepts = strong or scalar invariance (loadings + intercepts)
Model 4: fit.residual = strict invariance (loadings + intercepts + residual variances)
Model 5: fit.means = full or complete invariance (loadings + intercepts + variances + means)
Table 1. Chi-square difference tests

Ddl AIC BIC Khi² Diff khi² Diff. ddl p-value
Configurational invariance 204 18964 19704 462.15
Weak invariance 231 18933 19546 485.96 21.68 27 0.75
Strong invariance 258 18904 19388 510.61 24.61 27 0.59
Strict invariance 294 19000 19313 678.68 78.11 36 < .001
Table 2. Differences in fit indices

CFI RMSEA Delta CFI Delta RMSEA
Configurational invariance 0.973 0.054
Weak invariance 0.973 0.051 0 0.003
Strong invariance 0.972 0.049 0 0.002
Strict invariance 0.961 0.054 0.012 0.006
Complete invariance 0.954 0.057 0.006 0.003
Bold italics: rejected invariance
LIVRERIPCO78.indb 75 23/10/2023 16:51

E Rips1 078 0049

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E Rips1 078 0049

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workplace Commitment Revisited: Adaptation and Cross-

Cultural Validation of a New Measurement Scale in a

Article available online at

Electronic distribution Cairn.info for ESKA.

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 49 23/10/2023 16:51

Commitment is a key concept in organizational behavior and for practitioners because of

2. COMMITMENT AT WORK: A CONCEPT WORTHY

2.1. A Key Concept in Organizational Behavior

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 50 23/10/2023 16:51

Figure 1. The Multidimensional Matrix of Commitment

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 51 23/10/2023 16:51

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 52 23/10/2023 16:51

2.2. A “Stretched Concept?”

2.3. A New Conceptualization and a New Measure

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 53 23/10/2023 16:51

Figure 2. Continuum of Bonds

The new definition considered commitment as “a volitional psychological bond reflec-

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 54 23/10/2023 16:51

3. VALIDATION OF THE FRENCH VERSION OF THE KLEIN ET AL.

3.1. General Procedure

3.1.1. Samples and Measurement Instruments

3.1.2. Validation Strategy

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 55 23/10/2023 16:51

3.2.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

3.2.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 56 23/10/2023 16:51

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Three Targets

Regression coefficients (loadings)

Target Organization (KUTO) Co-workers Job

Item 1 (commitment) 0.819 0.845 0.833

Reliability (McDonald’s omega) 0.88 0.89 0.87

Average variance extracted (AVE) 0.64 0.66 0.62

Models CFI/TLI Chi-squared Chi-squared diff test

Two-factors model 0.91 / 0.89 262(53), p<.001

3.2.3. Concurrent Analysis

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 57 23/10/2023 16:51

Table 3. Correlations Between Constructs (Concurrent validity)

Variables KUTO KUTC KUTJ TCMA TCMC Satisfaction

KUTC (co-workers) 0.43** 1

KUTJ (job) 0.71**

TCMA (affective) 0.51** 0.34** 0.43** 1

TCMC (continuance) -0.007 -0.04 -0.05 -0.10** 1

Turnover intention -0.27** -0.17** -0.24** -0.60** 0.22** -0.68**

Variables TCM Correlation with the Correlations with z-test

Satisfaction TCM aff 0.65** 0.46** 8.76**

Note: ** p < .001

3.3. Study 2: Cross-Cultural Validation of Four French-Speaking Samples (N = 850)

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 58 23/10/2023 16:51

3.3.1. Samples and Measurement Scales

3.3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Four Samples

3.3.3. Concurrent Validity

LIVRERIPCO78.indb 59 23/10/2023 16:51

Table 6. Correlation Matrix between constructs (4 samples)

KUTO KUTC KUTP SAT OID ENG TI

KUTO (organization) (0.9)

KUTC (co-workers) 0.57 (0.9)

KUTP (occupation) 0.74 0.49 (0.91)

Job satisfaction (SAT) 0.58 0.43 0.57 (0.8)

Org. Identification (OID) 0.60 0.43 0.46 0.57 (0.87)

Work engagement (ENG) 0.63 0.46 0.65 0.74 0.60 (0.92)

Note: Reliability coefficients (omega) are reported on the diagonal

TCMA (affective) 0.51 0.34 0.43** 1

Turnover intention -0.27 -0.17 -0.24 -0.60 0.22 -0.68

Satisfaction TCM aff 0.65 0.46 8.76**