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

net/publication/365127638

The Five-Factor Career Adapt-Abilities Scale's Predictive and

Incremental Validity With Work-Related and Life Outcomes

Article in Journal of Career Development · November 2022

DOI: 10.1177/08948453221138301

CITATION READS

1 472

4 authors:

Frederick T.L. Leong Danielle Gardner

Michigan State University Colorado State University
306 PUBLICATIONS 11,296 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Christopher Nye Joshua Prasad

Michigan State University Colorado State University
63 PUBLICATIONS 2,179 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 384 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Danielle Gardner on 04 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Empirical

Journal of Career Development

2022, Vol. 0(0) 1–23
The Five-Factor Career © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Adapt-Abilities Scale’s sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08948453221138301
journals.sagepub.com/home/jcd
Predictive and Incremental
Validity With Work-Related and
Life Outcomes

Frederick T. L. Leong1 , Danielle M. Gardner2, Christopher D. Nye1,

and Joshua J. Prasad2

Abstract
Career adaptability, often measured using the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS), has been
conceptualized as consisting of four factors (Concern, Control, Curiosity, and Confidence).
However, recent research has produced evidence in support of the inclusion of a fifth factor,
Cooperation. The following pair of studies intends to extend the aforementioned work, to
examine how the CAAS-5 predicts a number of work and life-relevant outcomes. Results show
that the CAAS-5 is uniquely predictive of a number of outcomes over and above theoretically
related constructs in both a sample of students with work experience and working adults.
Additionally, using a bifactor model, results suggest that many outcomes are best predicted by a
unique subset of the CAAS-5 dimensions. The combination of such results provides evidence for
the validity and utility of the CAAS-5 for career interventions, and we therefore suggest that
future research on career adaptability explore the five-factor structure further.

Keywords
career adaptability, cooperation, validity, work and life outcomes

A recent theoretical development in the field of career psychology is the career adaptability
paradigm (Leong & Ott-Holland, 2014; Leong & Walsh, 2012). Research on career adaptability
has greatly benefitted from the creation of a unified measure of the construct. Previously, the lack
of standardization resulted in a variety of conceptualizations and measures that hindered the field’s
ability to easily generalize results across studies. Consequently, a team of international psy-
chologists led by Savickas and Leong (Leong & Walsh, 2012) convened in Berlin to develop a

1
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing , MI, USA
2
Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Co, USA

Corresponding Author:
Frederick T. L. Leong, 4335 Goldenwood Dr, Okemos, MI 48864, USA.
Email: fleong@msu.edu
2 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

cross-cultural measure of career adaptability, ultimately creating the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale
(CAAS), now widely used today.
The original CAAS is comprised of four sub-dimensions: Concern, Control, Curiosity and
Confidence. Concern refers to one’s ability to be aware of and plan for an occupational future.
Control represents one’s motivation and discipline to mold oneself and one’s environment to
achieve career goals. Curiosity reflects the tendency to explore one’s environment and seek
relevant information to make informed vocational decisions. Confidence refers to one’s belief in
his or her ability to actualize career aspirations. What has not been widely known is that the
measure as originally conceptualized in Berlin (Leong & Walsh, 2012) included a fifth dimension,
known as Cooperation (Nye et al., 2018)
The Cooperation dimension encompasses the interpersonal aspects of career adaptability,
such as one’s ability to work successfully alongside and compromise with others. We outline
four arguments in support of the inclusion of this fifth factor. First, theories of general
adaptability include factors related to Cooperation that are not currently represented in the
four-factor model. For example, Pulakos et al. (2000) identified “interpersonal adaptability”
as one of the key dimensions in their taxonomy of adaptive job performance. Additionally,
Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006) Individual Adaptability (I-ADAPT) theory and measure supports
the conceptual addition of an interpersonally oriented dimension, as interpersonal adaptability
was included as a lower-order dimension subsumed within a higher-order overall adaptability
factor. Therefore, the addition of the Cooperation factor within the career adaptability
construct would mirror the conceptual inclusion of interpersonal adaptability within general
adaptability.
Second, we combine the notion of interpersonal adaptability (Ployhart & Bliese, 2006; Pulakos
et al., 2000) with Savickas and Porfeli’s (2012) notion of career adaptability as resources for career
self-regulation. Generally speaking, Savickas and Porfeli (2012) state that, “Career adaptability
resources are the self-regulation strengths or capacities that a person may draw upon to solve the
unfamiliar, complex, and ill-defined problems presented by developmental vocational tasks,
occupational transitions, and work traumas. These resources are not at the core of the individual,
they reside as the intersection of person-in-environment. Thus adapt-abilities are psycho-social
constructs” (p. 662, emphasis added). Little about the four C’s is social, instead describing
scenarios devoid of people such as environments to be shaped (control) or envisioning the self in
various situations (curiosity). However, if we consider these environments and situations as
inhabited by human beings that demand unique competencies and knowledge developed through
experience (i.e., the building blocks of an adaptability resource; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) to
successfully interact with, the cooperation dimension addresses a fundamental omission from the
four C’s conceptualization of career adaptability.
Third, we contend that the addition of the Cooperation factor may increase the measure’s
cross-cultural generalizability, even within a country such as the United States due to the
cultural diversity of its population. As the original cross-cultural validation of the four-factor
measure featured a number of highly Westernized countries, it is possible that constructs
relevant to East Asian culture consequently garnered less consideration. This may also be true
to Asian Americans in the United States. Considering Hofstede’s (1980) differentiation
between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, we suggest that the addition of the in-
terpersonally oriented Cooperation factor would tip the measure away from its current in-
dividualistic focus to a more representative balance. This endeavor would not be the first
example of researchers correcting the CAAS measure for Western bias in keeping with
Henreich and colleagues’ (2010) critique of overly broad generalizations based on WEIRD
(i.e., Western, educated, industrialized, rice and democratic) samples.
Leong et al. 3

One example of this Western bias in career research is Hardin et al.’s (2001) study
suggesting the conceptualization of career maturity, as measured by the Career Maturity
Inventory, was biased in Western thinking and therefore led to lower scores for individuals
with Asian backgrounds. Specifically, interdependence in decision making, more common
among Asians, was rated as career immature. Further, the findings of Chueng and colleagues
(1996) suggest that Western models of personality focus on individualistic dimensions at the
expense of collectivistic dimensions, such as Interpersonal Relatedness in the Chinese
Personality Assessment Inventory. More recently, Fan et al., (2021) has proposed an inte-
grated approach to personality combining individualistic (autonomous) and collectivistic
(relational) aspects of the self. We propose that this present measure of career adaptability
(CAAS) with the four C’s may be a similar example of individualistic bias for instruments
developed in Western countries. Finally, as global competition, consolidation, and innovation
continue to pressure organizations to increasingly structure work around team-based units
(Kozlowski & Bell, 2013), we assert that an individual’s ability to successfully interact with
others becomes all the more relevant. The increasing focus on complex workflow systems
comprised of coordinated individuals suggests that the structure of work now requires in-
terpersonal contact in ways not previously seen (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Therefore, we
propose that the inclusion of the Cooperation factor provides a more complete representation
of the changing nature of the workplace, as a worker’s ability to successfully coordinate with
others becomes crucial to employers.
To test the structural validity of a career adaptability measure including this fifth Co-
operation dimension, Nye and colleagues (2018) examined the psychometric properties of the
five-factor Career Adapt-Abilities Scales (CAAS-5, to be distinguished from the original four-
dimensional scale, which we subsequently refer to as CAAS-4; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Via
a measurement equivalence approach, these researchers found evidence supporting Coop-
eration’s inclusion within the career adaptability construct, as the estimated higher-order
model including Cooperation operated similarly across American, Chinese, and Taiwanese
samples. However, given Nye et al.’s (2018) focus on the internal structure of the CAAS-5,
additional research examining the external validity of the five-factor measure is needed.
Prasad et al. (2021) has begun to address this with a limited number of outcomes (job attitudes
and health) among Chinese working adults. The present current study advances this in-
vestigation of external validity, examining how the CAAS-5 relates to theoretically associated
constructs across multiple samples. Many studies have already examined the predictive and
construct validity of the CAAS but mainly used the four-factor model (Kinicki et al., 2002).
Across two studies, we explore the relationship between the CAAS-5 and outcomes such as
Subjective well-being (SWB) and work engagement (Study 1), as well as behavioral work
outcomes such as number of jobs held and promotions (Study 2). Beyond simply noting these
relationships, we additionally test the CAAS-5’s incremental predictive power over and above
general adaptability, as well as demonstrate the unique predictive power associated with the
Cooperation dimension as evidence of predictive validity improvement over the CAAS-4.
While many studies have examined the outcomes of career adaptability (Ito & Brotheridge,
2005; Koen et al., 2010; Negru-Subtirica & Pop, 2016), few have tested the differential
predictive power of the general and domain-specific adaptability constructs with the five-
factor CAAS-5. It is important to demonstrate that career adaptability is a domain specific and
differentiated aspect of adaptability. Therefore, the present study aims to add credence to the
five-factor career adaptability construct as particularly relevant when considering important
work and life outcomes.
4 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

Study 1 Method
Participants
The data for Study 1 were collected from a large Midwestern university, specifically sampling
from a pool of undergraduates with a minimum of 6 months prior work experience. Of these
participants, 108 were removed from the dataset due to failure of an attention check (i.e., a single
item instructing participants to select a specific response option). The 407 participants who passed
this check were retained and comprised our final sample. Included participants were on average
20.33 years old (SD = 2.71), with 76.9% women 22.4% men, and 0.7% not indicating gender.
Regarding race, the majority of our sample was White (78.4%), 7.6% of the sample was Black,
6.6% were Asian, 2.9% were Multiracial, and 2.2% were Latinx. The remainder of the sample
identified as Middle Eastern (0.5%), Pacific Islander (0.2%), American Indian or Alaska Native
(0.2%), or did not report their race (1.2%). The sample was relatively evenly distributed across
class years, with 18.9% freshmen, 21.1% sophomores, 33.4% juniors, 23.8% seniors, and 1.7%
who either did not report their year or described their year as “Other.” In exchange for their
responses, participants received psychology course credit.

Measures
Career adaptability. Career adaptability was measured using the CAAS (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
While this version of the scale is comprised of four subscales (Control, Curiosity, Concern and
Confidence), participants completed an additional fifth subscale (Cooperation) as well.
Control represents the extent to which individuals seek out career opportunities and shape their
career context through continual efforts. Curiosity captures how individuals envision and explore
new career experiences. Concern represents intentional efforts to plan and strategize career
experiences. Confidence involves the extent to which individuals believe they are capable of
meeting the demands of career challenges. The fifth factor, Cooperation is an interpersonal
dimension that involves working well with others. Example items include “acting friendly” and
“playing my part on a team.” Participants completed six items per subscale, except for Coop-
eration, which consisted of 11 items. However, to be consistent with previous analyses, we used
the six items identified by Nye et al., (2018) to comprise the Cooperation subscale.
For all items, participants rated rate the extent to which they had developed each ability on a
five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Not strong” to 5 = “Strongest”). Items were averaged to form
scale scores as well as an overall aggregate career adaptability score. Whether operationalized as a
four-dimensional scale omitting Cooperation (i.e., CAAS-4, Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) or in-
cluding Cooperation (i.e., CAAS-5; Nye et al., 2018), the CAAS measure exhibited high reli-
ability in the present study (CAAS-4 α = .94; CAAS-5 α = .94). Savickas and Porfeli (2012)
provide confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) evidence that a four-dimensional model best rep-
resents the CAAS measure, but do not provide evidence evaluating the Cooperation dimension. To
address this omission, Nye et al. (2018) provide CFA evidence of the inclusion of the fifth
dimension. A body of work has established the nomological network of the CAAS-4 (see
Johnston, 2018 for a review). Given the novelty of Cooperation, less evidence documents its
relationships with other constructs. However, Prasad et al. (2021) show that the Cooperation
dimension uniquely predicts work engagement, career commitment, and well-being alongside the
other CAAS dimensions among Chinese workers.

General adaptability. We measured general adaptability using Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006)
I-ADAPT scale. This scale is comprised of 55 items representing eight sub-dimensions: Crisis,
Leong et al. 5

Work stress, Creativity, Uncertainty, Learning, Interpersonal, Cultural and Physical. Participants
completed a range of five to nine items per subscale, and were asked the extent to which they agreed
with each item on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”).
Example items included “I think clearly in times of urgency” (Crisis subscale), “I utilize my
muscular strength well” (Physical subscale), and “I try to be flexible when dealing with others”
(Interpersonal subscale). This scale exhibited high reliability (α = .93), and has been shown to
predict workplace outcomes such as person-organization fit, job satisfaction, and turnover in-
tentions (Wang et al., 2011).

Subjective well-being. Subjective well-being was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Dieneret al., 1985). This scale is comprised of five items asking participants to indicate the extent
of agreement on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly
Agree”). Example items include “In most ways my life is close to ideal,” and “I am satisfied with
my life.” Reliability for this scale was high (α = .90) and has been shown to be a relatively stable
evaluation over 5 years, sensitive to major life events, and distinct from emotional well-being
(Pavot & Diener, 2009).

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith et al.,
1969). This scale is comprised of 72 items, representing five facets of job-related satisfaction:
work, supervision, pay, promotions, and coworkers. Participants were presented with a series of
adjectives and phrases relating to one of the five facets, and asked to indicate via a “yes,” “no,”
or “unsure” response whether or not those phrases described the respondent’s situation. Instead
of assessing satisfaction via Likert response, the JDI assesses satisfaction via adjectives that
have been demonstrated to reflective of satisfaction (e.g., “fascinating” and “comfortable”) and
asking participants whether these adjectives describe their experience of work. This dimensional
approach to measuring job satisfaction was observed to be highly reliable in the present work (α
= .94). Further, the dimensional assessment of satisfaction has led the JDI to be the most widely
used measure of job satisfaction whose dimensional structure has been confirmed interna-
tionally (Stanton et al., 2002) and has been shown via meta-analysis to exhibit expected re-
lationships with antecedents like job characteristics and outcomes such as job performance and
withdrawal (Kinicki et al., 2002).

Work engagement. Work engagement was measured using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002). The scale was comprised of 17 items broken down into three
subscales: Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption. Both Vigor and Absorption were measured using
six items, while Dedication was measured using five items. Participants rated how frequently the
statements applied to them on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Almost Never-A few times a
year or less” to 7 = “Always-Every day”). Example items include “At my work, I feel bursting
with energy,” for the Vigor subscale, “My job inspires me” for the Dedication subscale, and “Time
flies when I am working” for the Absorption subscale. This scale was highly reliable (α = .95) and
has been shown to relate to be predicted by perceptions of support and stress, as well as predict job
performance.

Data Analyses
Analyses were conducted to assess the predictive nature of the CAAS-5. The predictive validity of
an occupationally specific measure of adaptability (CAAS-5) was compared to general adapt-
ability (I-ADAPT) in the prediction of several outcomes via three hierarchical regressions, where
the I-ADAPT scale score was entered as the first step, followed by the CAAS-5 scale score. The
6 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

benefit of the CAAS-5 can be seen both in terms of the standardized regression weights of the
predictors in the final model, as well as the increase in the amount of variance explained by adding
the CAAS-5 to the model. Further analyses were conducted to examine how the dimensionality of
the CAAS-5 influenced prediction.
Structural equations model fit was used to assess dimensionality and structural model adequacy
in this and the subsequent study. We employed a consistent model fit evaluation strategy across
both studies, assessing against the following benchmarks: SRMR < .08, CFI > .95, and RMSEA <
.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). However, these benchmarks were used as guidelines rather than strict
cutoffs as conditions may occur where an individual index may unnecessarily signal misfit (Nye &
Drasgow, 2011; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Thus, we assessed fit indices holistically to
determine whether a model adequately represented the data.
We used a bifactor model of the CAAS-5 to distinguish the lower-order dimensions from the
overall Career Adaptability latent factor found by Nye et al. (2018). A bifactor model is estimated
by allowing all of the items in a measure to load on a general factor (i.e., career adaptability) as
well as a narrow factor representing one of the five dimensions of the CAAS-5. In other words,
each item will have two loadings—one on the general factor and another on a specific factor. This
model has a number of advantages for examining the validity of a measure, including easier
interpretation of the unique contributions of lower-order dimensions compared to the general
factor (Chen et al., 2006). Specifically, because the correlations between the general factor and the
narrow dimensions are constrained to be orthogonal, the bifactor model provides a way to examine
the contribution of the lower-order dimensions after controlling for general career adaptability.
These analyses provide useful information about whether it is general career adaptability or the
narrower dimensions that are related to the outcomes examined in the present study. In addition,
these results can also illustrate the utility of the Cooperation dimension after accounting for both
the general factor and the other dimensions.
Despite these advantages, it is also important to clarify that we are not using the bifactor model
to confirm or deny the internal structure of the CAAS (4 or 5) scale. As described by Sellbom and
Tellegen (2019), adopting a bifactor over a higher-order model purely based on model fit is
misguided. However, a bifactor model is still useful in distinguishing dimensions from the general
factor in terms of predictive validity (Chen et al., 2006; Sellbom & Tellegen, 2019). Thus, we
evaluate the fit of the bifactor model to determine if it is appropriate to use, but adopt it over the
higher-order model given it is a modelling strategy better aligned with our research questions
related to predictive validity. Consistent with past research (Nye et al., 2018), the bifactor model fit
the data well and was used to model the CAAS-5 in subsequent analyses.
Using the bifactor model, we examined the prediction of broad outcomes including job
satisfaction, work engagement, and subjective well-being. Given some of the theoretical overlap
between the facets of job satisfaction (i.e., work, pay, promotions, supervisor, and coworker) and
the CAAS-5, we also examined relationships between the narrow dimensions of the CAAS-5 and
the facets of job satisfaction.

Study 1 Results
Table 1 contains descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the studied
variables. All outcome measures showed significant and positive relationships with the CAAS-5.
The correlation between the two predictors, CAAS-5 and I-ADAPT, was also significant, r = .55, p
< .001.It is also worth noting the high correlation between the CAAS-4 and CAAS-5 subscales (r
= .98, p < .001). This is somewhat expected given that the 24 items that comprise the CAAS-4 are
the exact same items that comprise 24 of the 30 items of the CAAS-5 (i.e., 80% of the CAAS-5 is
the CAAS-4). Further, as a dimension of career adaptability, one would expect the unique six items
Leong et al. 7

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes in Study 1.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 CAAS-4 4.00 0.57 (.94)

2 CAAS-5 4.01 0.53 .98 (.94)
3 I-ADAPT 3.75 0.39 .55 .53 (.93)
4 SWB 4.88 1.35 .17 .17 .08 (.90)
5 JDI 1.87 0.58 .10* .11* .05 .21 (.94)
6 UWES 2.93 1.23 .18 .17 .28 .13 .60 (.95)
Note. Correlations greater than .11 in magnitude are statistically significant at p < .05. Reliabilities presented in parentheses
along the diagonal.

related to Cooperation in the CAAS-5 would be highly correlate with the other 24 items of the
CAAS scale. We direct readers to the CFA model results below to measure the adequacy of
Cooperation as a fifth dimension of the CAAS scale, as well as the regression estimates whereby
Cooperation uniquely predicted outcomes to showcase the predictive validity of this dimension.
Table 2 contains the intercorrelations of the facets of the CAAS-5 and I-ADAPT. Intercorrelations
were generally positive and moderate in magnitude. This conforms with expectations of measures
related to adaptability being somewhat correlated, but not so highly correlated that career
adaptability and general adaptability cannot be distinguished. The results of the hierarchical
regression analyses are presented in Table 3 and detailed below, organized by outcome.

Subjective well-being. We first examined the value of career adaptability for predicting SWB. In the
final model, the CAAS-5 (β = .19, p = .001) was the only significant predictor of SWB. The model
containing only I-ADAPT did not explain a significant amount of variance in SWB (R2 = .01, p =
.110), whereas the inclusion of CAAS-5 did produce a significant model (R2 = .03, p = .002).
Further, the significant improvement between models (ΔR2 = .03, p = .001) suggests that the
inclusion of career adaptability added incremental validity over general adaptability in predicting
SWB.

Job satisfaction (JDI). As with the prediction of life satisfaction, the JDI was only significantly
predicted by the CAAS-5 (β = .12, p = .040). The initial model that only contained I-ADAPT did
not explain a significant amount of variance in the JDI (R2 = .00, p = .335). Inclusion of the CAAS-
5 into the second model also produced a non-significant R2 (.01, p = .076). However, the im-
provement between models (ΔR2 = .01, p = .040) suggests that the inclusion of career adaptability
accounts for more variance in job satisfaction above general adaptability alone.

Work engagement (UWES). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale was shown to only be significantly
predicted by I-ADAPT (β = .27, p < .001). The initial model containing only I-ADAPT explained a
significant amount of variance in UWES (R2 = .08, p < .001). However, including the CAAS-5 in
the model did not increase the amount of variance accounted for (ΔR2 = .00, p = .642). This
suggests that general adaptability alone accounted for variance in work engagement but the
addition of career adaptability did not yield any improvement.

Bifactor model of CAAS. We next tested the predictive validity of the career adaptability scale in the
context of the bifactor model. We first compared a unidimensional model, a five-factor model with
correlated factors, a higher-order model, and a bifactor model. The unidimensional model fit the
data poorly (χ 2 (405) = 2313.85, p < .001; RMSEA = .11; SRMR = .08; CFI = .69). In contrast,
 8

Table 2. Correlations Among Facets of I-ADAPT and CAAS-5.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. CAAS-5 concern (.87)

2. CAAS-5 control .57 (.77)
3. CAAS-5 curiosity .52 .63 (.85)
4. CAAS-5 cooperation .36 .47 .45 (.80)
5. CAAS-5 confidence .56 .64 .61 .52 (.91)
6. I-ADAPT crisis .26 .39 .32 .06 .40 (.89)
7. I-ADAPT work stress .09 .21 .11* .03 .21 .41 (.82)
8. I-ADAPT interpersonal .31 .40 .46 .48 .45 .43 .15 (.78)
9. I-ADAPT learning .44 .45 .53 .31 .55 .50 .23 .61 (.84)
10. I-ADAPT creativity .28 .37 .43 .13* .44 .60 .32 .48 .58 (.76)
11. I-ADAPT physical .11* .20 .15 .11* .28 .39 .49 .29 .33 .36 (.70)
12. I-ADAPT uncertainty .22 .37 .29 .14 .41 .54 .54 .45 .52 .56 .55 (.70)
13. I-ADAPT cultural .22 .31 .39 .37 .34 .32 .10* .66 .51 .36 .22 .36 (.83)
14. CAAS-5 overall .34 .46 .45 .26 .54 .74 .61 .69 .77 .72 .68 .82 .58 (.94)
15. I-ADAPT overall .76 .83 .82 .70 .85 .36 .15 .52 .58 .42 .22 .36 .41 .51 (.93)

Note. Correlations greater than .10 in magnitude are statistically significant at p < .05. Reliabilities presented in parentheses along the diagonal.
Journal of Career Development 0(0)
Leong et al. 9

Table 3. Outcomes Hierarchically Regressed Onto General Adaptability and CAAS-5.

SWB JDI UWES

Variable β R2 ΔR2 β R2 ΔR2 β R2 ΔR2

Step 1
I-ADAPT .02 .01 .01 .02 .00 .00 .27*** .08*** .08***
Step 2
CAAS-5 .19** .03** .03*** .12* .01† .01* .03 .08*** .00
Note. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Standardized regression weights presented are from the final model.

both the five-factor model (χ 2 (395) = 983.03, p < .001; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05; CFI = .90)
and the higher-order model fit the data well (χ 2 (400) = 992.07, p < .001; RMSEA = .06; SRMR =
.05; CFI = .90). The bifactor model fit the data slightly better than the other models (χ 2 (376) =
890.37, p < .001; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .04; CFI = .91). When comparing the higher-order
model with the bifactor model, the reduction in SRMR (from .05 to .04) and increase in CFI (from
.90 to .91) signaled improved model fit. However, the estimation of the bifactor model resulted in a
negative residual variance (i.e., a Heywood case) for the item “Taking responsibility for my
actions” of the Control subscale. This can sometimes occur when the general and specific factors
account for a substantial amount of variance in the item, resulting in negative estimates of the
variance. Because it is not possible to have a negative variance, we addressed this problem by
constraining the residual variance for this item to 0. Although this constraint was not applied to the
alternative models described above, the resulting bifactor model still fit the data best. Thus,
because the bifactor model was the best fit to the data and the most appropriate analyses to test our
hypotheses we used the bifactor model for subsequent analyses.
Using the bifactor model, a structural model was estimated to assess the predictive nature of the
CAAS-5 alongside its constituent dimensions. SWB, JDI, and UWES were included as raw scale
scores and allowed to correlate with each other. With the inclusion of these outcomes, model fit
remained acceptable (χ 2 (448) = 996.91, p < .001; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .04; CFI = .92). As can
be seen in Table 4, SWB was predicted best by the general CAAS-5 factor (β = .27). In fact, after
controlling for the general factor, the relationships with the specific factors in the CAAS-5 were
negatively related to SWB. This can occur because the general factor accounts for the common
variance among all of the items and the narrow factors for the career adaptability dimensions
account for the residual variance. As a result, the residual factors can have opposite signs after
accounting for the general factor. However, although the Control (β = .16) and Curiosity (β =
.23) dimensions of CAAS-5 were significantly related to SWB, the majority of these rela-
tionships were non-significant. This is similar to the findings of Matijaš and Seršić (2021),
whereby estimation of a bifactor model of the CAAS-4 yielded non-significant relationships
between curiosity, control, and concern with job-search self-efficacy. They do not present the
actual estimates for these paths, so alignment in the negative nature of some paths cannot be
established, but the extraction of a general factor dramatically impacting paths between sub-
dimensions and outcomes is plausible in future applications of the bifactor model to the CAAS
measure.
Analyses relating the bifactor model of the CAAS-5 (Table 5). Prediction of job satisfaction
was only shown by the Concern (β = .18) and Cooperation (β = .16) dimensions of CAAS-5. In
this case, it appears the significant relationship seen between CAAS-5 and JDI in the hi-
erarchical regression may be driven by content within the Concern and Cooperation di-
mensions. This finding also demonstrates the importance of both general adaptability as well
 10

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Predictors and Outcomes in Study 2.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1. CAAS-5 3.53 .65 (.94)

2. Control 3.62 .76 .84 (.82)
3. Concern 3.40 .83 .82 .63 (.87)
4. Confidence 3.67 .78 .87 .76 .62 (.88)
5. Curiosity 3.58 .80 .87 .66 .65 .73 (.85)
6. Cooperation 3.37 .80 .68 .39 .43 .45 .51 (.80)
7. Intelligence .47 .21 .03 .00 .12 .04 .07 .09 (.76)
8. Perseverance 3.64 .60 .56 .51 .47 .56 .51 .22 .04 (.86)
9. Leadership 2.67 .79 .39 .33 .32 .38 .36 .20 .12 .43 (.86)
10. Adaptability 3.49 .54 .55 .56 .40 .58 .49 .23 .03 .52 .47 (.80)
11. Theory of 3.38 1.26 .19 .13 .13 .14 .15 .20 .12 .19 .11 .19 (.97)
intelligence
12. Problem solving 2.73 .74 .53 .50 .40 .54 .49 .23 .14 .52 .31 .61 .17 (.95)
13. JDI supervision 1.76 .24 .24 .22 .18 .20 .18 .20 .12 .15 .07 .21 .14 .22 (.89)
14. JDI people 1.77 .25 .25 .17 .17 .18 .24 .26 .08 .13 .12 .24 .16 .25 .65 (.90)
15. Job satisfaction 5.13 1.62 .31 .25 .25 .29 .22 .25 .01 .24 .23 .31 .07 .32 .60 .63 (.95)
16. Occ. Stress 2.56 .70 .07 .11 .01 .11 .02 .02 .22 .01 .04 .26 .14 .21 .35 .35 .38 (.91)
17. Occ. Well-being 3.37 .77 .31 .29 .24 .30 .22 .22 .04 .23 .27 .41 .15 .37 .56 .62 .84 .46 (.97)
18. Career 3.10 .94 .28 .19 .27 .22 .22 .22 .02 .25 .30 .26 .06 .24 .50 .55 .79 .27 .75 (.88)
commitment
19. Jobs held 1.70 1.23 .07 .10 .01 .10 .10 .03 .14 .02 .00 .08 .01 .12 .12 .11 .11 .10 .08 .06
20. Promotions 1.15 1.45 .03 .02 .07 .04 .00 .00 .17 .09 .21 .08 .02 .01 .02 .00 .08 .05 .10 .11 .54
21. Salary 42.28 26.60 .21 .15 .18 .23 .20 .08 .09 .11 .28 .23 .05 .17 .14 .16 .21 .04 .22 .28 .18 .08
22. Terminations .18 1.03 .14 .14 .03 .15 .15 .09 .15 .09 .02 .14 .05 .16 .12 .08 .05 .06 .06 .05 .74 .62 .13
23. Voluntary leave .66 1.56 .12 .13 .01 .14 .15 .05 .14 .01 .03 .11 .03 .13 .14 .10 .11 .08 .09 .07 .88 .61 .19 .74
24. Withdrawal 1.68 .55 .31 .28 .24 .30 .24 .22 .03 .30 .13 .40 .13 .40 .49 .48 .63 .40 .62 .53 .18 .06 .15 .19 .19 (.89)
25. OCB 5.38 0.90 .49 .42 .36 .44 .45 .35 .20 .45 .19 .38 .15 .56 .39 .41 .47 .24 .43 .39 .20 .12 .13 .23 .20 .55 (.93)

Note. CAAS-5 refers to the overall scale score of the CAAS-5. JDI refers to the Job Descriptive Index. Occ. refers to Occupational. OCB refers to Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Salary is presented as thousands of dollars. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Correlations greater in magnitude than .10 are significant at p < .05.
Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of reliability is presented along the diagonal in parentheses where appropriate.
Journal of Career Development 0(0)
Leong et al. 11

as the specific factors. Although the general factor appears to predict SWB, both Concern and
Cooperation have significant relationships with job satisfaction. Finally, the general CAAS-5
factor (β = .12) and Confidence (β = .22) predicted UWES. Across analyses, the utility of the
dimensionality of CAAS-5 can be seen as each outcome is best predicted by a unique subset of
the CAAS-5 dimensions.
A second structural model was created to assess the relationship between the facets of the
CAAS-5 and those of job satisfaction. The CAAS-5 was modeled using a bifactor model, whereas
the facets of job satisfaction were incorporated as raw scale scores and were allowed to correlate
with each other. Overall, the model demonstrated good fit (χ 2 (496) = 1045.94, p < .001; RMSEA
= .05; SRMR = .04; CFI = .93). As can be seen in Table 6, the work satisfaction facet was
significantly predicted by Cooperation (β = .18). Pay satisfaction was significantly predicted by
Confidence (β = .14) and Cooperation (β = .18). Control was the only CAAS-5 scale to predict
promotion satisfaction (β = .11, p = .053), but this relationship was marginally significant.
Cooperation was the sole predictor of supervisor satisfaction (β = .24) as well as coworker
satisfaction (β = .25). As can be seen by these results, the utility of the dimensions of Career
Adaptability depends on the facet of job satisfaction in question. However, the Cooperation
dimension appeared to predict a number of JDI facets, demonstrating the importance of its in-
clusion into the measurement of Career Adaptability.

Study 2
The results of Study 1 suggest the importance of career adaptability in predicting certain outcomes
(SWB and job satisfaction) over and above general adaptability, while also displaying the specific
utility of the five factors that comprise the general construct. Of particular importance, multiple
outcomes demonstrated unique relationships with the Cooperation dimension, emphasizing the
importance of the construct’s inclusion within the conceptualization of career adaptability.
However, given that the Study 1 data was collected from undergraduates with work experience
and the set of explored predictors and outcomes was limited, we sought to extend our Study 1
investigation.
Accordingly, the purpose of Study 2 includes cross-validation of Study 1 findings with a
working sample, in addition to the examination of an expanded set of outcomes toward a more
complete understanding of the predictive validity of the CAAS-5. Specifically, Study 2 featured
sets of work-relevant attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, supervisor sat-
isfaction, people satisfaction, career commitment, Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)),

Table 5. Relationships Between the Bifactor Latent Variables and Outcomes.

SWB JDI UWES

Latent Factor β S.E. β S.E. β S.E.

Career adaptability .27*** .05 .07 .06 .12* .06

Concern .04 .06 .18** .06 .09 .06
Control .16** .05 .03 .06 .05 .06
Curiosity .23*** .07 .09 .07 .08 .07
Confidence .12 .07 .10 .07 .22** .07
Cooperation .02 .06 .16** .04 .00 .07
Note. *p <. 05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Career Adaptability refers to the general factor of the bifactor model. All outcomes
are average scale scores and were allowed to correlate. JDI denotes the Job Descriptive Index measure of Job Satisfaction.
UWES denotes Work Engagement. SWB denotes the Subjective Well-Being.
12 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

Table 6. Relationships Between the Bifactor Model Latent Variables and the Facets of the JDI.

Work Pay Promotion Supervisor Coworker

Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction

Latent Factor β S.E. β S.E. β S.E. β S.E. β S.E.

† †
Career adaptability .10 .06 .10 .06 .08 .06 .03 .06 .08 .06
Concern .02 .06 .01 .06 .01 .06 .03 .05 .02 .05
Control .03 .07 .06 .06 .11† .07 .04 .07 .06 .07
Curiosity .08 .07 .11 .07 .07 .07 .00 .07 .10 .07
Confidence .10 .06 .14* .07 .03 .06 .13 .06 .05 .06
Cooperation .18** .06 .18** .06 .15 .06 .24** .06 .25*** .06
Note. Career Adaptability refers to the general factor of the bifactor model. All outcomes are average scale scores. JDI
denotes the Job Descriptive Index measure of Job Satisfaction. UWES denotes. SWB denotes the Subjective Well-Being.
†
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

health and well-being-relevant outcomes (i.e., occupational stress, occupational well-being), as

well as important career outcomes (i.e., promotions, salary, terminations, voluntary leave, jobs
held) all theoretically impacted by the career adaptability construct. Additionally, Study 2 in-
corporates a broader range of predictors against which we examine career adaptability’s incre-
mental validity (i.e., intelligence, perseverance, leadership, theories of intelligence, adaptability,
problem solving)-as each of these predictors may themselves theoretically relate to our outcomes
of interest, their inclusion within our investigation demonstrates the importance of career
adaptability over and above relationships demonstrated by these individual difference variables.
Therefore, Study 2 informs a more holistic understanding of how the CAAS-5 and its dimensions
can predict variables relevant to employees’ work and life, while controlling for a plethora of
alternative explanatory variables.

Study 2 Method
Participants
The data for Study 2 were collected online from a sample of working adults using the Amazon
Mechanical Turk (mTurk) survey platform. Participants were only eligible if they were working in
a full-time position. Surveys were administered at two time points separated by 2 weeks. 450
participants completed the first survey and 352 continued participation by completing the second
survey. 10 participants were removed for failing an attention check during either survey, yielding a
final sample of 346. Included participants were on average 35.10 years old (SD = 9.80), with
46.7% women, 52.8% men, and 0.6% not indicating gender. Concerning race, 76.6% of par-
ticipants were White, 8.7% were Black, 6.6% were Latinx, 6.4% were East Asian, 0.9% were
South Asian, and 0.9% indicated some other race. Participants received $1.50 for completing the
first survey and $3.50 for completing the second survey.

Measures
Two of the measures administered in Study 1 were also administered in Study 2. The CAAS-5 was
used during both surveys of Study 2, and the Supervisor and Coworker facets of the JDI were
administered during the second survey. These scales were highly reliable in Study 2 as well, and
we refer readers to Table 4 for further reliability information on these measures. In addition,
Leong et al. 13

biodata scales and measures of implicit theories of intelligence, cognitive ability, and problem
solving were administered during the first survey. Measures of overall job satisfaction, occu-
pational stress, occupational well-being, workplace deviance, collective orientation, OCB, career
commitment, work and job withdrawal, and career outcomes were administered during the second
survey.

Biodata. Three biodata scales were administered to assess the constructs of Adaptability,
Leadership, and Perseverance, adapted from the Student Behavior and Experience Inventory
toward applicability for an employed adult sample (Oswald et al., 2004). Each scale included 10
items describing a particular behavior or experience, asking participants to respond using a five-
point Likert-type scale aligning with item content, such as indicating frequency or level of
agreement. An example Adaptability item is “How easy has it been for you to solve or deal with
problems that you never faced before?” Leadership was measured with items such as “How
comfortable do you tend to feel in leadership roles?" An example Perseverance item is “How often
have you achieved a personal goal that seemed unattainable at first?" These scales were reliable
(Adaptability α = .80; Leadership α = .86, Perseverance α = .86). Among students, these scales
significantly correlated with theoretically related dimensions of personality and the adaptability
subscale predicted GPA alongside test scores and personality (Oswald et al., 2004).

Implicit theories of intelligence. Participants’ beliefs regarding the malleability of intelligence were
assessed using Dweck’s (1999) Implicit Theories of Intelligence scale. This scale included eight
items which participants responded to using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Strongly Dis-
agree” to 5 = “Strongly Agree”). An example item is “No matter who you are, you can sig-
nificantly change your intelligence level.” This scale exhibited adequate reliability (α = .97).
Further, Li et al. (2021) show that belief in the malleability of intelligence (i.e., a growth mindset)
was negatively related to counterproductive workplace behavior via lower perceptions of job
pressure.

Cognitive ability. Cognitive ability was evaluated using the 16-item version of the International
Cognitive Ability Resource test (Condon & Revelle, 2014). Specifically, three-dimensional
rotation, matrix reasoning, verbal reasoning, and pattern recognition in number and letter se-
quences were assessed by having the participant identify the correct response from multiple
options. An example item is “What number is one fifth of one fourth of one ninth of 900?" This
scale was acceptably reliable and (α = .76), was shown by Condon and Revelle (2014) to exhibit
satisfactory concurrent and discriminant validity in a sample of over 97,000 participants.

Problem solving. Problem solving was assessed via Heppner and Petersen’s (1982) scale. Thirty
items were administered, having participants rate on a six-point Likert-type scale the extent of
agreement with each statement (1 = “Strongly Agree” to 6 = “Strongly Disagree”). Statements
included “I am usually able to think up creative and effective alternatives to solve a problem." This
scale demonstrated high reliability (α = .95) and has been shown to capture skill change via
problem solving training, show convergent validity with locus of control, and discriminant
validity from intelligence and social desirability (Heppner & Petersen, 1982).

Overall job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured using three items. Participants
had to rate the extent to which they agreed to statements such as “All in all, I am satisfied with
my job” using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly
Agree”). This scale was acceptably reliable (α = .95) and has recently been shown to be
14 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

predicted by increased perceptions of organizational support due to a supervisory intervention

(Haynes et al., 2021).

Occupational stress. Vagg and Spielberger’s (1998) measure of occupational stress was ad-
ministered. It contained 20 items measuring job pressure and lack of organizational support.
Participants rated the amount of stress work activities gave them on a nine-point Likert-type
scale (1 = “Least Stressful” to 9 = “Most Stressful”) to items such as “Assigned increased
responsibility.” This scale was highly reliable (α = .91) in the present work. The development of
this scale also ensured strong content validity via an evaluation of eight contemporary
workplace stress measures (Vagg & Spielberger, 1998), as well as prior evidence of being
predicted by career adaptability (Prasad et al., 2021).

Occupational well-being. Occupational well-being was measured using a 30-item scale mea-
suring occupational pleasure and displeasure (Van Katwyk et al., 2000). Participants rated the
frequency of emotions felt in the past 30 days on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Never” to
5 = “Extremely often or always”). An example item is “My job made me feel at ease.” This
scale was observed to be acceptably reliable (α = .97) and has been shown to be an outcome of
work stressors in the original validation work (Van Katwyk et al., 2000).

Organizational citizenship behavior. The scale developed by Podsakoff and colleagues (1990) was
administered to assess OCB. Altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic
virtue were assessed using 24 items. Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with
statements that could describe themselves such as “Helps others who have been absent,” using a
seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”). This scale was
observed to be reliable (α = .93) and has been shown to be the outcome of transformational
leadership and trust as would be expected (Podsakoff et al., 1990).

Work and job withdrawal. Hanisch and Hulin’s (1990) 13-item measure of work and job
withdrawal was included. This measure asked participants to rate the frequency of engaging in
certain behaviors. Responses to items such as “Went to work late” were made on a five-point
Likert-type scale (0 = “Never” to 4 = “Many times”). The observed reliability of this scale was
acceptable (α = .89). Hanisch and Hulin (1990) provide evidence for the two-dimensional nature
of this measure and demonstrate that both forms of withdrawal were predicted by job attitudes,
health satisfaction, and retirement attitudes.

Career outcomes. Five items were developed by the study authors measuring annual salary,
number of jobs held, number of promotions achieved, number of terminations, and number of
times one left a job voluntarily. Responses to these items were open-ended. Use of single item
measures to assess observable behaviors has been shown to exhibit acceptable levels of reliability
in organizational research (Fisher et al., 2016).

Study 2 Results
Replicating Study 1, the bifactor model also fit the data well in Study 2 (χ 2 (375) = 845.47, p <
.001; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05; CFI = .91). We also opted to use the bifactor model (as opposed
to a higher-order model) given the goal of distinguishing the predictive validity of CAAS-5
dimensions from the general factor (i.e., an orthogonal approach) as opposed to an estimation
approach that explicitly relates dimensions with a general factor (i.e., a non-orthogonal approach;
(Chen et al., 2006). Next, a structural model was estimated to assess the predictive validity of the
Leong et al. 15

CAAS-5 and its dimensions for predicting our outcomes of interest above and beyond other
theoretically related predictors. Specifically, the predictors of this structural model consisted of a
bifactor model of the CAAS-5 as well as the scale scores for Intelligence, Perseverance,
Leadership, Theory of Intelligence, Adaptability, and Problem Solving. Outcomes of this model
included satisfaction with supervision, satisfaction with coworkers, Overall Job Satisfaction,
Occupational Stress, Occupational Well-being, OCB, Career Commitment, Work and Job
Withdrawal, number of jobs held, number of promotions, salary, terminations, and number of jobs
left voluntarily. This model fit the data well (χ2 (807) = 1497.04, p < .001; RMSEA = .05; SRMR
= .04; CFI = .92).
As can be seen in Table 7 our job satisfaction-related outcomes (supervisor satisfaction,
coworker satisfaction, job satisfaction) were most often predicted by CAAS-5 factors over and
above other predictors in the model. Specifically, supervisor satisfaction was most strongly
predicted by the general CAAS-5 factor (β = .23), as well as by intelligence (β = .16). Coworker
satisfaction was predicted only by the Cooperation factor (β = .22). Job satisfaction was negatively
predicted by the Control factor (β = .16) and the Curiosity factor (β = .19), but positively
predicted by the Cooperation factor (β = .15). Job satisfaction was also negatively predicted by
problem solving (β = .22).
Table 7 further shows the relationships between the predictors, stress, well-being, OCB and
career commitment. For example, occupational well-being was significantly predicted by the
general CAAS-5 factor (β = .24), and negatively predicted by the Control (β = .18) and Curiosity
factors (β = .20). The only other significant predictor of occupational well-being was problem
solving (β = .25). While withdrawal was most strongly predicted by general adaptability (β =
.31) and problem solving (β =.20), it was also negatively predicted by the Cooperation factor (β
= .15). Occupational stress tended to be most strongly predicted by non-CAAS-5 factors
(Intelligence: β = .24; Perseverance: β = .15; Leadership: β = .18; Theory of intelligence: β =
.14), but was also predicted by the Curiosity factor (β = .23). Organizational citizenship behavior
was predicted by the Cooperation factor (β = .23), as well as intelligence (β = .16), perseverance (β
= .22) and negatively predicted by problem solving (β = .34). Finally, career commitment was
only significantly predicted by the Confidence factor (β = .17).
Relationships between predictors and career-relevant job history outcomes are also available in
Table 7. Of these outcomes, career adaptability factors significantly predicted number of jobs held
and instances of voluntary leave. Specifically, number of jobs held was predicted by the Concern
factor (β = .15) as well as perseverance (β = .16). Voluntary leave was negatively predicted by the
general CAAS-5 factor (β = .23) and positively predicted by Concern (β = .15), in addition to
perseverance (β = .15). Number of promotions was predicted by intelligence (β = .13) and
leadership (β = .20), while number of terminations was not predicted by any variables included in
the model. Current salary was predicted by intelligence (β = .12) and leadership (β = .23), and
negatively predicted by perseverance (β = .18).

Discussion
Much of the existing research on career adaptability has used the original four-factor version of the
Career Adapt-Ability Scale (CAAS-4) (Guan et al., 2013; Maggiori et al., 2013; Zacher, 2014). The
CAAS-4 consists of the following four factors: Concern, Control, Curiosity and Confidence. What is
less well-known is that the original international research teams that formulated the CAAS had
included a Cooperation dimension as well (Leong & Walsh, 2012). We have argued that the
omission of the Cooperation dimension in the CAAS was premature, and more importantly it
represented a highly critical aspect of career adaptability (Nye et al., 2018). Since the Cooperation
dimension encompasses the interpersonal aspects of career adaptability, we have pointed out that for
 16

Table 7. Estimates and Standard Errors of Relationships Between Study 2 Predictors and Outcomes.

JDI Supervisor JDI People Job Satisfaction Occ. Stress Occ. Well-being OCB Career Comm.

Career adaptability .23* (.11) .09 (.11) .21 (.11) .08 (.11) .24* (.12) .16 (.09) .15 (.11)
Control .08 (.08) .09 (.08) .16* (.08) .04 (.08) .18* (.08) .07 (.07) .15 (.08)
Concern .01 (.07) .01 (.07) .02 (.07) .07 (.07) .04 (.07) .04 (.06) .06 (.07)
Confidence .10 (.09) .05 (.09) .12 (.08) .14 (.09) .17 (.09) .07 (.08) .17 (.08)*
Curiosity .15 (.08) .05 (.08) .19* (.08) .23** (.08) .20* (.08) .02 (.07) .09 (.08)
Cooperation .11 (.07) .22** (.07) .15* (.07) .01 (.07) .03 (.07) .23** (.06) .10 (.07)
Intelligence .16** (.06) .09 (.06) .05 (.06) .24** (.06) 0 (.06) .16** (.05) .05 (.06)
Perseverance .01 (.08) .04 (.07) .02 (.07) .15* (.07) .09 (.08) .22** (.06) .09 (.07)
Leadership .10 (.07) .03 (.07) .01 (.07) .18* (.07) .01 (.08) .03 (.06) .13 (.07)
Theory of intelligence .09 (.06) .08 (.05) .04 (.06) .14* (.06) .06 (.06) .01 (.04) .03 (.06)
Adaptability .01 (.11) .14 (.10) .01 (.11) .20 (.11) .09 (.11) 0 (.09) .03 (.11)
Problem solving .11 (.08) .14 (.07) .22** (.08) .14 (.08) .25** (.08) .34** (.06) .12 (.07)

Jobs Held Promotions Salary Terminations Vol. Leave Withdrawal

Career adaptability .2 (.11) .11 (.11) .21 (.11) .17 (.11) .23* (.11) 0 (.10)
Control .03 (.09) .03 (.08) .05 (.08) .01 (.08) .02 (.09) .05 (.08)
Concern .15* (.07) .06 (.07) .04 (.07) .12 (.07) .15* (.07) .07 (.06)
Confidence .01 (.09) .05 (.09) .02 (.08) .03 (.09) .06 (.09) .09 (.08)
Curiosity .04 (.08) 0 (.08) .01 (.08) .01 (.08) .01 (.08) .09 (.07)
Cooperation .01 (.07) .03 (.07) .06 (.07) .04 (.07) .01 (.07) .15* (.07)
Intelligence .10 (.06) .13* (.06) .12* (.06) .11 (.06) .09 (.06) 0 (.05)
Perseverance .16* (.08) .05 (.08) .18* (.07) 0 (.08) .15* (.08) .10 (.07)
Leadership .03 (.07) .20** (.07) .23** (.07) .13 (.07) .02 (.07) .10 (.06)
Theory of intelligence .01 (.06) .01 (.06) .03 (.05) .03 (.06) .03 (.06) .01 (.05)
Adaptability .05 (.11) .04 (.10) .06 (.10) .04 (.10) 0 (.11) .31** (.09)
Problem solving .11 (.08) .01 (.07) .02 (.07) .06 (.07) .05 (.08) .20** (.07)

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01. N = 346. Standard errors in parentheses.
Journal of Career Development 0(0)
Leong et al. 17

cross-cultural reasons, such as the study of career and work in collectivistic cultures as well as the
increasing importance of teams, a five-factor model of the Career Adapt-Ability Scale (CAAS-5)
should be evaluated for its validity and utility in the study of career adaptability. Though we draw
inspiration from cross-cultural issues and the changing nature of work (i.e., working in teams), it is
important to note that the findings we present are from American student and online worker (i.e.,
MTurk) samples. Thus, our findings support the use of broad sources of inspiration but are not
directly investigating those sources-accordingly, we recommend and encourage future research with
cross-cultural, particularly non-Western samples to evaluate the relevance and applicability of this
measure.
In general, our results provided support for the predictive validity of the CAAS-5 in relation to
work and life outcomes as well as incremental validity over general adaptability. For both SWB
and Job Satisfaction in Study 1, our final regression model revealed that the only significant
predictor of both outcomes was the overall CAAS-5. For both outcomes, the model containing
only I-ADAPT did not explain a significant amount of variance, whereas the inclusion of CAAS-5
did produce a significant model. Hence for both subjective well-being and job satisfaction, the
CAAS-5 demonstrated both predictive validity and also incremental validity above and beyond
general adaptability.
On the other hand, work engagement was significantly predicted by the I-ADAPT measure, but
adding the CAAS-5 to the model did not add incremental validity. This suggests that general
adaptability alone accounted for variance in work engagement scores and the addition of career
adaptability did not yield any improvement. Hence, it appears that both general adaptability and
career adaptability can predict different outcomes. To further understand which dimensions of the
I-ADAPT measure were critical in predicting career adaptability, the correlations between the
subscales of the I-ADAPT and work engagement scale were examined. It appears that the
Learning subscale of the I-ADAPT was primarily responsible for a significant amount of variance
in work engagement.
To evaluate the differential validity of the CAAS-5, especially in relation to the Cooperation
factor, we used a bifactor model to estimate both a general career adaptability factor as well as
residual factors for each of its dimensions. This model revealed that the significant relationship
seen between career adaptability and job satisfaction in the hierarchical regression appears to be
due mainly to the Concern and Cooperation dimensions. This model also found that the general
CAAS-5 factor and the Confidence dimension predicted UWES. Across these analyses, each
outcome seems to be best predicted by a unique subset of the CAAS-5 dimensions, providing
evidence for the validity and utility of using the 5-factor measure of career adaptability.
To further explore the value of the Cooperation dimension, we conducted a second structural
model on our Study 1 data to assess the relationship between the facets of the CAAS-5 and those of
the JDI. We found that Cooperation was the sole predictor of supervisor and coworker satisfaction,
and had significant relationships with several other facets of job satisfaction as well. These results
demonstrate the importance of including Cooperation into the measurement of career adaptability.
In building upon our Study 1 findings, we examined the predictive utility of the CAAS-5 by
sampling working adults on a wider array of domain-specific outcomes in Study 2, including those
relevant to work attitudes, health and well-being, and career outcomes such as promotion and
termination. When considering the outcomes common to both Study 1 and Study 2, we find that
the key findings from Study 1 were replicated. Specifically, the CAAS-5 was again found to be
predictive of work satisfaction outcomes in Study 2, as the general career adaptability factor was
found to be the strongest predictor of supervisor satisfaction, and the Cooperation factor was the
only significant predictor of coworker satisfaction. This replication of results between Study 1 and
Study 2 samples suggests broad generalizability of the predictive validity of the CAAS-5 in
predicting work satisfaction and related constructs.
18 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

Further, the Study 2 results show that career adaptability as measured by the CAAS-5 and
its accompanying factors predicted an array of vocational outcomes beyond those examined in
Study 1. For instance, the general factor displayed positive relationships with supervisor
satisfaction and occupational well-being, and a negative relationship with instances of
voluntary leave. Importantly, these relationships held even when controlling for several
theoretically relevant constructs, including cognitive ability, problem solving, and perse-
verance, speaking to the robust nature of career adaptability as a predictor of important work
and life outcomes.
Finally, results from Study 2 display continued importance of the Cooperation factor within the
construct of career adaptability. Specifically, Cooperation was found to be positively predictive of
job satisfaction, coworker satisfaction, and OCB, and negatively predictive of withdrawal from
work, above and beyond the general career adaptability factor and other important predictors in
our Study 2 models. Such findings highlight the utility of Cooperation as a predictive dimension,
particularly in the case of outcomes with interpersonal components. Therefore, Study 2 seems to
support the inclusion of Cooperation within career adaptability, as it represents a unique com-
ponent of the construct not addressed by the other four dimensions.

Implications
With the finding that the CAAS-5 significantly predicts both work and life outcomes such as
subjective well-being, job satisfaction, and OCB, we propose that the CAAS-5 measure can be
useful in career interventions. Specifically, the differential role of each of the five dimensions of
career adaptability can inform career counseling and career coaching interventions. For example,
career clients with career adaptability problems can be assessed in terms of which dimension of the
CAAS-5 may be most influential in describing such issues. For example, if a client’s score is low
on Control or Cooperation, then interventions targeted at those specific dimensions should aid in
increasing their career adaptability. Similarly, the CAAS-5 could be used as a screening tool to
identify areas for personal development of employees.
In addition, the incremental validity of career adaptability above and beyond a broad range of
relevant predictors provides evidence of its construct validity, lending greater confidence to the
use of the CAAS-5 as an operationalization of career adaptability and a domain-specific measure.
Such confidence would be lacking if the CAAS-5 and the I-ADAPT had been highly correlated,
and if the latter did not provide additional variance in the prediction of work and life outcomes.
Furthermore, with the inclusion of the Cooperation dimension in the CAAS-5, future
research and career interventions could examine the specific effects of this critical dimension
of career adaptability. As we have argued, the four dimensions of the CAAS-4 consist of
mainly individualistic aspects of career adaptability, whereas the Cooperation dimension taps
into aspects of career adaptability that are central to team work, supervisor-supervisee re-
lations, and cross-cultural differences such as individualism-collectivism. Theoretically, a
measure of career adaptability without a Cooperation or interpersonal relationship dimension
would be incomplete.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations to this research that need to be acknowledged. First, although our
Study 1 sample consists of college students with work experience, it is still a college sample and
their primary role is as students. However, as our Study 2 sample of working adults displayed
similar relationships as those found in Study 1, we can more confidently conclude that the results
obtained from Study 1 are valid. Further, data from Study 1 was collected from college students in
Leong et al. 19

a Midwestern university. Although this limitation may be mitigated given the national sample
obtained in Study 2, studies with other cross-cultural samples would be needed, particularly in
light of Henrich and colleagues’ (2010) critique regarding WEIRD science. It is possible that
career adaptability has both universal and culture-specific elements (see (Leong & Brown, 1995).
Therefore, future research on the CAAS-5 with cross-cultural samples should examine the validity
of this measure.
Although the CAAS-5 successfully predicted work and life outcomes such as job satisfaction
and subjective well-being, there are some limitations in the outcome variables examined in this
Study 1. In terms of subjective well-being, despite some significant relationships between this
variable and other work outcomes, a domain-specific measure of occupational well-being would
be valuable to include in future studies of the predictive validity of the CAAS-5.
The unexpected results with the work engagement measure, namely, the UWES, bear further
exploration. It would be theoretically important to disentangle why the UWES was significantly
predicted by general adaptability and not the career adaptability measure. To the extent that work
engagement is a significant factor in career adaptability, future studies should examine what
aspects of the I-ADAPT may be missing in the CAAS-5 with regards to the latter’s predictive
power related to work engagement.
With regards to Study 2, we were able to include a worker sample from MTurk. However, there
are limitations associated with MTurk samples such as issues of verifying the actual employment
status of the samples, the representativeness of paid survey takers, and therefore the validity of
their responses. On one hand, it should be noted that it is quite difficult to gain access to workers in
an organization to complete surveys. Even when organizational sampling is possible, the gen-
eralizability of findings from samples from a single organization could come into question. Like
Study 1, there were also some unexpected findings warranting further research in Study 2, in-
cluding job satisfaction’s negative relationship with Control and Concern, as well as occupational
well-being’s negative relationship with Control and Curiosity.
In summary, we extended the work of Nye et al. (2018) on the CAAS-5, and found it to have
significant criterion-related validity. The CAAS-5 predicted a couple of work and life-relevant
outcomes such as SWB and job satisfaction over and above a measure of general adaptability
(i.e., the I-ADAPT scale). Additionally, the CAAS-5 did provide incremental validity above
and beyond general adaptability in relations to work engagement. Based on these findings, it is
recommended that future research utilize the CAAS-5 with the Cooperation dimension for
future career adaptability research. Future research will also be needed to identify what
domain-specific (i.e., workplace) feature is missing in the CAAS-5 that was captured by the
relationship between I-ADAPT and work engagement. The post-hoc analyses found that it is
the learning orientation within the I-ADAPT which is significantly correlated with work
engagement.

Conclusion
The changing nature of the workplace suggests that one’s career adaptability is as important as
ever. Accordingly, being able to assess career adaptability in a valid, reliable, and culturally
appropriate manner becomes all the more crucial. Across two studies, this research provides
evidence in support of the CAAS-5, a measure of career adaptability including a dimension
focused on interpersonal Cooperation. By demonstrating the predictive value of each of the five
dimensions in addition to the general factor, over and above other relevant predictors across
multiple studies and samples, we extend recent work evaluating the internal validity of the CAAS-
5 toward a more holistic understanding of the scale’s validity and ultimate value. Accordingly,
though future research (particularly in cross-cultural settings) will be helpful in continuing to build
20 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

a host of evidence in support of the CAAS-5’s use, the present research makes important the-
oretical and practical contributions via the demonstration of the measure’s ability to predict a host
of important workplace, life, and career-relevant outcomes.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Frederick T. L. Leong  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5598-0390

References
Chen, F. F, West, S. G, & Sousa, K H (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of
life. Multivariate behavioral research, 41(2), 189-225. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.
00739.x.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W., Zhang, J., & Zhang, J. (1996). Development of the Chinese
personality assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 181–199. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022022196272003
Condon, D. M., & Revelle, W. (2014). The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial
validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence, 43, 52-64.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Fan, W. Q., Li, M., Leong, F. T. L., & Zhou, M. J. (2021). West meets east: Integrating self and relatedness in
the study of personality structure and function. Frontiers in Psychology: Social and Personality
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739900
Fisher, G. G., Matthews, R. A., & Gibbons, A. M. (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item
measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(1), 3–23. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0039139
Guan, Y., Deng, H., Sun, J., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Ye, L., Fu, R., Wang, Y., Zhang, S., & Li, Y. (2013). Career
adaptability, job search self-efficacy and outcomes: A three-wave investigation among Chinese uni-
versity graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.
09.003
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examination of
retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 60–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90007-o
Hardin, E. E., Leong, F. T. L., & Osipow, S. H. (2001). Cultural relativity in the conceptualization of career
maturity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1762
Haynes, N. J., Vandenberg, R. J., Wilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., Padilla, H. M., & Smith, M. L. (2021).
Evaluating the impact of the live healthy, work healthy program on organizational outcomes: A
randomized field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication https://doi.
org/10.1037/apl0000977
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and brain
sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999152x
Leong et al. 21

Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem-solving
inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.29.1.66.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2005). Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to commitment,
turnover, or both? Human Resource Management, 44(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20037
Johnston, C. S. (2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook. Journal of
Career Assessment, 26(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716679921
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing the construct
validity of the job descriptive index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1),
14–32. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.14
Koen, J., Klehe, U. –C., Van Vianen, A. E., Zikic, J., & Nauta, A. (2010). Job-search strategies and re-
employment quality: The impact of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(1), 126–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.004
Kozlowski, S. J. K., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. In N. Schmitt & S.
Highhouse (Eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd Ed, Vol. 12,
pp. 412–469). Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. J. K., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Leong, F, & Brown, M (1995). Theoretical issues in cross-cultural career development: Cultural validity and
cultural specificity. In W Walsh & S Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (2nd ed., pp.
143-180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leong, F. T., & Ott-Holland, C. (2014). Career adaptability: Theory and measurement. In D. Chan’s (Ed.),
Individual adaptability to changes at work: New directions in research (pp. 95–114). (A volume in the
series in organizational and management). Routledge.
Leong, F. T. L., & Walsh, W.B. (2012). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on career adaptability.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 659–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.03.003
Li, M., Fan, W., & Leong, F. T. (2021). Growth mindset of intelligence reduces counterproductive workplace
behavior: A mediation analysis of occupational stress. International Journal of Selection and As-
sessment, 29(3–4), 519–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12347
Maggiori, C., Johnston, C. S., Krings, F., Massoudi, K., & Rossier, J. (2013). The role of career adaptability
and work conditions on general and professional well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3),
437–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.07.001
Matijaš, M., & Seršić, D. M. (2021). The relationship between career adaptability and job-search self-efficacy
of graduates: The bifactor approach. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(4), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.
1177/10690727211002281
Negru-Subtirica, O., & Pop, E. I. (2016). Longitudinal links between career adaptability and academic
achievement in adolescence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93(■■■), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jvb.2016.02.006
Nye, C., Leong, F. T. L., Prasad, J., Gardner, D., & Tien, S. (2018). Examining the structure of the career
adapt-abilities scale: The cooperation dimension and a 5-factor model. Journal of Career Assessment,
26(3), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717722767
Nye, C. D., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Effect size indices for analyses of measurement equivalence: Under-
standing the practical importance of differences between groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5),
966–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022955
22 Journal of Career Development 0(0)

Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004). Developing a biodata
measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college success. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 187-208.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. In Assessing well-being (pp.
101–117). Springer.
Ployhart, R. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). Individual adaptability (I-Adapt) theory: Conceptualizing the
antecedents, consequences and measurement of individual differences in adaptability. In C. S. Burke,
L. G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.), Understanding adapatility: A prerequisite for effective performance
within complex environments (pp. 3–39). Elsevier.
Prasad, J., Gardner, D. M., Leong, F. T., Zhang, J., & Nye, C. D. (2021). The criterion validity of career
adapt–abilities scale with cooperation among Chinese workers. Career Development International,
26(2), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-04-2020-0106
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace:
Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.4.612
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and mea-
surement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661–673. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of en-
gagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015630930326
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological
Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Sellbom, M, & Tellegen, Auke (2019). Factor analysis in psychological assessment research: Common
pitfalls and recommendations. Psychological assessment, 31(12), 1428-1441. DOI:https://psycnet.a-
pa.org/doi/10.1037/pas0000623.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement.
Raud McNally.
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., Julian, A. L., Thoresen, P., Aziz, S., Fisher, G. G., & Smith, P. C.
(2002). Development of a compact measure of job satisfaction: The abridged job descriptive index.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(1), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001316440206200112
Vagg, P. R., & Spielberger, C. D. (1998). Occupational stress: measuring job pressure and organizational
support in the workplace. Journal of occupational health psychology, 3(4), 294-305.
Van Katwyk, Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being
Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 5(2), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.219.
Wang, M. O., Zhan, Y., McCune, E., & Truxillo, D. (2011). Understanding newcomers’ adaptability and
work-related outcomes: Testing the mediating roles of perceived P-E fit variables. Personnel Psy-
chology, 64(1), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01205.x
Zacher, H. (2014). Career adaptability predicts subjective career success above and beyond personality traits
and core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.
2013.10.002

Author Biographies
Frederick Leong is a Retired Professor of Psychology from Michigan State University where he
also served as the Director of the Consortium for Multicultural Psychology Research. He has
 Leong et al. 23

authored or co-authored over 300 journal articles and book chapters, and edited or co-edited 24
books. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Counseling (Sage Publications), the APA
Handbook of Multicultural Psychology and the APA Handbook of Psychotherapy (APA Books).
Dr Leong is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, Association for Psychological
Science and the International Association of Applied Psychology. He is the Founding Editor of the
Asian American Journal of Psychology and also served as Associate Editor of the Archives of
Scientific Psychology and the American Psychologist. His major clinical research interest centers
around culture and mental health and cross-cultural psychotherapy and his I-O research is focused
on cultural and personality factors related to career choice, work adjustment, and occupational
stress. According to Google Scholar, his research has been cited 22,268 times with an h-index of
83. He was recently listed among the best psychology scientists (rank 770 out of 1000) in the
United States by Research.com. He enjoys travelling, reading, and watching kung-fu movies in his
leisure time.
Danielle Gardner earned her PhD in Organizational Psychology from Michigan State University,
and is currently an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Colorado State Uni-
versity. Dr Gardner’s research interests center broadly around workplace diversity and dis-
crimination, with specific interests in organizational justice, identity-based processes, and
discrimination manifestations across dimensions of subtlety and formality. Outside of work, Dr
Gardner enjoys fitness classes, trying new restaurants, and exploring the outdoors with her partner.
Christopher Nye is currently an Associate Professor of Organizational Psychology at Michigan
State University and the Class of 1967 Leadership Research Fellow at the U.S. Naval Academy.
His research primarily involves personnel selection and assessment, organizational research
methods, and the influence of individual differences in the workplace. He has published a number
of scholarly articles and/or chapters on these topics and has received awards from the Academy of
Management, the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and the International
Personnel Assessment Council for this work. He has also been a Consortium Research Fellow for
the Defense Manpower Data Center and a Senior Consortium Research Fellow for the U.S. Army
Research Institute.
Joshua Prasad earned his PhD in Organizational Psychology at Michigan State University. He is
currently an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at Colorado State University. Dr
Prasad’s research interests include evaluation of assessments in selection and career development,
organizational diversity, and applications of machine learning in organizational psychology. With
his wife, 3-years-old son, and 10-months-old daughter, Dr Prasad enjoys time outdoors at parks or
on short hikes.

View publication stats