Confirming the Miller Work Ethic Factor Structure
and examining the Short Form's
Michael B. Hein
Middle Tennessee State University Middle Tennessee State University
Abstract
The proposed study sought to expand construct validity evidence in
support of Miller et al.’s (2002) Multidimensional Work Ethic
Profile (MWEP) and examine a recently developed short form
version of the MWEP. As such, it sought to evaluate whether the
short form MWEP relates to relevant external constructs in the
same manner as the full version. The current study was successful
in providing additional validity evidence for the MWEP as well as
for Meriac et al.’s short form version (the MWEP-SF). Miller’s
factor structure of work ethic, represented by seven dimensions,
was supported by the confirmatory factor analytic results – both the
short and full versions resulted in acceptable model fit. The
correlational analysis between each work ethic measure and Big
Five personality constructs (measured by the NEO-PI-R) also
provided validity evidence in support of the MWEP and MWEP-
SF. As expected, the MWEP and MWEP-SF related to
conscientiousness above other personality traits of the five factor
model. Relevant facet-level relationships were also examined.
Comparisons between the correlational findings for the full MWEP
and MWEP-SF suggest that the short form is a promising addition
to the psychometric literature, as it seems commensurate in its
measurement of the seven work ethic dimensions proposed by
Miller.
Past “Multidimensional” Work Ethic Scales
Past measures of work ethic have suggested that work ethic is a
multidimensional construct, however, Miller et al. 2002 was the
first to suggest that work ethic was comprised of seven dimensions,
which were hard work, centrality of work, delay of gratification,
morality/ethics, wasted time, self-reliance, and anti-leisure (i.e.,
leisure items are reverse scored).
On the right is a
simplified
depiction of the
confirmatory factor
analysis we
conducted on the
short form version
of the
Multidimensional
Work Ethic Profile.
Unlike the full
version which
includes 65 items,
the short form
neatly condenses
the measure to only
4 items per
dimension (for a
total of 28 items).
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2015
www.PosterPresentations.com
relationship to the Big Five Personality factors
David Wright Judith Van Hein Richard G. Moffett
Middle Tennessee State University Middle Tennessee State University
Methods & Results
There were 414 participants in this study. They were students of a
large public university in the Southeast United States who
participated for course credit through the psychology department
subject pool.
The data was collected in two separate studies, both consisting of a
battery of self-report survey items which included: a 40-item Survey
of Organizational Attitudes and Perceptions (SOAP; Burke, 1996), a
9-item measure of attitudes toward questionnaires (Donegan, 2001),
a few demographic items, the 65-item MWEP or Multidimensional
Work Ethic Profile (Miller et al., 2002), and a the 240-item NEO-PI-
R (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the MWEP-SF: All 28 items of
the short form fell into their theorized dimensions. The short-form
CFA solution resulted in a χ2 value of 980.87 (df = 327, p < .01
RMSEA = .066, CFI = 0.87, SRMR = .79) after only two minor
modifications to the model. Each modification allowed a pair of
within-dimension error terms to be correlated. The short form
MWEP factor analysis findings suggest that the short form has at
least as good, if not slightly better fit than the full MWEP.
Correlational analysis: We compared the matrix of correlations of
the full MWEP and the NEOPI to the matrix of correlations of the
short form MWEP and the NEOPI.
We conducted Fisher’s r-to-Z transformations on 93 comparisons
between the full MWEP and the short form in order to determine if
there were any statistically significant differences. Of the 93
comparisons, 92 showed no statistically significant difference (two-
tailed; p < .05). The only difference was at the facet level of the
NEOPI-R, the correlations between Delay of Gratification and
Dutifulness dropped from .40 to .27 on the short form. The average
deviation between r-values for the MWEP and corresponding short
form r-values was only -.03.
As such, we concluded that the short form MWEP maintains the
same pattern of relationships with personality as the full MWEP, and
therefore, the current study provides construct validity evidence in
favor of Meriac’s recently developed MWEP-SF.
Conclusions
As expected, the MWEP and its short form counterpart related to
conscientiousness above other personality traits of the five factor
model. Relevant facet-level relationships between the big five
personality factors and the MWEP provided additional
convergent/construct validity evidence for Miller’s work ethic
factor structure.
Most notable of our findings was that Meriac’s (2012) short form
version of the MWEP performed just as well as the full version.
Not only did the short form relate to personality in the same manner
as the full version, but it also had a slightly better model fit indices
compared to those of the full version’s confirmatory factor analysis.