Advertisement

A Novel Instrument to Measure the Multidimensional Structure of Professional Agency

  • Katja Vähäsantanen
  • Eija Räikkönen
  • Susanna Paloniemi
  • Päivi Hökkä
  • Anneli Eteläpelto
Original Paper

Abstract

This study aimed to construct and validate a quantitative measurement instrument to determine the structure of professional agency in working life. Empirical data (N = 589) were collected via a web-based, theoretically informed questionnaire, within the professional domains of education, healthcare, rescue services, and information technology. The questionnaire items incorporated theoretically based dimensions of professional agency. The structure of professional agency was initially analysed via exploratory factor analysis. Thereafter, using exploratory structural equation modelling, the structure of professional agency was investigated with a view to confirmation and validation. The results indicated that the structure of professional agency included three dimensions: Influencing at Work, Developing Work Practices, and Negotiating Professional Identity. These dimensions appeared to be separate from but closely linked to other work-related constructs, notably Learning at Work and Emotionally Meaningful Work. The study enriches current theory on professional agency by shedding light on its multidimensional structure. In presenting an instrument for measuring professional agency, the study can benefit scholars and work organisations with an interest in researching and fostering professional agency in various work and educational contexts.

Keywords

Professional agency Learning at work Professional identity Measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland under Grant number 288925 [The Role of Emotions in Agentic Learning at Work]. The original items and instructions in Finnish are available from the first author on request. We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions that greatly improved the article. Our warm thanks go also to Donald Adamson for polishing the language of the article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alasoini, T. (2011). Workplace development as part of broad-based innovation policy: Exploiting and exploring three types of knowledge. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 1(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arens, A. K., & Morin A. J. S. (2016). Examination of the structure and grade-related differentiation of multidimensional self-concept instruments for children using ESEM. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 330–355.Google Scholar
  3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billett, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: Conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(6), 312–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billett, S. (2008). Learning through work: Exploring instances of relational interdependencies. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(4), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billett, S. (2011). Subjectivity, self and personal agency in learning through and for work. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, L. Evans, & B. O’Connor (Eds.), SAGE handbook of workplace learning (pp. 60–72). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Billett, S., Harteis, C., & Eteläpelto, A. (Eds.). (2008). Emerging perspectives of workplace learning. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. (2004). Engineering identities. Career Development International, 9(3), 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, A., Kirpal, S., & Rauner, F. (Eds.). (2007). Identities at work. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chalofsky, N. (2003). An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 6(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgement and regulate thought. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(9), 393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collin, K., Paloniemi, S., & Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Multiple forms of professional agency for (non)crafting of work practices in hospital organisation. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 5(3), 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Collin, K., Lemmetty, S., Herranen, S., Paloniemi, S., Sintonen, T., & Riivari, E. (2017). Professional agency and creativity in information technology work. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 249–270). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Damsa, C. I., Froehlich, D. E., & Gegenfurtner, A. (2017). Reflections on empirical and methodological accounts of agency at work. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 445–464). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eraut, M. (2011). How researching learning at work can lead to tools for enhancing learning. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, L. Evans, & B. O’Connor (Eds.), SAGE handbook of workplace learning (pp. 181–197). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2014). Identity and agency in professional learning. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 645–672). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2017). Job crafting and identity in low-grade work: How hospital porters redefine the value of their work and expertise. Vocations and Learning, 10(3), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goller, M. (2017). Human agency at work: An active approach towards expertise development. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goller, M., & Harteis, C. (2017). Human agency at work: Towards a clarification and operationalisation of the concept. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 85–104). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goller, M., & Paloniemi, S. (Eds.). (2017). Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The emergence of learners’ transformative agency in a change laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2), 232–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harteis, C., & Goller, M. (2014). New skills for new jobs: Work agency as a necessary condition for successful lifelong learning. In S. Billett, T. Halttunen, & M. Koivisto (Eds.), Promoting, assessing, recognizing and certifying lifelong learning: International perspectives and practices (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G., & James, D. (2008). Understanding learning culturally: Overcoming the dualism between social and individual views of learning. Vocations and Learning, 1(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hökkä, P., Rasku-Puttonen, H., & Eteläpelto, A. (2008). Teacher educators’ workplace learning: The interdependency between individual agency and social context. In S. Billett, C. Harteis, & A. Eteläpelto (Eds.), Emerging perspectives of workplace learning (pp. 51–65). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Hökkä, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2010). Recent tensions and challenges of teacher education as manifested in the curriculum discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 845–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hökkä, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2012). The professional agency of teacher educators amid academic discourses. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(1), 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hökkä, P., Vähäsantanen, K., & Mahlakaarto, S. (2017). Teacher educators’ collective professional agency and identity – Transforming marginality to strength. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Imants, J., Wubbels, T., & Vermunt, J. (2013). Teachers’ enactment of workplace conditions and their beliefs and attitudes toward reform. Vocations and Learning, 6(3), 323−346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jääskelä, P., & Valleala, U. M. (2012). Opiskelijoiden toimijuus yliopisto-opinnoissa: Valtasuhteita, osallistumisaktiivisuutta, tietojen ja taitojen hallintaa. [University students’ agency: Power relations, participation activity, knowledge and skills Competences.] Paper presented at the symposium of Interactive Teaching and Learning, Jyväskylä, February 23.Google Scholar
  40. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & den Brok, J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense-making and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kira, M., & Balkin, D. (2014). Interactions between work and identities: Thriving, withering, or redefining the self? Human Resource Management Review, 24(2), 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lehto, A-M., & Sutela, H. (2014). Työolojen muutokset 1977–2013. [Changes in working conditions 1977–2013]. Official statistics of Finland. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar
  46. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lukic, D., Margaryan, A., & Littlejohn, A. (2013). Individual agency in learning from incidents. Human Resource Development International, 16(4), 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504.Google Scholar
  49. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation. In A. Maydeu Olivares & J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics (pp. 275–340). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right – Camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  55. Paloniemi, S., & Goller, M. (2017). The multifaceted nature of agency and professional learning. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 465–478). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017). Teacher agency and professional learning communities: What can learning rounds in Scotland teach us? Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 318–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2012). Do comprehensive school teachers perceive themselves as active professional agents in school reforms? Journal of Educational Change, 13(1), 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency and learning – From adaption to active modification in the teacher community. Teaching and Teachers: Theory and Practice, 21(7), 811–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raemdonck, I., Thijssen, J., & de Greef, M. (2017). Self-directedness in work-related learning processes. Theoretical perspectives and development of a measurement instrument. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work. Agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 401–423). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., & Moate, J. (2016). Who and how? Preservice teachers as active agents developing professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55(4), 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, R. (2012). Clarifying the subject centred approach to vocational learning theory: Negotiated participation. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.Google Scholar
  66. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  67. Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tomlinson, J., Muzio, D., Sommerlad, H., Webley, L., & Duff, L. (2013). Structure, agency and career strategies of white women and black and minority ethnic individuals in the legal profession. Human Relations, 66(2), 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., & Rust, F. O. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency in contradictory times. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 615–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vähäsantanen, K., & Eteläpelto, A. (2011). Vocational teachers’ pathways in the course of a curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vähäsantanen, K., & Eteläpelto, A. (2015). Professional agency, identity, and emotions while leaving one’s work organization. Professions and Professionalism, 5(3), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., Eteläpelto, A., Rasku-Puttonen, H., & Littleton, K. (2008). Teachers’ professional identity negotiations in two different work organisations. Vocations and Learning, 1(2), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vähäsantanen, K., Saarinen, J., & Eteläpelto, A. (2009). Between school and working life: Vocational teachers’ agency in boundary-crossing settings. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(6), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., Paloniemi, S., Herranen, S., & Eteläpelto, A. (2017a). Professional learning and agency in an identity coaching programme. Professional Development in Education, 43(4), 514–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vähäsantanen, K., Paloniemi, S., Hökkä, P., & Eteläpelto, A. (2017b). An agency-promoting learning arena for developing shared work practices. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 351–372). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Valleala, U., Herranen, S., Collin, K., & Paloniemi, S. (2015). Fostering learning opportunities through employee participation amid organizational change. Vocations and Learning, 8(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. Activités, 3(1), 19–42.Google Scholar
  81. Vuori, T., San, E., & Kira, M. (2012). Meaningfulness-making at work. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 7(2), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weber, S. (2013). Sense of workplace learning. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ylén, M. (2017). Professional virtues and agency in work: Ethnography of software developers. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 291–310). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Young, V., & Bhaumik, C. (2011). Health and well-being at work: A survey of employees. Department for Work and Pensions. Research report 751. Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and PsychologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations