Vol. 17, n. 2, giugno 2024
STRUMENTI
Study Crafting Scale: Proprietà psicometriche su studenti universitari
Annamaria Di Fabio1 e Andrea Svicher2
Sommario
Il costrutto di study crafting, derivato dal job crafting, sta suscitando sempre più interesse. Tuttavia, al meglio delle nostre conoscenze, nessuno studio lo ha adattato dal modello proposto da Leana, Appelbaum e Shevchuk, che comprende due forme di crafting: individual crafting e collaborative crafting. Il presente studio si propone di testare le proprietà psicometriche della Study Crafting Scale in studenti universitari italiani. La Study Crafting Scale è un questionario self-report composto da 12 item e due fattori: individual crafting (6 item) e collaborative crafting (6 item). Abbiamo coinvolto 236 studenti universitari italiani e abbiamo condotto un’analisi fattoriale confermativa. La validità concorrente è stata testata utilizzando la Satisfaction with Life Scale e la Meaningful Life Measure. I risultati dell’analisi fattoriale confermativa mostrano che la Study Crafting Scale ha una struttura fattoriale higer-order bidimensionale, con sei elementi per ciascun fattore (crafting individuale e crafting collaborativo). È stata confermata la validità concorrente con la Satisfaction with Life Scale e la Meaningful Life Measure. La Study Crafting Scale possiede buone proprietà psicometriche ed è adatta per l’applicazione in contesti di ricerca e di intervento.
Parole chiave
Study crafting, Study Crafting Scale, Studenti universitari, Well-being.
INSTRUMENTS
Study Crafting Scale: Psychometric Properties in University Students
Annamaria Di Fabio3 and Andrea Svicher4
Abstract
The construct of study crafting, derived from job crafting, is increasingly gaining interest. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has adapted it from the model proposed by Leana, Appelbaum, and Shevchuk, which includes two forms of crafting: individual crafting and collaborative crafting. The present study aims to test the psychometric properties of the Study Crafting Scale in Italian university students. The Study Crafting Scale is a self-report questionnaire comprising 12 items and two factors: individual crafting (6 items) and collaborative crafting (6 items). We involved 236 Italian university students and we conducted confirmatory factor analysis. The concurrent validity was tested using the Satisfaction with Life Scale and Meaningful Life Measure. The results of confirmatory factor analysis show that the Study Crafting Scale has a higher-order two-dimensional factor structure, with six items for each factor (individual crafting and collaborative crafting) and a total score. The concurrent validity with satisfaction with life and meaning in life was confirmed. The Study Crafting Scale possesses good psychometric properties and is suitable for application in research and intervention contexts.
Keywords
Study crafting, Study Crafting Scale, University students, Well-being.
Introduction
The construct of study crafting, an extension of job crafting for higher education, has recently been developed (Clements & Kamau, 2018; Choi & Shin, 2018; Dormann & Guthier, 2019; Ferreira, 2020; Körner et al., 2021, 2023; Lesener et al., 2020). Job crafting is recognized as a bottom-up work design tool where employees alter their jobs to fit their preferences and find meaning. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) suggest that individuals craft their jobs to better align their work with their needs and abilities by altering their task boundaries (task crafting), their relationships at work (relational crafting), and how they think about their work (cognitive crafting). Subsequently, Leana et al. (2009) expanded upon Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (2001) model by examining not just individual crafting behaviours but also collaborative crafting among workers who together customize the way their work is organized and enacted.
Research on job crafting saw rapid growth when Tims and Bakker (2010) conceptualized job crafting from the perspective of job demands-resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Accordingly, job crafting involves changes employees make to balance their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and needs to create or restore their person-job fit (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job demands refer to aspects of the job that require effort and are associated with psychophysiological costs, whereas job resources refer to aspects that facilitate dealing with job demands, goal accomplishment, and growth (Demerouti et al., 2001).
Specifically, individuals craft their jobs by: (a) increasing challenging job demands to maintain motivation and avoid boredom, (b) reducing hindering demands to protect their health and energy, (c) increasing structural job resources, and (d) increasing social job resources to optimize demands and enhance working methods (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018; Petrou et al., 2012). Several studies have shown that job crafting positively affects need satisfaction (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014), and is associated with higher person–job and demands–abilities fit (Lu et al., 2014; Shenavar, 2017), job performance (Bakker et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2014), work engagement (Rudolph et al., 2017), job satisfaction (Dierdorff & Jensen, 2017), and better health and well-being (e.g., Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2016).
Building on these premises, the JD-R model (Clements & Kamau, 2018; Lesener et al., 2020) and the concept of job crafting (Körner et al., 2021) were recently adapted to the university context. This adaptation starts from the idea that students face similar demands, such as time and performance pressure, and access comparable resources, such as support and autonomy, as employees do (Mülder et al., 2022). Körner et al. (2021) define study crafting as the proactive modification of the study environment (i.e., study demands and study resources) by students to improve the fit between the study environment and their preferences, needs, and abilities. Accordingly, study crafting involves: (a) increasing challenging study demands (engaging in new and interesting projects), (b) reducing hindering study demands (postponing or avoiding overly mentally or emotionally demanding tasks), (c) increasing structural study resources (asking lecturers for more latitude), and (d) increasing social study resources (proactively asking lecturers for feedback) (Mülder et al., 2022).
From this perspective, study crafting has been found to be associated with meaning in life (Choi & Shin, 2018), life satisfaction (Choi & Shin, 2018), academic satisfaction (Choi & Shin, 2018), meaning in academic work (Choi & Shin, 2018), study engagement (Ferreira, 2020; Körner et al., 2022), and study-course fit (Ferreira, 2020). Despite these advancements in the field of study crafting, no study, to the best of our knowledge, has produced an adaptation of the study crafting construct considering Leana and colleagues’ model (2009), which highlights the dimensions of individual crafting and collaborative crafting. While collaborative behaviours among peers and in teacher-student dynamics have been extensively studied through collaborative instruction models (Vembye et al., 2024) and collaborative learning models (Muñoz Miguel et al., 2023), practices of collaborative crafting have not been studied yet. Therefore, to promote research in this area, the present study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of the Study Crafting Scale, a self-report instrument consisting of 12 items derived from Leana and colleagues’ Job Crafting Scale (2009), which assesses the two dimensions of individual crafting and collaborative crafting among Italian university students.
Methods
Participants and Procedure
This study involved 236 university students from Central Italy, with 134 females (57%) and 102 males (43%), with a mean age of 20.87 years (SD = 1.76). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained following Italian privacy regulations (DL-196/2003; EU 2016/679). To mitigate any potential presentation order effects, the questionnaire administration sequence was counterbalanced.
Measures
The Study Crafting Scale by Di Fabio and Svicher, adapted from the Italian version (Di Fabio, 2020) of the Job Crafting Scale (Leana et al., 2009), is composed of twelve items with a response format on a 6-point Likert scale (from 1 = «Never» to 6 = «Every day»). It measures two dimensions: Individual Crafting and Collaborative Crafting.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diner et al., 1985; Italian version: Di Fabio & Gori, 2016) is a five-item self-report measure designed to assess cognitive aspects related to the overall subjective perception of well-being, emphasizing individual autonomous judgment. Participants rated each item using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from «Strongly agree» to «Strongly disagree». In this study, the SWLS demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of .81.
The Meaningful Life Measure (MLM; Morgan & Farsides, 2009; Italian version: Di Fabio, 2014) is a 23-item self-report instrument designed to assess five dimensions of life meaning as well as a total score. Respondents rate each item on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from «Strongly disagree» to «Strongly agree». The five dimensions include Accomplished Life (sense of achieving personal goals), Principled Life (having a guiding philosophy or life framework), Purposeful Life (possessing specific aims and ambitions), Exciting Life (experiencing life as engaging and exciting), and Valued Life (recognizing the intrinsic worth of life). For this study, the total score was used, and the MLM showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .87.
Statistical Analysis
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated four models: unidimensional (all items loading onto a single Study Crafting factor), correlational (two correlated factors: Individual Crafting and Collaborative Crafting), higher order (two factors regressed onto a general Study Crafting factor), and bi-factor (items regressed on their respective factors). Model fit was assessed using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Good fit was indicated by CFI and TLI values greater than .97, acceptable fit by values between .95 and .97. RMSEA values were categorized as good (≤ .05), acceptable (.05-.08), mediocre (.08-.10), and unacceptable (> .10) (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). The reliability of the Study Crafting Scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alphas with the Psych 2.3.3 R package. Alpha (α) values greater than .70 were considered adequate. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to evaluate concurrent validity between the Study Crafting Scale, Satisfaction with Life Scale, and Meaningful Life Measure. All analyses were conducted using R studio 2022.12.0 for Macintosh, Posit Software, Boston, MA, USA.
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis results are shown in Table 1. Among the four tested models, the bi-factor model best fit the data. The path diagram of the tested model is shown in Figure 1. Cronbach’s alphas for the two factors and total scores of the Study Crafting Scale are reported in Table 2. Pearson’s correlations between the Study Crafting Scale and SWLS, as well as between the Study Crafting Scale and MLM, are presented in Table 3. All factors and total scores of the Study Crafting Scale showed positive and statistically significant correlations with both the MLM and SWLS.
Table 1
Study Crafting Scale: Confirmatory Factor Analysis - Fit Indices Comparison (N = 236)
|
Model |
χ2(df) |
CFI |
TLI |
RMSEA (90%CI) |
SRMR |
|
One-factor |
815.077(54) |
.61 |
.52 |
.17 (.15-.18) |
.13 |
|
Two-factor |
304.567(52) |
.87 |
.85 |
.10 (.09-.11) |
.07 |
|
Higher-order |
304.567(51) |
.87 |
.86 |
.10 (.08-.11) |
.07 |
|
Bifactor |
101.556(42) |
.96 |
.93 |
.06 (.43-.71) |
.05 |
Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual; Bold characters displayed the model with the best fit.
Table 2
Cronbach’s Alphas for the Two-Factor Higher Order Model (N = 236)
|
Factors |
Cronbach’s Alpha |
|
IC |
.91 |
|
CC |
.87 |
|
SC total |
.89 |
Note: IC = Individual Crafting; CC = Collaborative Crafting; SC = Study Crafting total score.
Table 3
Correlations Between Study Crafting Scale and Satisfaction with Life Scale and Between Study Crafting Scale and Meaningful Life Measure (N = 236)
|
Satisfaction with Life Scale |
Meaningful Life Measure |
|
|
Individual Crafting |
.29** |
.36** |
|
Collaborative Crafting |
.34** |
.43** |
|
Study Crafting total |
.31** |
.41** |
** p ≤ .01.
Figure 1
Note: SC = Study Crafting total factor; IC = Individual Crafting; CC = Collaborative Crafting.
Study Crafting Scale: Confirmatory Factor Analysis — Path Diagram of the Tested Models (n = 236)
Discussion
Despite the recent and growing interest in the literature for the construct of study crafting (Clements & Kamau, 2018; Choi & Shin, 2018; Dormann & Guthier, 2019; Ferreira, 2020; Körner et al., 2021, 2023; Lesener et al., 2020), no research has, to the best of our knowledge, explored the study crafting model based on the research of Leana and colleagues (2009), who developed two dimensions of crafting: individual crafting and collaborative crafting. The present study aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Study Crafting Scale, developed from the Job Crafting Scale by Leana et al. (2009). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the Study Crafting Scale has the best fit to the data for a bi-factor model composed of two factors, individual crafting and collaborative crafting, and a general study crafting factor that allows for the calculation of a total score. These factors, individual crafting, collaborative crafting, and the total score, showed good reliability. The results are in line with the Italian version of the Job Crafting Scale, which showed the presence of two factors plus a total score for the scale (Di Fabio, 2020). The concurrent validity with the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Meaningful Life Measure was confirmed by positive and statistically significant correlations. In general, the Italian version of the Study Crafting Scale has shown good psychometric properties, making it suitable for use in research and intervention among Italian university students.
References
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712453471
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Choi, Y., & Shin, J.Y. (2018). Validation of the study crafting questionnaire (SCQ) among online and offline university students. Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 73-99. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.34.1.073
Clements, A.J., & Kamau, C. (2018). Understanding students’ motivation towards proactive career behaviours through goal-setting theory and the job demands-resources model. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2279-2293. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.132602
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2018). Transmission of reduction-oriented crafting among colleagues: A diary study on the moderating role of working conditions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91, 209-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12196
Dierdorff, E.C., & Jensen, J.M. (2017). Crafting in context: Exploring when job crafting is dysfunctional for performance effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000295
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Di Fabio, A. (2014). Meaningful life measure: primo contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [Meaningful Life Measure: First contribution to the validation of the Italian version]. Counseling. International Journal of Research and Intervention, 7, 307-315.
Di Fabio, A. (2020). Job Crafting Scale: Psychometric properties of the Italian version. Counseling. International Journal of Research and Intervention, 13(1), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1312007
Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016). Measuring adolescent life satisfaction: Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale in a sample of Italian adolescents and young adults. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(5), 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915621223
Dormann, C., & Guthier, C. (2019). Successful and Positive Learning Through Study Crafting: A Self-Control Perspective. In O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia (Ed.), Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (PLATO) (pp. 57-72). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26578-6_5
Körner, L.S., Rigotti, T., & Rieder, K. (2021). Study crafting and self-undermining in higher education students: A weekly diary study on the antecedents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 7090. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137090
Körner, L.S., Mülder, L.M., Bruno, L., Janneck, M., Dettmers, J., & Rigotti, T. (2023). Fostering study crafting to increase engagement and reduce exhaustion among higher education students: A randomized controlled trial of the STUDYCoach online intervention. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 15(2), 776-802. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12410
Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working beyond retirement age. The Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009
Morgan, J., & Farsides, T. (2009). Measuring meaning in life. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 10(2), 197- 214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9075-0
Ferreira, M. (2020). The validation of a study crafting scale within the South African higher education context. Doctoral dissertation. North-West University South Africa. Available at: https://repository.nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/34868/Ferreira%20M%2024969125.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed May 17, 2024).
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1169-1192. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.47084651
Lesener, T., Pleiss, L.S., Gusy, B., & Wolter, C. (2020). The study demands-resources framework: An empirical introduction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), 5183. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145183
Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004
Mülder, L.M., Schimek, S., Werner, A.M., Reichel, J.L., Heller, S., Tibubos, A.N., Schäfer, M., Dietz, P., Letzel, S., Beutel, M.E., Stark, B., Simon, P., & Rigotti, T. (2022). Distinct patterns of university students study crafting and the relationships to exhaustion, well-being, and engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895930
Muñoz Miguel, J.P., Simón de Blas, C., Anguita Rodríguez, F., & García Sipols, A.E. (2023). Collaborative learning in management subjects to university students: A multi-level research to identify group profile, engagement, and academic performance. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100762
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120-1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1783
Rudolph, C.W., Katz, I.M., Lavigne, K.N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2014). Optimising employee mental health: The relationship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9458-3
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.
Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
Vembye, M.H., Weiss, F., & Hamilton Bhat, B. (2024). The effects of co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction on student achievement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(3), 376-422. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588
Wrzesniewksi, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.2307/259118
-
1 Responsabile scientifico del laboratorio internazionale di ricerca e intervento «Psicologia del Lavoro e delle Organizzazioni per l’orientamento professionale, il career counseling, il career development, i talenti e le organizzazioni in salute» e del Laboratorio internazionale di ricerca e intervento «Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability», Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura, Letterature e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori. html.
-
2 Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura, Letterature e Psicologia (Sezione Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italia.
-
3 Director of the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Work and Organizational Psychology for Vocational Guidance, Career Counseling, Career Development, Talents and Healthy Organizations» and of the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability», Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Florence, Italy, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html.
-
4 THE-Tuscany Health Ecosystem NextGeneration UE-NRRP, Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Vol. 17, Issue 2, June 2024
