Measurement of Person-Environment Fit in Community

Settings Industrial-Organizational PerspectivesChristopher R. Beasley

Leonard A. JasonSteven A. Miller2011 SCRA Biennial

Mental Health & Community

(Mis)Fit Alienation 1

Anxiety 2

Depression 2

Diminished well-being 2

Fit Satisfaction 3,4,5,6,7, Commitment 3,6,8

Identification with a setting 3

Citizenship behaviors 3

Social integration 9

Intent to stay in a setting 6

Attendance of meetings 10,11

Group involvement 12

Conceptualization

Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results DiscussionIntroduction

I/O Conceptualization of FitIntroduction Implications GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat

ion

Value Congruence

Value Congruence 13

When an individual’s values are similar to those of the setting

Example Individual value for

12-step recovery and setting emphasis on 12-step recovery

I/O Conceptualization of Fit

Interpersonal Similarity

Value Congruence

Supplementary 14

When individuals are similar to other members of an environment

Example Military veterans

living with other veterans

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Needs Supplies

Interpersonal Similarity

Value Congruence

Needs-Supplies 15

When a setting supplies what an individual needs psychologically and physically

Example An individual with a

high need for cognitive structure in a highly structured environment

I/O Conceptualization of FitIntroduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat

ion

Needs Supplies

I/O Conceptualization of Fit

Individual Contributions

Interpersonal Similarity

Value Congruence

Complementary 14

When individuals complement environments

Example Individuals with

leadership skills in a house that otherwise lacks leadership

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Needs Supplies

I/O Conceptualization of Fit

Interpersonal Similarity

Demands Abilities

Value Congruence

Demands-Abilities 15

When individuals have the ability to meet the demands of their environment

Example When a person has

the life skills and cognitive abilities needed to live in a self-sufficient setting

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Individual Contributions

Needs Supplies

I/O Conceptualization of Fit

Interpersonal Similarity

Demands Abilities

Value Congruence

Direct Subjective

Direct vs. Indirect 16

Direct assesses P & E simultaneously

Indirect assesses P & E separately

Subjective vs. Objective Subjective is a person’s

perception of fit Objective is a third-

party assessment of fit

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Individual Contributions

Needs Supplies

I/O Conceptualization of Fit

Interpersonal Similarity

Demands Abilities

Value Congruence

P-E Fit Directly, Subjectively Value Congruence Interpersonal

Similarity Needs-Supplies Fit Individual

Contributions Demands-Abilities Fit

Direct Subjective

Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

Individual Contributions

Person-Environment

Fit

Introduction Conceptualization

General Environment Fit Scale

GEFS Person-environment fit measure Brief 15-item measure Flexible language for various settings Forward & reverse phrasing Five components of fit

GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

Introduction Conceptualization

General Environment Fit Scale

Value Congruence My values prevent me from fitting in

with my Oxford House.* The values of my Oxford House do not

reflect my own values.* My personal values are similar to those

of my Oxford House.

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

General Environment Fit Scale

Interpersonal Similarity The other residents of my Oxford

House are similar to me. The other residents of my Oxford

House are different from me.* I am different than the other residents of

my Oxford House.*

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

General Environment Fit Scale

Unique Contributions My unique differences add to the

success of my Oxford House. Nothing unique about me adds to the

success of my Oxford House.* I make unique contributions to my

Oxford House.

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

General Environment Fit Scale

Needs-Supplies Fit The Oxford House that I currently live in

gives me just about everything I could ever need from a recovery home

There is a poor fit between what my Oxford House offers me and what I need in a recovery home.*

The Oxford House that I live in does not have the attributes that I need in a recovery home.*

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

General Environment Fit Scale

Demands-Abilities Fit I have the ability to meet the demands

of my Oxford House. The match is very good between the

demands of my Oxford House and my personal skills.

I am not able to meet the demands of my Oxford House.*

* Indicates a reverse-scored item

Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

Sample

246 attendees of the annual Oxford House World Convention Mutual-help addiction recovery housing system No professional staff Over 1400 houses across the U.S. and abroad

Sample demographics 71% White, 19% Black, 11% Multiple or Other 52% Male, 48% Female Median recovery = 24 months (SD = 42.86, 0-326) 79% current residents (Median = 12 mo., SD =

20.97, 0-117)

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethodsMethods

Measures

GEFS Person-environment fit 26-item 4-point Likert-type

Job Satisfaction Index Subcale Judge, Bono, and Locke’s (2000) Rothe (1951) Modified measure of workplace satisfaction Replaced “Job” with “Oxford House” 6-item 7-point Likert-type α = .81

Tenure How much longer do you expect to live in your Oxford

House? Years? Months?

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods

Descriptive StatisticsIntroduction Conceptualizat

ion GEFS Results DiscussionMethods Results

Variable means and standard deviationsMin Max Mean SD

GEFS 33 60 50.02 5.19Satisfaction 6 35 30.49 4.36Tenure 0 117 21.08 46.9

GEFS Subscales

Subscale internal consistency, descriptive statistics, and inter-scale correlations

Subscale α Min Max Mean SD VC IS UR NSValue Congruence .65 4 12 10.12 1.57 ---Interpersonal Similarity .78 3 12 8.14 2.08 .38* ---Unique Role .72 3 12 9.93 1.65 .20* -.14 ---Needs-Supplies Fit .71 6 12 10.43 1.57 .54* .29* .26* ---Demands-Abilities Fit .49 7 12 10.52 1.24 .33* .07 .47* .43*

Notes. *p < .01 VC = Value Congruence subscale NS = Needs-Supplies subscale DA = Demands-Abilities subscale IS indicates Interpersonal Similarity subscale UC = Unique Contribution subscale

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

CFA Results

CFA Model Fit Statistics

Models χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA RMSEA C.I.

SRMR

Model 1a 124.37** 80 .94 .92 .05 [.03, .07] .06Model 1b 126.48** 80 .92 .90 .06 [.04, .07] .06Model 2 389.17** 90 .57 .50 .12 [.11, .14] .12Model 3 338.44** 89 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .13] .11Model 4 336.04** 87 .64 .57 .11 [.10, .13] .11Model 5 338.13** 90 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .12] .19Model 6 172.52** 85 .87 .84 .07 [.05, .08] .08

Notes. aTheorized five-factor model using the entire sample. bTheorized five-factor model using only current residents. CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual. **p < .001

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

Prediction of Satisfaction

Needs-Supplies fit β = .52, t(151) = 7.50, p < .001 rp

2 = .25 Explained 25% of the variance

Interpersonal Similarity β = .14, t(151) = 1.94, p = .05 rp

2 = .02 Explained 2% of the variance

These two aspects of fit explained 33% of the variance in resident satisfaction R2 = .33, F(2, 153) = 37.21, p < .001

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

Prediction of Tenure

Interpersonal Similarity β = .20, t(122) = 2.43, p = .02, rp

2 = .04 Explained 4% of the variance

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results

Summary

Existing measures of P-E fit are not adequate for community settings

Not flexible across settings Do not examine all facets of fit Interpersonal similarity seems to be

important in community settings Need fulfillment may be more

important in service settings

DiscussionDiscussion

Limitations

Convenience sample Limited range Limited validity Internal consistency of Demands-

Abilities Fit and Value Congruence

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion

Future Directions

5-point scale Other settings Multiple setting fit and global

outcomes Benefits of misfit Program-environment fit

Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion

References1.Thomson, W.C. & Wendt, J.C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by student

teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 269-274.2.Caplan, R.D., Tripathi, R.C., & Naidu, R.K. (1985). Subjective past, present, and future fit: Effects on anxiety, depression, and

other indicators of well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 180-197.3.Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.4.DeRue, D.S & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Stability and change in person–team and person–role fit over time: The effects of growth

satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253.5.Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences

on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453.6.Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work

attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.7.Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction

lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.8.Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee

commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477.9.Segal, S.P., Silverman, C., & Baumohl, J. (1989). Seeking person-environment fit in community care placement. Journal of

Social Issues, 45(3), 49-64.10.Humphreys, K. & Woods, M.D. (1993). Researching mutual help group participation in a segregated society. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 181-201.11.Luke, D.A., Roberts, L., & Rappaport, J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-fit predictors of self-help group

attendance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 216-238.12.Mankowski, E.S., Humphreys, K., & Moos, R.H. (2001). Individual and contextual predictors of involvement in twelve-step

self-help groups after substance use treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 537-563.13.Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of

Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.14.Muchinsky, P.M. & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary

models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.15.Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and

mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.16.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications.

Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.

NE

T

D

HE

?