The Assessment of Workaholism as Behavioral Tendencies: Scale Development and Preliminary Empirical Testing

This article reports on the development and preliminary empirical testing of two new scales designed to assess workaholic behavioral patterns. One scale assessed employee tendencies to perform nonrequired work (typically, spending time thinking of ways to perform work better), and the other measured tendencies to intrude on and attempt to control the work of others. These scales seem consistent with both conceptual definitions and anecdotal accounts of workaholism. Moreover, the scales were designed to assess behavioral tendencies rather than work attitudes, to circumvent the possibility of rationalization and denial among workaholic respondents, and to be applicable across multiple work contexts. Evidence from a sample of 278 employed respondents indicated that the scales were internally consistent, and represented distinct constructs. The scales also demonstrated evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. For example, scores on the nonrequired work scale correlated positively with hours worked and with the needs for achievement, autonomy, and affiliation. Scores on the control of others scale correlated positively with job involvement, stress, work-nonwork conflict, role conflict, dominance needs, and self-monitoring. In summary, the workaholism scales developed for this investigation appear both reliable and valid and thus potentially able to shed light on the phenomenon of workaholism.     

A potential inflating effect in estimation models: Cautionary evidence from comparing performance enhancing drug and herbal hormonal supplement use estimates

ObjectivesThis paper compares two indirect prevalence estimation methods that offer protection beyond anonymity and are suitable for self-administration, for investigating the epidemiology of transgressive or socially sensitive behaviours.DesignIn this self-report study, 513 participants (58.7% male) from sports clubs across the UK and southern Ireland were asked to complete an anonymous survey containing the recently developed Single Sample Count (SSC), along with a comparative method Unrelated Question Model (UQM), using prohibited performance-enhancing drugs/substances (PED) as sensitive and hormone-boosting herbal supplements (HS) as non-sensitive control questions.MethodThe survey comprised of sections of SSC, UQM, social projection and simple network scale up methods. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they preferred the SSC or UQM for more protection and ease of completion.ResultsA large discrepancy was observed in prevalence estimates for PED using the UQM (58.4%) and SSC (19.8%), but not for HS (54.9% and 54.0%, respectively). The SSC prevalence estimate for PED was in keeping with the results from social projection (13.8% in own sport; 26.1% in all sports) and network scale up (19.3% for known and suspected doping combined). A clear preference was logged for SSC.ConclusionSSC, but not UQM, showed good concurrent validity with social projection and personal networks for PED; and good discriminant validity with HS. The observed discrepancy could be explained by strategic responding which can inflate the proportion of ‘yes’ answers in the UQM. Adaptation of the UQM for self-administration may lead to an unwanted upward response distortion via strategic responding.