Examining Model Fit of the Five-Dimensional Work Orientations Questionnaire: A Cross-Cultural Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This cross-cultural study explores the structural fit of the work orientations questionnaire (WOQ) across five distinct cultures. Participants from France, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, and USA answered questions related to their personality, cultural values, and work orientations. We conduct confirmatory factor analysis to test for the WOQ model fit and measurement invariance across our five-country sample. Initial model fit indices were poor across all countries and indicate that the five-dimensional model of the WOQ is interpreted differently across cultures. Items from the job and calling subscales were especially problematic. After removing problematic items, we re-tested a revised model and found adequate fit indices for all countries except Nigeria. The work orientations of our five-country sample appeared to fall under two cultural groupings, aligned with cultural theory. Mastery, hierarchy, and embeddedness were significant predictors of career and calling orientations, whereas collectivism strongly predicted social embeddedness orientations. Calling orientation was moderate for all countries, questioning its global prevalence and construct interpretability. Increasing immigration to western societies leads to new challenges in managing workplace diversity. Career counsellors working with immigrants should caution the utility of using western-based instruments on diverse workforces. Our findings have implications for meaningful work instruments and practitioners using onboarding questionnaires for career planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".