Value Attainment Scale

Abstract

The Value Attainment scale is derived from the seminal work of Rokeach (1973), originally designed to measure the importance ranking assigned by an individual to 36 fundamental human values. This comprehensive measure is bifurcated into 18 terminal values and 18 instrumental values. Terminal values represent desirable end states (e.g., a comfortable life), categorized as either self-centered or society-centered. Instrumental values refer to preferred modes of behavior (e.g., honesty), categorized as moral-focused or competence-focused.

While the original Rokeach measure utilized an ipsative (rank-ordering) methodology, subsequent applications, particularly within organizational research, adapted the response format to a Likert-type scale. In organizational contexts, the measure is often specifically used to assess the extent to which an employee perceives that their job or work environment facilitates the attainment of their desired terminal values (George & Jones, 1996; Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999).

Keywords

Value Attainment, Rokeach Value Survey, Terminal values, Instrumental values, Ipsative measurement, Organizational behavior, Job satisfaction, Likert-type scale, Affectivity.

Authors

Milton Rokeach (1973)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the original Rokeach measure was to assess the hierarchical structure and relative importance of both terminal and instrumental values in an individual’s life. When adapted as the Value Attainment scale, its purpose shifts slightly, particularly in applied psychology and organizational studies.

In applied settings, the scale is utilized to quantify the congruence between an individual’s desired end states (terminal values) and the perceived reality of their current situation, such as their job or work environment. Researchers use the attainment score to determine the degree to which an employee feels their work facilitates achieving these desired outcomes, correlating these scores with crucial organizational variables like performance and job satisfaction.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Human Values, specifically defined through Rokeach’s two-system model. This model posits that an individual holds a relatively stable set of beliefs about preferred modes of conduct or preferred end states of existence.

• Terminal Values: These 18 values concern desirable end states or goals that a person strives to achieve over a lifetime (e.g., happiness, wisdom). They are categorized as either self-centered (focusing on personal outcomes) or society-centered (focusing on global or social outcomes).
• Instrumental Values: These 18 values concern desirable modes of conduct or means of achieving terminal goals (e.g., honesty, capability). They are categorized as either moral-focused (interpersonal conduct) or competence-focused (personal capability).

The Value Attainment scale specifically focuses on the perceived fulfillment or achievement of these values, often concentrating on the terminal values subset in organizational research.

Validity

Empirical evidence supports the construct and criterion validity of the Value Attainment measure, particularly when assessing the attainment of terminal values in the workplace. Studies demonstrate that the attainment of these values functions as a strong predictor of key employee attitudes and behaviors.

Specifically, research indicates that the attainment of terminal values correlates positively with desirable outcomes such as increased job satisfaction, higher job performance, and greater employee positive affectivity. Conversely, value attainment correlates negatively with undesirable outcomes, including higher turnover intentions and increased employee negative affectivity (George & Jones, 1996; Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999). These correlations suggest that the scale effectively measures a construct relevant to employee well-being and organizational success.

Reliability

The reliability of the Value Attainment measure is generally high, particularly when administered using the adapted Likert-type scale format, rather than the original ipsative ranking method. Internal consistency estimates, measured using Coefficient alpha, show strong results for the terminal values subscale in various organizational studies.

Reported Coefficient alpha values for terminal values typically range from .85 to .93 (George & Jones, 1996; Hochwarter, Perrewe, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999). This robust range indicates that the items measuring terminal value attainment are highly intercorrelated and reliably measure the intended underlying construct.

Factor Analysis

While the original Rokeach Value Survey inherently suggests a two-factor structure (Terminal vs. Instrumental values), the source material does not provide specific factor analysis details for the Value Attainment scale when used in its adapted Likert format. However, the consistent use of the terminal values sub-set in organizational research implies that these items load onto a coherent factor representing desired end states or outcomes.

Further analysis of the 36 items typically explores the underlying dimensions within the terminal and instrumental categories themselves (e.g., self-focused vs. society-focused terminal values; moral vs. competence instrumental values), confirming Rokeach’s theoretical framework.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Scale; Value Assessment Inventory

Format: Originally Ipsative (rank-ordering of values); commonly adapted to a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = least important to 7 = most important, or measuring degree of attainment).

Language Available: English (Original); translations exist for the broader Rokeach Value Survey.

Population Group: General population (original design); Employees, Managers, and CEOs (organizational applications).

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically employed adults in organizational research).

Population Details: The scale is appropriate for measuring value systems and value attainment across diverse demographic and professional groups.

Test Methodology: Self-report inventory, requiring respondents to either rank the 36 values by importance or rate their importance/attainment using a graded response scale.

Keywords

Value congruence, Psychological measurement, Rokeach, Organizational commitment, Job performance, Psychometrics, Internal consistency, Turnover intentions.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided for Rokeach)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1973 (Original Rokeach Value Survey)

Permissions & Fee: The original items were published in The nature of human values (Rokeach, 1973) and are reprinted and adapted with the permission of The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. Researchers seeking to use the scale must adhere to standard copyright and permissions requirements set by the publisher.

Reference’s

• Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507-525.
• Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. I. (1991). The Rokeach Value Survey: An evaluation of its use in the field. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(1), 81-87.
• George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and value attainment: A structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(5), 455-467.
• Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Brymer, R. A. (1999). The interaction of job-related affectivity and value attainment on job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1019-1036.
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Items were taken from Table 2.1, p. 28, or Appendix A, pp. 359-361.

Items of the Value Attainment scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

For the Likert-type measure of attainment of terminal values, responses are obtained on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = least important and 7 = most important. Responses may also be obtained by requesting respondents to rank the values in order of importance (Brief, Dukerich, & Doran, 1991).

Terminal values items:

1. A comfortable life (a prosperous life)
2. An exciting life (a stimulating, active life)
3. A sense of accomplishment (lasting contribution)
4. A world at peace (free of war and conflict)
5. A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts)
6. Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all)
7. Family security (taking care of loved ones)
8. Freedom (independence, free choice)
9. Happiness (contentedness)
10. Inner harmony (freedom from inner conflict)
11. Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy)
12. National security (protection from attack)
13. Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life)
14. Saved (eternal life)
15. Self-respect (self-esteem)
16. Social recognition (respect, admiration)
17. True friendship (close companionship)
18. Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)

Instrumental values items:

1. Ambitious (hard-working, aspiring)
2. Broadminded (open-minded)
3. Capable (competent, effective)
4. Cheerful (lighthearted, joyful)
5. Clean (neat, tidy)
6. Courageous (standing up for your beliefs)
7. Forgiving (willing to pardon others)
8. Helpful (working for the welfare of others)
9. Honest (sincere, truthful)
10. Imaginative (daring, creative)
11. Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient)
12. Intellectual (intelligent, reflective)
13. Logical (consistent, rational)
14. Loving (affectionate, tender)
15. Obedient (dutiful, respectful)
16. Polite (courteous, well-mannered)
17. Responsible (dependable, reliable)
18. Self-controlled (restrained, self-disciplined)