Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale

Abstract

The Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale (AAJCS), developed by Lopper, Horstmann, and Hoppe in 2024, is a psychological inventory designed to comprehensively assess specific dimensions of employee-initiated work redesign. The AAJCS is grounded in the hierarchical structure of job crafting proposed by Zhang and Parker (2019), differentiating between behavioral and cognitive strategies, as well as approach and avoidance orientations.

Scale development utilized a rigorous deductive approach, beginning with an extensive pool of 80 potential items. Following cognitive interviews with employees and subsequent statistical evaluation, including factor analysis, the final instrument was refined to 40 items distributed across eight distinct dimensions. This structure allows the AAJCS to capture the nuanced duality of job crafting efforts, specifically measuring how employees proactively seek out (approach) or strategically reduce/minimize (avoidance) job resources and demands.

Keywords

Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting, Behavioral Resources Crafting, Cognitive Demands Crafting, Factorial Validity, Incremental Validity, Job Crafting, Organizational Psychology, Work Design, Employee Performance

Authors

Lopper, Elisa, Horstmann, Kai T., Hoppe, Annekatrin

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale (AAJCS) is to provide a detailed, psychometrically sound measure for assessing the specific dimensions of job crafting employed by individuals in the workplace. Unlike earlier, broader measures, the AAJCS is intended to distinguish clearly between strategies aimed at maximizing positive aspects (approach) and those focused on minimizing negative or burdensome aspects (avoidance) of the job.

By assessing these distinct dimensions—behavioral resources, behavioral demands, cognitive resources, and cognitive demands—the scale enables researchers and practitioners to analyze the differential impact of approach and avoidance strategies on critical organizational outcomes, such as employee well-being, work engagement, and objective performance metrics.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured is Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting. This construct views job crafting not as a singular activity but as a multifaceted process aligned with motivational direction (approach vs. avoidance) and the target of the crafting effort (job resources vs. job demands; behavioral vs. cognitive).

The scale operationalizes job crafting into eight specific sub-dimensions, reflecting a hierarchical structure. The four approach dimensions involve actively seeking to increase resources (e.g., skill utilization, social support) or demands (e.g., seeking challenges). Conversely, the four avoidance dimensions involve actively reducing or mentally distancing oneself from job demands (e.g., emotional strain) or resources (e.g., tasks that do not advance one professionally).

Validity

The validation study demonstrated robust evidence for the AAJCS’s validity across multiple criteria. Regarding Construct Validity, the scale showed expected patterns of correlation: approach crafting dimensions were strongly correlated with other established approach-oriented behavioral strategies, while avoidance crafting dimensions correlated highly with avoidance-oriented strategies.

Criterion Validity findings highlighted the differential predictive power of the two major factors. Approach crafting was positively and significantly related to desirable outcomes, such as higher levels of work engagement and improved job performance. In contrast, avoidance crafting exhibited a negative relationship with these same outcomes. Furthermore, the AAJCS demonstrated Incremental Validity, confirming that the distinction between approach and avoidance crafting provides unique explanatory power beyond traditional measures when predicting work engagement and performance.

Reliability

The AAJCS exhibits high levels of internal consistency across its major factors. For the overall approach crafting factor, internal consistency was measured at Cronbach’s alpha (α) = .94 (95% CI=[.93, .95]) and Omega (ω) = .95. For the avoidance crafting factor, internal consistency was similarly strong, with α = .93 (95% CI=[.92, .94]) and ω = .95.

Test–retest reliability, assessed over time, indicated moderate to strong stability. The approach crafting factor demonstrated a stability coefficient of rtt = .76, suggesting good temporal stability. The avoidance crafting factor showed a slightly lower, though acceptable, stability coefficient of rtt = .57.

Factor Analysis

The development of the AAJCS involved rigorous statistical evaluation, including both exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Initially, a pool of 80 items was subjected to analysis, leading to the identification and removal of 8 problematic items that did not load cleanly onto the intended factors or exhibited poor psychometric properties.

The final 40-item scale was subjected to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), which confirmed the hypothesized eight-factor structure nested under the two overarching factors (Approach and Avoidance). The final model demonstrated strong fit indices, confirming the factorial validity and justifying the use of the eight subscales: Approach Behavioral Resources Crafting, Approach Behavioral Demands Crafting, Approach Cognitive Resources Crafting, Approach Cognitive Demands Crafting, Avoidance Behavioral Resources Crafting, Avoidance Behavioral Demands Crafting, Avoidance Cognitive Resources Crafting, and Avoidance Cognitive Demands Crafting.

Instrument

Test Type: Inventory/Questionnaire

Format: Items are rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree. The scale is typically administered electronically.

Language Available: English (translated from German)

Population Group: Human (Male and Female employees)

Age Group: Not specified, but generally applicable to working adults (Employees).

Population Details: The validation sample consisted of employees located in Germany.

Test Methodology: The development employed a variety of advanced psychometric techniques, including Test Validity analysis, Construct Validity, Convergent Validity, Criterion Validity, Discriminant Validity, Test Reliability assessment, Internal Consistency measures (Alpha and Omega), Test-Retest Reliability, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Structural Equation Modeling.

Keywords

Organizational Behavior, Work Demands, Work Resources, Job Performance, Work Engagement, Cognitive Reappraisal, Employee Well-being, Structural Equation Modeling

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Lopper, Elisa: ORCID 0000-0002-7676-7799

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Lopper, Elisa: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Psychology, Unter den Linden 6, Berlin, Germany, 10099

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale (AAJCS) is non-commercial and does not require a fee for use in research settings. The initial version of the scale was developed and validated in 2024. No file is currently available for public download.

Reference’s

Lopper, E., Horstmann, K. T., & Hoppe, A. (2024). The Approach‐Avoidance Job Crafting Scale: Development and validation of a measurement of the hierarchical structure of job crafting. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 73(1), 93–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12466

Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1266–1293.

Items of the Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale

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

Dimension	Item	Scale
1. Approach Behavioral Resources Crafting	I actively develop relationships with other people (e.g., colleagues, superiors, customers) at work.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I ask for feedback on the outcomes of my work.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I try to work with people (e.g., colleagues, customers) with whom I get on well.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I look for tasks that enable me to use my skills.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I look for tasks that help me to advance professionally.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
2. Approach Behavioral Demands Crafting	I look for new tasks when I don’t have much to do.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I voluntarily take on additional tasks at work.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I invest additional time and effort to do tasks better.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I actively seek challenges at work.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I voluntarily take on more responsibility at work.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
3. Approach Cognitive Resources Crafting	I can see how my tasks help me to advance professionally.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I am aware that my tasks are important for society.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I consciously perceive that I develop myself by working together with people (e.g., colleagues, superiors, customers).	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I can see how important my work is in my life.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
4. Approach Cognitive Demands Crafting	I concentrate on the positive aspects of my work.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I perceive difficult tasks as a positive challenge.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I am aware that difficult tasks help me to advance professionally.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I consider a high degree of responsibility at work to be motivating.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I am aware that tough decisions help me to advance professionally.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I consciously perceive that I also do tasks better under time pressure.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
5. Avoidance Behavioral Resources Crafting	I spend less time working on tasks that don’t really interest me.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I carry out tasks that do not help me to advance professionally with less enthusiasm.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I pass on tasks that involve less responsibility.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I give a low priority to tasks if I think I won’t get feedback on them.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I invest less time in tasks that don’t require me to use my skills.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
6. Avoidance Behavioral Demands Crafting	I put tasks that I find too demanding to the bottom of the pile.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I give away tasks that I don’t like.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I postpone tasks that I consider unnecessary.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I pass on tasks that potentially involve clashes with persons (e.g., colleagues, superiors, customers).	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I get tasks that require me to make tough decisions done faster.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
7. Avoidance Cognitive Resources Crafting	I try to avoid thinking about tasks that don’t require me to make decisions.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I take mental distance from tasks that do not help me to advance professionally.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I try to waste little thought on tasks for which I don’t get any support.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I don’t take tasks seriously where I can’t use my skills.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I try to avoid thinking about tasks that don’t enable me to advance professionally.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
8. Avoidance Cognitive Demands Crafting	I take mental distance from tasks that put an emotional strain on me.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I rarely think of tasks I don’t like.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I try to avoid thinking about tasks that require me to make tough decisions.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I rarely think about the fact that I also work with difficult people (e.g., difficult colleagues, superiors, customers).	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)
	I take mental distance from stressful tasks.	1 (Totally Disagree) – 5 (Totally Agree)