Collective Orientation Scale

Abstract

The Collective Orientation scale (KO) is a German-language adaptation and extension of the original Collective Orientation instrument developed by Driskell et al. (2010). The scale measures Collective Orientation (CO), defined as an individual’s attitude or propensity to work cooperatively and in a goal-oriented manner within team situations. This psychological construct is crucial for predicting success in environments requiring high levels of interdependent teamwork.

The instrument, which consists of 16 items, has been confirmed to possess acceptable levels of Reliability and Validity based on three comprehensive validation studies (N=500, N=468, N=60) conducted in German-speaking samples between 2011 and 2014. The KO scale is primarily used for diagnosing deficiencies in teamwork attitudes and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at developing collective orientation among team members. Specifically, research confirms its ability to predict team performance in complex decision-making tasks where mutual dependence is high.

Keywords

Collective Orientation, KO scale, Teamwork, Interdependent Teamwork, Group Cohesion, Affiliation, Dominance, Psychological Scale, Attitude

Authors

Vera Hagemann (German Adaptation), Driskell et al. (2010) (Original Scale Developers)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Collective Orientation (KO) scale is to quantitatively assess an individual’s innate willingness and preference for engaging in collective and goal-directed collaboration within team settings. It serves as a diagnostic tool for identifying individual attitudes that may either facilitate or hinder effective team functioning, particularly in professional fields where successful task completion relies heavily on coordination and mutual support.

The instrument is designed for practical application in organizational psychology and human resources, allowing for the diagnosis of teamwork deficits and the subsequent evaluation of training programs or interventions targeted at fostering collective orientation among employees or team members. The short administration time (approximately three minutes) contributes to its high economic feasibility.

Construct

Collective Orientation (KO) is conceptualized as an individual predisposition that favors cooperative behavior and shared goal attainment over individualistic pursuits, especially within a team context. The scale measures KO as a two-factor construct, reflecting two key underlying dimensions:

• Affiliation (Zugehörigkeit): This factor captures the preference for working collaboratively with others versus working alone. Individuals scoring high on affiliation derive satisfaction from team projects and prefer shared work environments.
• Dominance (Dominanz): This factor reflects the individual’s tendency toward control, power, and sticking rigidly to one’s own opinion, even when faced with group disagreement. High KO is characterized by low dominance, indicating a preference for cooperativity and incorporating the input of others over maintaining personal control.

A person with a high overall KO score is characterized by a strong desire for affiliation and a low tendency toward dominance, traits which are empirically linked to effective team support and cooperative behavior, especially in tasks requiring interdependent teamwork.

Validity

The Validity of the German KO scale was extensively evaluated across three studies, demonstrating convergent, discriminant, and predictive (criterion) validity. Key findings include:

• Convergent Validity: Significant positive correlations were found between the KO scale and related constructs, such as the Productivity/Collaboration factor of the Cooperation Scale (Lu & Argyle, 1991) (r = .71, p < .01) and the Cooperative Interdependence factor of the Social Interdependence Scale (Johnson & Norem-Hebeisen, 1979) (r = .34, p < .01).
• Discriminant Validity: Expected negative correlations were established with constructs reflecting individualistic tendencies, such as the Independence subscale of the Individualism-Collectivism Scale (Wagner, 1995) (r = -.54, p < .01) and the Preference for Being Alone Scale (Nestler et al., 2011) (r = -.28, p < .01). Furthermore, correlations with Big Five personality traits showed the expected positive link to Agreeableness (r = .18, p < .01) and no significant correlation with Conscientiousness or Openness to Experience.
• Predictive Validity: Study 3 demonstrated the instrument’s ability to predict team performance, especially in tasks requiring complex, interdependent decision-making. Teams composed of members with high KO scores showed significantly better decision quality compared to low-KO teams (Cohen’s d = 1.00, r = .56). This predictive power was observed independently of the team’s cohesion level (KO-Cohesion correlation: r = .09, p > .40).

Reliability

The internal consistency, a measure of Reliability, was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega. The results indicate acceptable to good internal consistency for the overall scale and its subscales, supporting the instrument’s reliability in the German context.

• Overall KO Scale: Cronbach’s Alpha (α) = .84; McDonald’s Omega (ω) = .85.
• Affiliation Subscale (Zugehörigkeit): α = .85; ω = .86.
• Dominance Subscale (Dominanz): α = .74; ω = .74.

In Study 3, the Interrater Agreement (r_WG(J)) for the KO scale was high (0.97), indicating strong consistency among responses within the defined groups (KO-high vs. KO-low).

Factor Analysis

The scale development involved two main studies focused on factor structure. The initial English 15-item scale was adapted, shortened, and subsequently extended with new German items to enhance psychometric quality and construct equivalence.

• Study 1 (N=500): An Exploratory Factor Analysis followed by a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) confirmed the two-factor structure (Affiliation and Dominance). Three original English items were excluded due to low factor loadings (< .25). The model fit indices were satisfactory (χ²/df = 1.73, CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .038, SRMR = .05).
• Study 2 (N=468): Seven new items were developed and tested. Four of these new items were retained, resulting in the final 16-item scale. The final CFA confirmed the two-factor model with a significant correlation between the factors (r = .44, p < .001). Model fit indices were also satisfactory (χ²/df = 1.76, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .040, SRMR = .043). All 16 final items showed standardized factor loadings greater than .40 (except for two items in Study 1).

Instrument

Test Type: Questionnaire (Self-report psychological scale)

Format: 16 items answered using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = stimme nicht zu (disagree) and 5 = stimme sehr zu (strongly agree). Administration is possible via paper-pencil or online survey.

Language Available: German (Deutsch). The scale is an adaptation of an English instrument (Driskell et al., 2010).

Population Group: Professionals and students (adult population) engaged in work or study requiring effective team collaboration.

Age Group: Adults (minimum age 17 in validation samples; mean age around 32).

Population Details: Validation utilized samples primarily consisting of employees (77% in Study 1; 55.1% in Study 2) and students, including participants working in high-risk organizations (e.g., police, fire department, military).

Test Methodology: The overall Collective Orientation score is calculated as the unweighted mean of the item responses after negatively polarized items (Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) have been recoded. Separate mean scores can also be calculated for the Affiliation and Dominance subscales. Administration time is approximately 3 minutes.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Factor Loadings, Likert Scale, Group Dynamics, Organizational Psychology, Team Performance, Criterion Validity, Psychometric Quality, McDonald’s Omega

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Prof. Dr. Vera Hagemann, Universität Bremen, Fachbereich 7, Fachgebiet Personalwesen, Enrique-Schmidt-Straße 1, 28359 Bremen, Deutschland

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Specific details regarding permissions and fees are not provided in the source content. The scale development and validation studies were conducted between 2011 and 2014. The scale status is reported as validated.

Reference’s

• Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance. Human Factors, 34(3), 277-288.

• Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Hughes, K. (2010). Collective orientation: Development and validation of a team-centric attitude scale. Military Psychology, 22(2), 233-248.

• Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 275-295.

• Hagemann, V. (2017). The Collective Orientation scale (KO): Development and validation of a German language instrument for the assessment of collective orientation. Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 225(2), 116-127.

• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

• Johnson, D. W., & Norem-Hebeisen, A. A. (1979). A measure of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 109(2), 253–261.

• LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.

• Lu, L., & Argyle, M. (1991). The relationship between cooperation and personality: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Psychology, 26(3), 323–338.

• Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2009). rWG(J) index for multiple items. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 180–199.

• Martens, R., & Peterson, J. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determinant of success and member satisfaction in team performance. International Review of Sport Sociology, 6(1), 49–63.

• McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

• Miles, J. A. (2000). The effect of collective orientation on the relationship between team cohesion and performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 199–211.

• Nestler, S., Rentzsch, K., & Schütz, A. (2011). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Präferenz zum Alleinsein [Development of a questionnaire for assessing preference for being alone]. Diagnostica, 57(4), 209–220.

• Piontkowski, S., Hagemann, V., & Giersch, S. (2003). The hidden profile paradigm: The effect of shared information on group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 456–466.

• Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2005). Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit [A short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Development and validation of an economical inventory for the assessment of the five factors of personality]. Diagnostica, 51(1), 19-30.

• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

• Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.

• van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152–172.

• Werner, O., & Campbell, D. T. (1970). Translating, working through, interpreting, and working back. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398–429). Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.

• Yukelson, D., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1984). The effect of team cohesion, leadership, and anxiety on team performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6(1), 167–176.

Items of the Collective Orientation scale

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