See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/332738676

Construction and Validation of Global Psychological Empowerment Scale for

Women

Article · April 2019

CITATIONS READS

6 2,850

3 authors, including:

Syeda Azra Batool Syeda Shahida Batool

Bahauddin Zakariya University Government College University, Lahore
27 PUBLICATIONS 190 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 446 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Syeda Azra Batool on 29 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
2017, Vol. 15, No.1, 3-10

Construction and Validation of Global Psychological

Empowerment Scale for Women
Syeda Azra Batool
School of Economics,
Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan
&
Syeda Shahida Batool
Department of Psychology,
GC University Lahore
The current research was carried out to construct a measure of global psychological empowerment for women
based on Thomas and Velthouse (1990) empowerment model. Development of the scale entailed three
independent studies. In Study 1, the exploratory factor analysis was run on 202 women of age range 22 and 60
years (M = 39.50, SD = 10.70) and 21 items were retained for 5 well-defined factors. The alpha coefficient was
.86 for the overall scale and, .64- .84 for subscales. Total variance accounted for by the scale was 45.20%.
Study 2 was carried out on 500 women of age ranged between 21- 60 year (M = 38.50, SD = 9.40) to confirm
the factor structure that was retained in study 1. The confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit for the
model. The convergent validity of the scale was determined by finding correlations of the scores on a newly
constructed scale with the scores on Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire for Employees (Spreitzer,
1995), and Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) in Study 3. It was concluded
that the newly constructed scale had a promising validity and reliability.

Keywords: global psychological empowerment, impact, problem focused coping, meaningfulness, self-efficacy,
self-determination.

Empowerment in social, political, and economic spheres has been that empowerment is an act, which enables people to take steps on
investigated in different disciplines. However, the achievement of their own in order to attain their self-defined goals. Empowered
empowerment in these areas in any community, state, nation or individuals are described as having high self-esteem, feelings of
people strongly depends on the degree to which the people are self-efficacy, and feelings of control over their lives, such
psychologically empowered. Various economic and social individuals have increased critical awareness and increased civic
empowerment programs have failed to yield the desired outcomes, participation (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman, 1995,
most likely due to the lack of psychological empowerment of the 2000).
people (Oladipo, 2009). Oladipo (2009) asserts that human beings Empowerment of women is pivotal to the development goals in
are psychological entities and must be weighed in the equation the present millennium (Moghadam & Senftova, 2005). World
when policies are being formulated; failure to do so may result in cannot develop without empowering women constituting almost
impoverished consequences, and negative attitudes and ineffectual half of the world population. In developing countries like Pakistan,
behaviors. However, if people are psychologically empowered by the socio-cultural and economic status of women is still low due to
polices, a transformation in cognitions and attitudes should result in the deep rooted and inherent patriarchal and feudal systems
constructive change with fulfillment of individuals’ aspirations prevailing throughout the country (Alavi, 1991). Conger and
(Oladipo, 2009). Kanungo (1988) used empowerment in a narrow psychological
The term empowerment has been broadly used in various sense where self-efficacy was equated with empowerment, among
disciplines such as, community psychology, education, political members of an organization. Thomas and Velthouse (1990)
theory, management, social work, sociology, and women studies extended Conger and Kanungo’s (1988) ideas and argued that
(Hur, 2006; Lincoln, Travers, Ackers, & Wilkinson, 2002). The psychological empowerment required assessment in four cognitive
term empowerment is defined as the notion of people having the domains namely; meaning, competence (self-efficacy), choice (self-
ability to understand and control themselves and their environment determination), and impact. Where, meaning implies the worth of a
including social, economic, and political spheres; increasing their task and its objectives, given its relevance to an individual’s
capabilities, prospects and greater levels of achievement and personal standards and value system. It reflects an individual’s
satisfaction (Lee, 2005). Similarly, Zimmerman (1995), suggests integral interest in any given task and emphasizes on the relevance
between work role requirements and one’s beliefs and values (Brief
& Nord, 1990). Competence is the degree to which an employee
feels that he or she is able to perform tasks with skill (Thomas &
Tymon, 1994). Competence has positive impact on performance
(Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Wang & Netemeyer, 2002). Choice can be
considered as an individual’s sense of independence while taking
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Syeda initiative and control over work; choice expresses the degree of self-
Shahida Batool, Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, determination in work behaviors and processes (Bell & Staw,
GC University Lahore (Pakistan), Email: shahidaphd@[Link] 1989). Impact is the extent to which a person feels that he or she is
4 BATOOL AND BATOOL

able to influence strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire for Employees, which
work (Ashforth, 1989). Impact positively correlates with high was restricted to the women in the organization alone. The
performance and perseverance in difficult situations (Ashforth, objectives of the research work were attained in 3 independent
1990), and boosts work motivation (Spreitzer et al., 1997). Menon studies.
(2001), similar to Thomas and Velthouse’s (1990) model
conceptualized psychological empowerment as perception of Study 1
control, competence and goal internalization to this Parveen and Construction of the Global Psychological Empowerment Scale for
Leonhauser (2005) added coping, a major indicator of Women (GPESW)
psychological empowerment. The study was conductd in two parts. Part I consisted of item
The notion of psychological empowerment has gained increased generation and in part II, exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) was run
popularity in the management field and has been empirically on empirically generated items so that the theoretical structure of
investigated over the last two decades (e.g., Menon, 2001; Spreitzer, the scale could be attained.
1995; Wall, Wood & Leach, 2004). Empirical work supports the Dimensions of Global Psychological Empowerment Scale. Four
positive relevance of psychological empowerment to different concepts in the scale to appraise psychological empowerment (i.e.,
facets of human life such as, national development, and improved meaningfulness, competence/self-efficacy, choice/self-
psychological well-being (Oladipo, 2009), better work performance determination, and impact) were borrowed from Thomas and
of employees in small and medium enterprise sector (Degago, 2014; Velthouse’s model (1990) and the concept of problem focused
Wang & Zhang, 2012), job devotion even under high job insecurity coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) was taken from Parveen and
(Stander & Rothmann, 2010), work motivation (Spreitzer, Kizilos, Leonhauser’s work (2005).
& Nason., 1997), and organizational commitment (Hashmi &
Naqvi, 2012). Part I: Item Generation
So far, the interest in psychological empowerment has guided to
the development of several scales that are intended to measure
Deductive method was used to generate the items. Initially 45
levels of psychological empowerment exclusively in a workplace
items that sampled the domain of psychological empowerment were
setting. For example, Spreitzer (1995) developed a psychological
generated by the first and second authors. These items were pooled
empowerment scale to quantify the degree to which an individual is
up and were presented to four judges (two psychologists and two
psychologically empowered at workplace. His nomological network
professors of gender studies). After restructuring some of the items,
of empowerment enhanced initial development of Thomas and
a consensus of judges on fidelity, clarity, redundancy, and
Velthouse (1990) empowerment model. Konczak, Stelly and Trusty
comprehensibility; 40 items were retained. A 5-point Likert-type
(2000) developed Leader Empowering Behavior, Role Clarity and
format was assigned (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
Psychological Empowerment Scale with six dimensions of leader
indecisive, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree) to each item. Higher
empowering behavior, namely; the delegation of authority, the
score indicated higher global psychological empowerment and vice
leader’s ability to emphasize accountability, encouragement of self-
versa.
directed decision-making, the leader’s ability to share information,
For the further psychometric screening of the items, a pilot study
development of skills, and coaching to promote innovation. Based
was carried out on a conveniently selected sample of 40 women: 20
on Zimmerman’s (1995) theory of psychological empowerment,
from each city district (Multan and Lahore). The women belonged
Wang and Zhang (2012) developed a Scale of Psychological
to diverse socio-economic backgrounds and had varied education
Empowerment among School Teachers. The scale was composed of
statuses. A test of normality (Kolmogorovo-Smirnov) on all items
three subscales, including: 1) feeling with four Factors (viz., self-
led to an exclusion of 11 items for they revealed non-significant
efficacy, self-determination, impact and status), 2) skill consists of
results. Finally, 29 items were used to confirm the theoretical
two Factors (viz., decision-making skills and communication skills),
structure and factorial validity of the scale via Exploratory Factor
and 3) behavior (viz., influencing teaching and decision-making
Analysis (EFA).
participation). All the above mentioned scales measure
psychological empowerment at workplace, and none of these Part II: Factor Structure, Construct Validity and Internal
measures assesses the global psychological empowerment of Consistency of the Scale
women. In this part, foctor structure of the scale was attained via EFA,
The extant measures of psychological emowerment were and internal consistency was determined via reliability analysis.
developed to assess psychological empowerment exclusively at
work place. To the best of our knowledge, no valid and reliable Method
scale of psychological empowerment for women in their everyday
life is available. The significance of the construct (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990), its contribution in human development and
Participants
development of a country, and non-availability of global
psychological empowerment scale compelled us to device, a valid A convenient sample of 202 women was recruited from five
and reliable measure to assess psychological empowerment in major cities of Pakistan: Lahore (70), Islamabad (34), Peshawar
women. The global psychological empowerment indicates women’ (30), Quetta (20), and Karachi (48) and the age of the sample
psychological empowerment in their day-to-day life (e.g., roles, ranged between 21 and 60 year (M = 39.50, SD 30= 10.70). Married
responsibilities, problems and their solutions etc.). The Global women living with their husbands and having at least one child
Psychological Empowerment Scale for Women has the capacity to were included in the study. The women belonged to diverse socio-
be used world-wide. The scale has wider scope than the existing economic status and had education from matric to post-graduate
scales of psychological empowerment e.g., Spreitzer (1995) levels.
GLOBAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT SCALE 5

Material and Procedure Results

Women were personally approached by the authors at their Exploratory Factor Analysis
homes or work places through personal and workplace contacts.
Participants of the study were briefed individually about the study, The EFA (through Varimax Rotation Method) for the initial
and verbal consent was taken before completing the scale. Initially, solution converged in 50 iterations. Factor analysis was yielded by
300 women were contacted, but some did not meet inclusion Principal Component Analysis (PCA) by following the Kaiser
criteria, some refused to take part in the study, and a few others did (1960) criterion, into five well-defined, clear, and interpretable
not complete the questionnaire in its entirety. Hence responses of factors out of possible eight. The decision about retaining these
202 participants were included in the final analysis. Assumptions of factors was based on scree plot, eigen value >1.0, Factor loadings>
EFA (e.g., sampe size, normality, linealrity and outlayers among .3, and theoretical relevance of the items. The Eigen values for the
cases) were tested before the factor analysis of the data and the data retained factors ranged between 1.48 to 6.98 and 45.20% variance
were found to meet the criteria (Field, 2005). was accounted for by these five factors (SPSS 20.0).

Table 1
Factor Loadings and Items Total Scale Correlations (N=202)
Original/Final Items Factors Item-total
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5
1 .29 .23 08 .21 .07 -
2/1 .22 .28 .74 .23 .12 .33*
3/2 .17 .24 .75 .24 .15 .32*
4/3 .28 .23 .67 .23 .24 .49*
5 .12 .09 .11 .14 .17 -
6 .14 .11 .17 .18 .22 -
7/4 .08 .09 .23 .41 .21 .47*
8/5 .12 .22 .08 .67 .27 .40*
9/6 .16 .26 .11 .66 .12 .48*
10 .23 .32 .23 .28 .03 -
11 .11 .18 .12 .23 .22 -
12/7 .28 .19 .18 .08 .72 .48*
13/8 .22 .21 .28 .12 .80 .55*
14/9 .24 .16 .12 .16 .77 .44*
15/10 .71 .24 .09 .24 .23 .62*
16/11 .70 .22 ..35 .21 .11 .60*
17/12 .78 .18 .13 .17 .13 .66*
18/13 .72 .19 .16 .18 .13 .62*
19/14 .70 .21 .22 .12 .25 .59*
20/15 .70 .16 ..27 .11 .22 .62*
21/16 .66 .24 .18 23 .15 .64*
22 .29 .34 .13 .13 ..23 -
23 .12 .38 .09 .11 .08 -
24 .11 .13 .11 .08 .10 -
25/17 .29 .71 19 .21 .10 .58*
26/18 .22 .79 .11 .12 .06 .42*
27/19 .12 .75 .12 .11 .28 .66*
28/20 .18 .75 .16 .11 .24 .51*
29/21 .21 .77 .16 .14 .21 .52*
Eigen values 6.98 2.31 2.06 1.60 1.48 -
Cumulative percentages 13.11 24.72 31.65 38.48 45.20 -
of variance
Note: *P < .01Source: Author’s own calculations using primary data

Table 1 shows influx of maximum variables (items) in Factor 1. Factor 3 (.35), but has comparatively higher loading on Factor
Item 16 appears to have dual loading: on Factor 1 (.70) and on [Link] 15- 21 exclusively loaded on Factor 1 except item 16, and
6 BATOOL AND BATOOL

their loadings range from .66 to .78. All the items are representing Items 7, 8, and 9 were loaded on Factor 4 (.41 to .67). Item 9 also
strategic influence in social circle, and perseverance in difficult loaded on Factor 8 but had higher loading on Factor 4, so these
situations. It measures the construct impact (e.g., I put efforts to three items were retained in Factor 4. All the items in this factor
make my personality attractive; my opinion is valued in my family; shows a woman’s belief and confidence in her capacity to perform
I stay calm even in a difficult situation because of my belief that I actions necessary to produce specific performance, accomplishment
will find some solution). and reflect confidence in her ability to exert control over behavior,
Items 25-29 exclusively loaded on Factor 2 and their loadings and social environment, so it was labeled as competence/self-
range between (.71 and .79), so these five items were retained due efficacy (e.g., I believe that I am fulfilling my responsibilities in an
to their loadings and theoretical relevance to each other under this excellent manner; I am capable of solving my personal problems).
Factor. Items 10, 22 and 23 also loaded on Factor 2, but item 23 had Items 12, 13, and 14 loaded on Factor 5 (.72 to .80). Item 12 also
higher loading on Factor 8, and items 10 and 22 were not loaded on Factor 6, but had higher loading on Factor 5 and it was
theoretically relevant to the rest of items in the Factor, so these theoretically more relevant to it in relation to other items under this
items were not included in Factor 2. All the items in Factor 2 show factor. These items reflect independent approach to life and decision
the approach of a woman to tackle the problems or stressful making, so the factor was labelled as self- determination (e.g., I am
situations that are causing stress, consequently directly reducing the autonomous to make decisions of my own life; Life has given me
stress by finding solutions to the problems, so it was named as full opportunities of doing everything with freedom and autonomy;
problem focused coping (e.g., I take review of the situations from I am independent in spending money).
different angles before taking decisions; I recall my past Factor 6, 7 and 8 could not be retained in the final soultion due to
experiences to find solutions to the problems). the reason that items loaded on these factors did not make any
Items 2, 3, and 4 loaded (.67 to .75) on Factor 3 and were meaninful structure and they were not theoretically relevant to each
retained in it. Item 4 also loaded on Factor 6, but did not make any other. Finally, five well defined factors namely: Impact, Problem
theoretical sense to it. These items reflect whatever a woman is focused coping. Meaningfulness, Competence/Self-efficacy, and
doing, she has worth of time and effort in a larger extent, so it was Self-determination emerged through the EFA were retained.
labelled as meaningfulness (e.g., I am satisfied with my role as a Reverse coding was required for two items (i.e., 4 and 24) in the
woman (e.g., wife, mother, daughter); whatever I have done in my initial 29 items scale.
life was important to me).

Table 2
Factor Labels, Relevant Items, Number of items, and Percentages of Variance Accounted for by Retained Factors on
Psychological Empowerment Measure (N =202)
Factors Factor Label Items No. of Items % age of Variance
1 Impact 15-21 7 13.2
2 Problem focused coping 25-29 5 11.0
3 Meaningfulness 2-4 3 6.92
4 Self-efficacy 7-9 3 6.84
5 Self determination 12-14 3 6.71
Source: Author’s own calculations

Table 2 shows that the final scale consists of 21 items. As the Reliability Analysis
individual factors concern: Factor 1(Impact) consists of 7 items,
Factor 2 (Problem focused coping) consists of 5 items, and Factor 3 Reliability analysis was run on the normative sample of 202
(Meaningfulness), Factor 4 (Competence), and Factor 5 (Self- participants in order to establish the internal consistency of the total
determination) consist of 3 items each. The total 45.20% of variance scale and subscales.
is accounted by the final items in the scale.

Table 3
Inter Factors and Factors- Total Correlations and Alpha Coefficients (N=202).
Factors IMP PFC MF SE SD Total Scale
1. IMP - .38** .41** .49** .34** .87**
2. PFC - - .30** .35** .16* .67**
3. MF - - - .20** .35** .59**
4. SE - - - - .15* .64**
GLOBAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWE
5. SD - - - - - .52**
Alpha coefficients .84 .80 .65 .64 .64 .86
Note ** P< .01, * P<.05. IMP (impact), PFC (problem focused coping), MF (Meaningfulness), SE (self-efficacy), SD (self-determination).

Table 3 shows that the scale has reasonably high internal (Self-efficacy and Self-determination) to .84(Impact). Inter sub-
consistency. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total scale is .86. scales (Factors) correlations are also significantly positive (rs = .15
For the 5 Factors separately, Cronbach’s alpha range from α = .64 to .49; p<.05). Estimation of items to total correlations reveal that
all items significanly correlate with total scale rs= .32 to .66, P< .01 (impact, problem focused coping, meaningfulness, competence/self-
(see Table1). efficacy, and self-determination). Each item was scored on a 5-point
Likert type scale, Items 4 and 24 that were reversed scored.
Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) All the participants were personally approached via purposive
convenient sampling technique, and the data were collected from
Method the provincial capitals of all four provinces of Pakistan and Federal
Capital (Islamabad to ensure the representation of women from all
major parts of the country. Time and places to distribute the
Participants questionnaires and data collection were set on telephone, prior to
access the sample to make the appointments convenient. The
A sample of 500 women was recruited from 5 major cities of women in the study were either approached at their homes or work
Pakistan: Lahore (170), Islamabad (50), Peshawar (80), Quetta (50), places. Initially 650 women were contacted, some refused to take
and Karachi (150). Age of the women ranged between 21 and 60 part in the study, some who promised to post the filled
year (M = 38.50, SD = 9.40). The women belonged to diverse socio- questionnaire did not returned the questionnaire, and some did not
economic status and had education from matric to post graduation complete the questionnaires in all dimensions. So the final sample
levels. used in the analysis comprised 500 women. It took 30-45 minutes to
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria. Married women living with their complete the experimental session individually.
husbands, and having at least one child were included in the study.
Unmarried women and those who were separated or divorced were Results
not engaged in the study, as some of the items in the scale were
related to decision about children (e.g., I play an important role in In order to confirm the model, factor structure and dimensionality
the upbringing my children). of the scale were analyzed through CFA via Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) done with AMOS 21.
Material and Procedure The structure of the scale emerged in EFA was examined in CFA
and this Factor structure illustrated a good fit to the data with chi
Global Psychological Empowerment Scale for Women square = 261.70 (df = 161), p < .05; CFI =.92, GFI =.90, TLI = .90,
(GPESW). The scale consisted of 21 items and 5 subscales and RMSEA = .052. Though Chi square is significant, however,

Figure 1. Five factors of Global Psychological Empowerment Scale for Women and their relevant items with significant loadings, where
IMP=Impact, PFC= Problem focused coping, MF= Meaningfulness, SE= Self-efficacy, and SD=Self-determination.

Hatcher (1994), Gable and Wolf (1993) recommend to divide the than 3 is good. In our case this value (Chi square/df) is 1.62, which
value of chi square by the degrees of freedom and the result less represented model fit as it came under the acceptable range. The
8 BATOOL AND BATOOL

final obtained model comprised of 21 items discovered a good was α = .88 for total scale and for subscales it ranged from α = .72-
model fit having 7 item in the impact , 5 items in problem focused .90.
coping , 3 items in meaningfulness, 3 items in impact, and 3 items The Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire (PEQ) for
in self determination. Employees (Spreitzer, 1995). The 12 items scale is based on
Study 3: Convergent Validation of the Scale (GSPEW) Thomas and Velthouse’s model (1990) and uses a set of four
The convergent validity of the newly constructed scale was cognitions reflecting an individuals’s orientation to his or her work:
determined by assessing its correlations with the Psychological meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. The four
Empowerment Questionnaire (PEQ) for Employees (Spreitzer, dimensions were combined additively to construct a cumulative
1995). The concurrent validity of the scale was determined by construct of psychological empowerment. Seven point Likert scale
finding its correlations with the Satisfaction with Life Scale was used. Each dimension of empowerment consisted of 3 items for
(SWLS: Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), since a example, the work is very important to me (meaning), I am
growing body of research supports the notion that psychological confident about my ability to do my job (competence), I have
empowerment is positively associated with satisfaction (Hoy & significant autonomy in determining how I do my job (self-
Miskel, 2001; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000; Spreitzer, 1995; determination), and my impact on what happens in my department
Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997; Thomas & Tymon, 1994). It was is very large (Impact). The Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale in
hypothesized that scores on Women’s Global Psychological the present study was α = .66
Empowerment Scale would be positively associated with scores on Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons,
Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire for Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The SWLS is a 5-point scale designed
Employees (Spreitzer, 1995), and the Satisfaction with Life Scale to assess the global cognitive judgement of satisfaction with one’s
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). life as a whole. Respondents use a 7-point scale that ranges from 7
(strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) on the items (e.g., In most
Method ways my life is close to my ideal; If I could live my life over, I
would change almost nothing). The SWLS is shown to be a valid
Participants and reliable measure of life satisfaction, suited for use with a wide
range of age groups and applications (Pavot & Diener, 1993). The
The sample of the study comprised 60 women of age ranged Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was α = .90.
between 27 and 45 year (M = 31.50, SD = 6.32). All the The GPESW, Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire (PEQ)
participants were full time university teachers (lecturers and for Employees, and Satisfaction with Life Scale were administered
assistant professors) from different universities of Lahore and to working women from Lahore and Multan. Data were collceted
Multan, and had at least 2 years of work experience. Convenient from women at job places and homes. Participants were directed to
sampling technique was used to approach the sample. The sample read all the instructions carefully and to complete all questionnaires.
belonged to diverse socio-economic status and had education level All the respondents completed the set of questionnaires.
of MPhil and PhD.
Results
Material and Procedure
In order to test the hypotheses, Pearson’s correlation was
calculated. The results in Table 4 show that all the subscales and
Global Psychological Empowerment Scale for Women. total scale of GPESW significantly and positively correlate with
See detail in study 1. The Cronbach’s alpha for the present study Spreitzer’s PEQ and Diener’s Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Table 4
Correlations of Sub-Scales and Total Global Psychological Empowerment Scale for Women with Spreitzer PEQ and Diener’s
SWLS (N= 60).
Variables IMP PFC MF SE SD Total GPESW
PEQ .46** .12 .26* .28* .26* .37*
SWLS .56** .41** .42** .29* .41** .57**
Note:**p < .01, *p < .05 Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire (PEQ), Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), Impact (IMP), Pproblem Focused Coping
(PFC), Meaningfulness (MF), Self- efficacy (SE), Self-Determination (SD), Global Psychological Empowerment Scale for Women (GPESW).

Discussion was used to run confirmatory factor analysis. The model was a good
fit and same factor structure was supported with significant high
The current research work was accomplished with the coefficient beta values in the relevant factors (see Figure 1).
construction and initial validation of GPESW. The project was In order to determine the internal consistency, the correlations
completed in three studies and the results illustrate that (e.g., the items total, inter subscales, and subscales to total) were
psychological empowerment requires assessment in five cognitive calculated. The items-total correlations supported the fidelity of all
dimensions: meaning, self-efficacy, self-determination, impact, and the retained items to the total scale (see Table 1). Inter sub-scales
problem focused coping were proposed. The preliminary factorial correlations and sub-scales total correlations illustrated that all the
validity was established on logical and theoretical relevance of the subscales were mutually exclusive, yet bracketed together to make
items loaded on five factors. In order to authenticate the factor one multifactor scale (see Table 3). It also supports the GPESW as a
structure appeared in EFA, structural equation modelling (SEM) multi dimensional [Link] highest correlation emerged between
GLOBAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT SCALE 9

self-efficacy and impact, which demonstrates that a woman’s belief only calculate Pearson’s correlations, and could not run stepwise
that she is able to perform all household or assigned tasks in day-to- regression to determine the relevant strength of the five dimensions
day life, significantly determines her confidence that she can of psychological empowerment. In future studies, predictive strenth
strategically influence her domestic, social and work fields and vice of the dimensions of psychological empowerment could be studied
versa. The literature supports that competence/self efficacy and on a larger sample.
impact both have strong direct impact on performance and
perseverance in difficulties (Ashforth, 1989, 1990; Gist & Mitchell, Implications
1992; Wang & Netemeyer, 2002) and it makes the high correlation
between self-efficacy and impact. Irrespective of the limitations, the study has immense scope. The
The convergent validity of the new scale was determined with development of GPESW is a poineering work in the field that
Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire (PEQ) for addresses the worth of the construct of psychological
Employees (Spreitzer, 1995) because the PEQ was also based on empowerment. In order to materialize diverse economic and social
Thomas and Velthouse model on which we based the GPESW. The empowerment programs and to yield the desired results in personal
resultant correlations of subscales and total GPESW with PEQ and national development, the psychological empowerment of the
augmented our claim that the newly constructed scale has promising people should be enhanced (Oladipo, 2009), and this goal cannot be
validity. Only problem focused sub-scale of GPESW did not show attained without assessing the trait psychological empowerment
significant correlation with PEQ, and this might be due to the through a reliable and valid measure. The newly constructed scale
reason that Spreitzer did not include coping in the questionnaire of will open a new vista of research on women’s issues in relation to
psychological empowerment. their psychological empowerment. Study 3 demonstrates that
The results of Pearson’s correlation illustrate that all the women who have greater global psychological empowerment are
subscales and total GPESW had significant positive correlations more satisfied with their life. It shows that lower psychological
with SWLS (see Table 4). It demonstrates that psychologically empowerment may consequent into negative results (e.g., will
empowered women are satisfied with their life. Despite the fact that impede work motivation, negatively affect the personal growth and
global psychological empowerment of women had never been wellbeing of women, work productivity, and development of the
exclusively studied, and we could not find direct support for our country on micro and macro levels), which may ultimately impede
results from the existing literature, we have some circumlocutory good policies of government (Oladipo, 2009).
support from the studies carried out in the organizational field. The
results coincide with (e.g., Dinham & Scott, 2000b; 2001) that
teachers’ empowerment positively link to enhanced teacher self-
Conclusion
esteem, increased job satisfaction, and greater productivity. Hoy
and Miskel (2001) found that empowerment was a salient predictor The results support the Thomas and Velthouse (1990) model of
of job satisfaction. Highest correlation was found between impact psychological empowerment, and Parveen and Leonhauser (2005)
and life satisfaction in our study. The results are in line with indicator of psychological empowerment (i.e., problem focused
Thomas and Tymon (1994) that supports significant high coping). The newly developed scale emerged with five well defined
correlation between impact and job satisfaction. Meaningfulness factors, and appeared to be a promising measure. We may also
appeared as the second highest correlate of life satisfaction, while conclude that higher psychological empowerment among women
self-efficacy had significant but lowest correlation with life leads to greater satisfaction with life.
satisfaction as compared to other subscales in the present work. The
similar scenario can be observed in the work of Spreitzer et al.’s References
(1997) in which competence most strongly linked to managerial
effectiveness, while meaning was the best predictor of work Alavi, H. (1991). Pakistani women in a changing society. In H.
satisfaction. So, the concurrent validity was measured on the basis Donnan & P. Werbner (Eds.), Economy and Culture in Pakistan
of evidence that psychological empowerment plays significant role (pp. 124-142). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
in work commitment, success and work satisfaction (e.g., Ashforth, Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in
1990; Spreitzer et al., 1997). organizations. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 43(2), 207-242.
Limitations and Suggestions Ashforth, B. E. (1990). The organizationally induced helplessness
syndrome: A preliminary model. Canadian Journal of
Despite the fact that the GPESW is a valid and reliable measure, Administrative Sciences, 7, 30-36.
limitations of some parts of the research need to be addressed. Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus
Though, the size of the sample for scale development was adequate sculpture. New York: Cambridge University Press
for factor analysis, but it was not larger enough to generalize the Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Meanings of occupational work.
results, so factor analysis in future should be run on a lager sample Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
and the scale should be validated across diverse cultures. Married Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process:
and educated only women were included in a sample of factor Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management
analysis to control the influence of these factors, so the scale has Review, 13(3), 471-482.
limited generalizability that excluded un-married, Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985).
divorced/widowed, and uneducated women. The scales, which we The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
used for the convergent and concurrent validity, were self-report Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
measures, so the factor of common method variance cannot be Degago, E. (2014). A study on impact of psychological
overlooked. As the validation study had small sample, so we could empowerment on employee performance in small and medium
10 BATOOL AND BATOOL

scale enterprise sectors. European Journal of Business and economic, and cultural domains. International Social Science
Management, 6(27), 60-71. Journal, 57(184), 389-412.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain Oladipo, S. E. (2009). Psychological empowerment and
of teacher satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, development. Edo Journal of Counselling, 2(1), 118-126.
38(4), 379-396. Parveen, S., & Leonhäuser, I. U. (2005). Empowerment of rural
Field, A.(2005). “Discovering statistics using SPSS. (2nd ed.). women in Bangladesh: A household level analysis. Margraf.
London: Sage Publications Ltd. [Online]. Available from: [Link]
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a de/2004/abstracts/full/[Link].
middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life
Behavior, 21, 219-239. doi: 10.2307/2136617 scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164-172.
Gable, R. K., & Wolfe, M. B. (1993). Instrument development in Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory,
the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in research, and application. American Journal of Community
corporate and school settings. Boston: Kluwer Academic Psychology, 23(5), 569-579.
Publishers Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy
analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Management Review, 17(2), 183-211. Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A
Hashmi, M. S., & Naqvi, I. H. (2012). Psychological empowerment: dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological
A key to boost organizational commitment, evidence from empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain”.
banking sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Human Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704.
Resource Studies, 2(2), 132-141. Stander, M. W., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Psychological
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(R) empowerment, job insecurity and employee engagement. SA
system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Journal of Industrial Psychology,36(1), 1-8.
Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Thomas, K., & Tymon, W. (1994). Does empowerment always
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2001). Educational administration: work: Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and
Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. personal interaction? Journal of Management Systems, 6(3), 39-
Hur, M. H. (2006). Empowerment in terms of theoretical 54.
perspectives: Exploring a typology of the process and Thomas, K.W. & Velthouse, B.A. (1990). Cognitive elements of
components across disciplines. Journal of Community empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-
Psychology, 34(5), 523-540. 681.
Lee, C. C. (2005). Urban school counseling: Context, Wall, T.D., Wood, S.J. & Leach, D.J. (2004). Empowerment and
characteristics, and competencies. Professional School performance. In Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I.T (Eds.),
Counseling, 8(3), 184-189. International review of industrial and organizational
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An psychology (pp.1-46). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
examination of the mediating role of psychological Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of job
empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness
relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal
Psychology, 85(3), 407. of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 217-228.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to Wang, J. L., & Zhang, D. J. (2012). An Exploratory Investigation
factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, on Psychological Empowerment among Chinese
20, 141-151. Teachers. Advances in Psychology Study, 1(3), 13-21.
Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000). Defining and Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and
measuring empowering leader behaviors: Development of an illustrations. .American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
upward feedback instrument. Educational and Psychological 581-599.
Measurement, 60 (2), 301-313. Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological,
Lincoln, N. D., Travers, C., Ackers, P., & Wilkinson, A. (2002). organizational and community level of analysis. In J.
The meaning of empowerment: The interdisciplinary etymology Rappaport,& E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community
of a new management concept. International journal of psychology (pp. 43-63). US: Springer.
management reviews, 4(3), 271-290.
Menon, S.T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative
psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 50(1), 153-180.
Moghadam, V. M., & Senftova, L. (2005). Measuring women's
empowerment: participation and rights in civil, political, social, Received: 24th March, 2017
Revisions Received: 1st June, 2017

View publication stats