See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283427576

THE VALIDATION OF A MEASURE OF GENERIC SKILLS: A JOB ANALYSIS

APPROACH

Conference Paper · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 162

3 authors, including:

Teck Kiang Tan Johnny Sung

National University of Singapore Institute for Adult Learning, Singapore
20 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   943 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Teck Kiang Tan on 03 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE VALIDATION OF A MEASURE OF GENERIC SKILLS: A
JOB ANALYSIS APPROACH

Teck Kiang Tan, Yee Zher Sheng, and Johnny Sung

Institute for Adult Learning

Singapore

ABSTRACT

This study validates an inventory of generic skills. It consists of 41 items with 9 domains
of generic skills. A validation process using exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and factorial invariance is carried out to validate this
inventory.

Generic skills, as its name implies, referred to skills, knowledge, and abilities that are
applicable to a wide range of contexts that are generic in nature. Mayer (1992) referred
it as “generic in that they apply to work generally rather than specific to work in
particular occupations or industry”. On this basis, factorial invariance is carried out on
gender, age, income, firm size, occupation and industry to test whether the inventory is
invariant across these 6 variables.

Understanding generic skills is a multidimensional social construct, using a list of tasks

by asking respondents on their level of involvement on work activities, Green (2001)
developed a framework, based on job analysis, to measure the various dimensions of
generic skills. This approach aims to capture from the job holders perspective with a
task orientation, measuring the various dimensions of adult generic skills. Although this
framework of generic skills was verified using exploratory factor analysis and their
content validity was examined (e.g. Felstead et al, 2007), the validation process does
not assure that the inventory is invariant across group such as industry and occupation.
By means of generic skills, it should not be restricted to a particular context such as an
industry, or the characteristic of a person. This paper aims to proceed with a formal
validation that examines the invariant properties of the generic skills inventory.

The data was extracted from the Skills Utilization Survey 2 (SU2), a national
representative sample of 3,289 Singapore working adults. Respondents were asked
during the survey how important with a list of 41 tasks are in their job. The response
scale for these tasks ranges from 1 to 4, representing ’not very important’ ,’fairly
important’, ’very important’ to ‘essential’ respectively. Examples of the tasks include
working with a team of people, reading long documents, and calculating using decimals,
percentages or fractions.
EFAs were carried out to examine the psychometric properties of the tasks and nine
dimensions of generic skills were identified from the 41 tasks: literacy, physical,
numeracy, influence, planning, communication, problem solving, leadership, and
teamwork. The results of the CFA indicate a 9-factor oblique factor model. It
outperformed the three competing models: orthogonal model, one factor model and
second-order CFA. This model was then used to test the factorial invariance for gender,
race, income, firm size, occupation and industry and the results are promising but varied
in the degree of invariance.

In summary, the results of this validation study for the GS inventory assure the quality of
this instrument. This is the first validation of the GSs through EFA, CFA and factorial
invariance using a national representative sample. The validation gives a promising GS
instrument that is based on a theoretical job analysis approach.
INTRODUCTION

The importance of skills in modern workplace is widely acknowledged. With

technologies and organizations rapidly evolving in the business world, the demands for
higher skilled workers become imperative. While technical skills are necessary in
workplaces, the significance of generic skills has gained awareness as well. There are
evidences showing universities emphasizing on the importance of generic skills and
have included them into curricula in order to prepare students for employment. Clanchy
& Ballard (1995) point out the relevancy of generic skills and emphasize that universities
should provide students the opportunity to learn and develop these skills during their
undergraduate studies, and that students should be able to transfer and apply them in
the workplace. Empirical evidences also show positive returns of the generic skills in
leadership, planning and problem solving on earnings (Ramos et al, 2013), and at the
macro level, they help in explaining the relationship between productivity and growth
(Kearns, 2001).

Awareness and increasing focus on research in generic skills have grown over the
years (Green, 2011). In view of the growth in skills-based research, it appears to be the
right time to validate a generic skills inventory that was proposed and developed by
Green (2001) by employing appropriate multivariate statistical procedures using
exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and factorial
invariance testing so that their psychometric properties are known.

Framework of Generic Skills: A Job Analysis Perspective

Skills are multi-dimensional, intangible and latent in its form and structure (Blackmore,
1992; Dickerson et al, 2012). Generic skills, as its name implies, are generally referred
to as a set of skills that are generic in nature and are applicable across different work
contexts that support employability. Mayer (1992) referred to it as “generic in that they
apply to work generally rather than specific to work in particular occupations or
industry”.

The current study uses the GS inventory proposed by Green’s (2001) and was used in a
series of the UK Skills Surveys (Felstead, Gallie, Green, & Zhou, 2007). The GS
inventory measures generic skills from a job-based perspective.. As Green (2001)
describes it, this approach is essentially “of an occupational psychologist methods in the
context of a socioeconomic survey”. It is self-assessed, from a psychological and
occupational perspective, and uses surveys to get responses from the workers by
referring them to their tasks in the job. In this principle, tasks can be grouped and
summarized into a common typology of generic skill domains, resulting in
multidimensional constructs of generic skills. Several tasks are grouped into one
generic skill domain with a unique property that is different from other generic skill
domains. These domains form the multidimensional spaces under a common typology
of generic skills.
An illustration on the job-based approach will give clearer the perspective. A worker is
asked to rate the importance of a specific task, say reading long document, in reference
to the worker’s job. The rating of this task reveals his perception on the degree of
importance of reading long document in his job. It is expected that a manager is more
likely to give a high rating whereas a clerical officer would give a lower rating. Going
through a list of 41 tasks, the worker’s ratings reflect the degree of importance for these
tasks, depicting the self-assessed generic skills of the job for the worker. The job-based
responses of all the workers are grouped into tasks of similarity that form the various
skills domains. This approach had been adopted not only in the UK Skills Survey 2006,
but also in the earlier UK Skills Survey 1997 and 2001. The GS instrument used in this
study is modified from the UK Skills Survey 2006 (Ashton et al, 1999; Felstead, Gallie &
Green 2002; Felstead, Gallie, Green, & Zhou, 2007).

The wide recognition of the importance of generic skills and the increasing application of
this instrument in the various UK surveys arise the need for a formal validation.
Previous studies that used the GS inventory for their research (e.g. Felstead et al, 2007)
were restricted to valid the instrument using EFA, aimed basically to discover the
dimensionality of the generic skills. This study adopts several multivariate statistical
validation procedures to carry out the validation process (Liau, Chow, Tan, & Senf,
2010; Liau, Tan, Li, & Khoo, 2012; White et al, 2015). EFA, CFA and factorial invariance
test were carried out for the validation of the GS inventory. EFA explores the
dimensionality of the GS inventory, CFA determines the best structural form fit of the
model, and factorial invariant tests examine whether the fitted model varies across
groups. As the measures of GS inventory are responses from individual worker about
the tasks within job, the tasks’ usages and applications should be applicable to different
job contexts and not vary with workers’ characteristics. Testing the factorial invariance
across gender, race, age, income, firm size, occupation and industry thus is a
procedure that is necessary after the analysis of EFA and CFA.

METHOD

Participants

The analyses in the study were based on 3,289 working adults who participated in the
Skills Utilization Survey 2 (SU2), conducted by the Institute for Adult Learning,
Singapore. It is a random sample selected from the Singapore working population. The
sample made up of 53% male, 58% Chinese, 51% age below 40, 57% earned below
S$3,000 per month, 37% from a company with less than 50 persons, 58% worked as
professional, managerial, executive, and technician jobs (PMET), 19% from
manufacturing and construction, 31% from transport, food & accommodation, 27% from
info-communication, finance and business, and 23% from communication and other
industries.

Data Collection Procedures

SU2 was conducted between March and September of 2013, drawing on a national
representative random sample of Singapore working adults. The final sample ended up
with 3,289 working adults, resembling the Singapore working population distribution.
The response rate for the survey was 64%. It is a face to face survey where
interviewers conduct the survey at respondents’ home.

Data Analysis

The preliminary exploratory of data includes item analysis to examine item properties of
the 41 tasks with respect to their distribution characteristics such as skewness, and
kurtosis. These tasks were grouped into the nine domains and Shapiro & Wilk’s test of
normality (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965) was carried out to determine whether at the domain
level they departure from normality.

EFAs were carried out to examine the dimensionality of the 41 generic skills tasks. A
theoretical 9-factor oblique CFA for generic skills (GS) is proposed. This proposed
model views GS as a set of skills domains that consists of 9 dimensions with each
having its own unique generic skills’ properties that are separate and distinct from other
GS domains, yet associated. Three alternative rival models are considered to compare
with the theoretically specified model. They are the 1-factor generic skills model, the
orthogonal 9-factor model, and the second-order 9-factor model. The first rival model
views generic skill as a one 'all-inclusive and comprehensive' construct, i.e. all the 41
tasks are generic skills indicators to form a single generic skills construct. The second
model examines whether an uncorrelated factor structure for the 9 domains of generic
skills outperforms the theoretical model. The assumption of this model is that these 9
domains of generic skills are not associated with others and each has its own unique
features that are totally different from each other. The last rival model perceives the
existence of a higher order common generic skills construct that sits on top of the 9
dimensions of generic skills domains. Raykov’s (2004) internal consistency reliability
was carried out for the best fit model to establish the reliability level of these domains.

Model fit for CFAs is assessed using multiple indices consists of the χ2 statistic (Bollen,
1989; 1993; Jöreskog, 1993), comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), Tuker, & Lewis
index (TLI; Tuker & Lewis, 1973), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA;
Browne & Cudeck, 1993), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Brown,
2006). The χ2, RMSEA, and SRMR assess how well the covariances predicted from the
estimates reproduced the sample covariances (Pomplun & Omar, 2001). The CFI and
TLI, in relation to a baseline model, assess the degree of fit of the proposed model
accounted for the sample covariances. RMSEA values approximating .06 demonstrated
close fit of the model (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999). A value less than
.08 is generally considered a good fit for SRMR (Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFI and TLI
values of .90 (Bentler, 1990) and .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) respectively indicate
acceptable and good fit of the model. The χ2 values of the various models are reported.
However, these values are not used for model comparison as they tend to be significant
for large sample sizes (Hu & Bentler 1999). In addition to the χ 2 statistics, the Satorra–
Bentler (SB) rescaled χ2 statistics (Satorra & Bentler 1988, 2001) were reported and
used for comparing nested models. The SB Chi-squre rescales χ2 statistics which
incorporates a scaling correction for the Chi-square statistic when non-normal
distributional assumptions are violated.

After determining the best fitted CFA model that describes the structure of the generic
skills, hypothesis factorial invariance testing were carried out to examine the degree of
invariance with regards to gender, race, age, income, firm size, occupation, and
industry. The degree of invariance assures the general applicability of the generic skills
instrument with respect to these workers’ and firms’ characteristics. The series of
hierarchical ordering of constraints to carry out factorial invariance testing are covered
at length in the literature (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Steenkamp, & Baumgartner, 1998;
Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). A brief description on these steps is stated below.
Generally, a baseline model needs to be first established prior to any invariance
constraints to see if there are differences in the patterns of factor structures between
groups, say between female and male for testing gender invariance. This is generally
referred to as testing for configural invariance. If configural invariance is supported,
further restrictive constraints are imposed on the model. First, factor loadings are
constrained to be equal across groups to test for the invariance of factor loadings. This
is then followed by a SB rescaled χ2 difference test to compare the configural model with
the equal loading-constrained model. A non-significant difference result means that
factor loadings are invariant across genders, indicating the requirement of weak
invariance is met. Next, intercepts are constrained to be equal across the groups.
Similarly, a SB χ2 difference test between the weak invariance model and intercept-
constrained model are conducted. The same procedure is carried out for the testing of
invariance across groups for residuals, factor means and factor variances. For the
strictest model, a non-significant difference test means that, in addition to factor
loadings and intercepts, item uniqueness is invariant across groups, satisfying strict
invariance for equal residuals, factor means and variances. The steps of the hierarchical
ordering of factorial invariance testing are summarized below. The equivalent symbolic
statements for the hypothesis testing to carry out the factorial invariance testing are
shown in the brackets using LISREL representation (referred to Cheung & Rensvold,
2002 and Vandenberg & Lance, 2000 for details).

1. The structural form of groups is invariance H form : (1form

)
 ( 2form
)
 . This is
generally referred to as configural invariance, implying the same set of
items associated with the each of the nine dimensions of generic skills
having the same factor structure for the groups, implying adult workers
belonging to the different groups conceptualize the GS constructs about the
same manner.

2. If configural invariance is acceptable, the next step is to set the factor

loadings to be equal across the groups H  : (ij1)  (ij2)  . This is generally
referred to as metric invariance. This step is to evaluate and test whether
the strength of the relationships between specific scale items and the
constructs are the same across the groups. It aims at establishing whether
the regression coefficients of the observed scores are the same for the
 groups. This step is generally viewed as a prerequisite for meaningful
across group comparison in factorial invariance test (Bollen 1989).

3. The next level of constraint adds the invariance of the intercepts for the
observed score-factor regressions H ,  : (1)  ( 2)  . The support for
invariance of the intercepts indicates the existence of strong factorial
invariance (Meredith, 1993), also referred to as scalar equivalence (Mullen,
1995). If the regression intercepts are different, adult workers from different
groups with the same factor scores will obtain different observed scores.
Strong factorial invariance is a prerequisite to proceed for testing of latent
means as the absent of it the comparison of latent means becomes
ambiguous (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

4. Next, the error variances are constrained across the groups

H , , :  i(1)   i(2)  . Testing for the equality of between-group error
variances aims at evaluating whether the scale items measure the latent
constructs with the same degree of measurement errors across the groups.

5. The factor means are constrained to be equal across the groups

H , , , :  (j1)   (j2)  if the measurement invariance hypothesis is satisfied.
This hypothesis tests for the equality of the means of the constructs.

6. The last factorial testing hypothesized that the factor variances are equal
across the groups. H , , , , jj  : (jj1)  (jj2)  .

Although determining whether constraining parameters to be invariant across the

groups may yield a meaningful interpretation, the traditional approach of the Δχ 2 has
been criticized because of its sensitivity to sample size (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002;
Kelloway, 1995). Cheung & Rensvold (2002) provided evidence that ΔCFI was not
prone to these problems. They also determined that a ΔCFI value higher than .01 is
indicative of a meaningful drop in fit. A stricter requirement of Meade, Johnson & Braddy
(2008) suggested a cut-off of .002 for the ΔCFI and they do not recommend ΔRMSEA
for carrying out factorial invariance test.

The factorial invariance testing is carried out using function cfa and
measurementInvariance from r Package lavaan (Rosseel, 2011). Since the factorial
invariance procedure above exhibits a nested structure and the data is a departure from
multivariate normality, Satorra–Bentler rescales χ2 statistics, instead of uncorrected χ2
statistics being used for model comparison (Brown 2006).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
Figure 1 shows the histograms of the summated score of the 9 domains of generic skills
and the overall summated generic skills. These histograms do not appear to confirm
with the normal distribution and the results of the Shapiro & Wilk’s test (Shapiro & Wilk,
1965) of normality confirm they are all departure from normality.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The KMO (Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin measures of sampling adequacy) for the sample is .95,
indicating that there is adequacy of the sample for carrying out the factor analysis and
sufficient numbers of significant correlations among the indicators to justify undertaking
factor analysis (Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003, the value of KMO is greater than .90,
characterized as "marvellous"). Similarly, the Bartlett test of sphericity indicates that it is
unlikely that the population correlation matrix is an identity matrix (χ2=100682; p<.001),
again showing the adequacy of carrying out factor analysis. The individual measures of
sampling adequacy (MSA) that ranges from .73 to .98 also show the factorability of
these 41 tasks.

EFAs were conducted using principal components analysis with oblique promax and
orthogonal varimax rotation methods to examine the factor structure of the GS. Based
on Pett et al.’s (2003) recommendation, five criteria were used to determine the number
of factors: the Kaiser criterion, the scree test, the interpretability of the factors, the
amount of variance explained, and the a priori criterion based on the hypothesized
model of generic skills. The Kaiser’s greater than one rule (Kaiser, 1960) to retain the
number of factors with eigenvalue value greater than one and the scree plot show an
eight-factor solution, however Horn’s parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) indicates a nine-
factor solution. A nine-factor solution is used and supported in this study. The main
reasons are the grouping of the domains is based on the theoretical basis of
categorizing the indicators, and the literature supports parallel analysis as a better
method in determining the number of factors (e.g. Zwick & Velicer, 1986).

The results of the CFA are summarized in Table 1. It shows the factor pattern
coefficients for the 9 factor domains, communalities (h2) and uniquenesses (u2) for the
41 tasks. Since varimax and promax rotation give similar results, only promax is
presented. Tasks with factor loadings associated with the factor domains are bolded.
This 9-factor 41-item instrument accounted for 72% of the variance of the GS.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the proposed CFA and the 3 competing CFAs. The fit
indices CFI and TLI of the hypothesized 9-factor oblique model (.913; .902) are higher
than the 3 competing models. The RMSEA and SRMR of the hypothesized model also
indicate a better fit than the competing models with the lowest values (.056; .063).
These results indicate the proposed 9-factor oblique model fits better than the 3
competing models.
Figure 2 shows the results of the proposed CFA, an oblique 9 domains GS. There are 6
tasks for literacy, 4 for physical, 3 for numeracy, 6 for influences, 4 for planning, 4 for
communication, 4 for problem solving, 6 for leadership, and 4 for teamwork. All the
standardized path coefficients are statistically significant and salient. Instead of
reporting Cronbach’s alpha which is not developed within the confirmatory factor
analysis framework, Raykov’s internal consistency reliability indices (Raykov, 2001,
2004) are stated. The Raykov’s reliability indices for the 9 GS domains are all above
.70, meeting the threshold of reliability (Table 3). The factor correlations for all the
domains of GS are positives with the exception of physical skills. These positive
coefficients indicate that these generic skills, with the exception of physical skills, are
positively associated i.e. one that possesses high generic skills in one domain tends to
also possesses high in another domains. For instance, leadership skills is moderately
correlated with problem solving skills with a positive correlation coefficient of .54,
indicating one has high leadership skills will also high in problem solving skills. These
results support the proposed theoretical CFA that these nine GS domains are distinct
yet associated.

Factorial Invariance

This section examines whether the structure of the theoretical CFA remains invariant
across gender, race, income group, firm size, occupation, and industry. Table 4
summarizes the results of factorial invariance. The configural models for the 6 variables
show that the CFIs for gender, race, age, firm size and industry are above .9, and the
TLIs for gender, race, and age are also above .9. The CFIs and TLIs for the rest of the
variables although are less than .9, are very close to .9 with the lowest is TLI of
occupation (.886). The RMSEAs and SRMSs for all the configural models are less than
.068.

The SB scale difference in χ2 tests show that for gender, age, income group, firm size,
and industry, the equal form models are not statistically differences from the equal
factor variances while for race non-significant only up to factor means. These results
indicate the level of invariance for these 6 variables are extremely good. However, the
results of ΔCFIs give a lower expectation in invariance. All the variables do not meet the
threshold of .002 in ΔCFI up to equal factor variances with the exception of gender. The
ΔTLIs show unexpected results as when the equal constraints get stricter, TLI is in
increasing order instead of decreasing. Future research may be required to examine the
properties of TLI in factorial invariance. As for the values of RMSEA, in general, they
increase when the equal constraints get stricter but the magnitudes are small. Similar to
RMSEA, the increment of the values of SRMR are small but the jump to equal factor
means and variances are large, in particularly for age, income, firm size and occupation.

The results from the five fit indices, namely SB scale difference in χ2 tests, ΔCFI, ΔTLI,
RMSEA and SRMR, are not totally consistent. SB scale difference in χ2 test gives the
most promising results but tests involving χ2 are generally subjected to sample size. The
results of RMSEA also give encouraging outcomes. Gender and race invariant are most
prominent for CFI and TLI. The best for SRMR is race invariant.
CONCLUSION

The main purpose of the study is to validate the generic skills (GS) inventory for working
adults. A nine-factor oblique structure for GS is proposed and validated with EFA and
CFA. The results of CFA show that it is the best fit model in comparison with the 3
competing CFA models. The nine domains of generic skills are literacy, physical,
numeracy, problem solving, planning, leadership, influence, communication and
teamwork. This GS structure confirms the nine dimensions of domains are unique
factors with their own characteristics but positively associated with the exception of
physical skills. The results of factorial invariance assure the property remain unchanged
for the instrument with regards to gender, age, income, firm size, occupation and
industry, implying the instrument could be used say for all types of occupations, and for
both gender.

The relevancy and increasing emphasis on generic skills by the university, academia
and industry give rise to the job analysis approach proposed by Green and colleagues.
Moving away from the focusing on the skills needed by industry and occupation, and
shifted to the job itself, the job analysis approach captures the generic skills easily by
referring to the tasks of the job, avoiding the complex issues faced by other approaches.
The results of this validation study for the GS inventory assure the quality of this
instrument, applicable for skills and work development research and for industry.
Validation of instrument should not stop at EFA, but the standard procedure of CFA and
factorial invariant should always be carried out to ensure the quality of an instrument is
applicable to different contexts. This is the first validation of the generic skills through
EFA, CFA and factorial invariance, using a national representative sample. This
standard procedure is recommended for future validation process.

The current study uses a representative sample of Singapore data to validate the GS
inventory and the results of CFA show an oblique CFA structural form. Future research
in GS may clarify this structural form to give further evidences whether it differs across
countries. The current study found that the increasing order of TLI in factorial invariant
test is an anomaly. Future research to examine the properties of TLI for factorial
invariance may clarify this anomaly.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper acknowledges the Institute for Adult Learning (IAL), a division of Workforce
Development Agency, Singapore, for making the data available from the research
project Skill Utilization Survey 2. Also, we would like to thank Seet Jun Feng for his
comment, and James Elicano, intern of the centre, for his help in generating the figures
and editing.
REFERENCES

Ashton, D., Davies, B., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (1999). Work Skills in Britain. Oxford
and Warwick: SKOPE.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological

Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Blackmore, J. (1992). The gendering of skill and vocationalism in twentieth century

Australian education. Journal of Education Policy, 7, 351-377.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford
Press: New York.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.

Clanchy, J., & Ballard, B. (1995). Generic skills in the context of higher education.
Higher Education Research and Development, 14, 155-166.

Dickerson, A., Wilson, R., Kik, G. & Dhillon, D. (2012), Developing occupational skills
profiles for the UK: A feasibility study. London: United Kingdom Commission for
Employment and Skills.

Felstead, A., Gallie, D., & Green, F. (2002). Work Skills in Britain 1986-2001. London:
Department for Education and Skills.

Felstead, A., Gallie, D., Green, F & Zhou, Y. (2007). Skills at Work in Britain, 1986 to
2006, Oxford: ESRC Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance.

Green, F. (2001). Employment involvement, technology and evolution in job skills: A

task-based analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 65, 36-67.

Green, F. (2011). What is Skill ? An Inter-Disciplinary Synthesis. Institute of Education,

University of London.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrik, 30, 179-185.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1-55.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.

Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 16, 215-224.

Kearns, P. (2001). Generic Skills for the New Economy. SA: Australian National
Training Authority.

Liau, A. K., Chow, D., Tan, T. K., & Senf, K. (2010). Development and validation of the
Personal strengths inventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 14-26.

Liau, A. K., Tan, T. K., Li, D., & Khoo, A. (2012). Factorial invariance of the Personal
Strengths Inventory-2 for children and adolescents across school level and gender.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 451-465.

Mayer, E. (1992). Key competencies: Report of the Committee to advise the Australian
Education Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training on
employment-related key competencies for post compulsory education and training.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of
alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 568-592.

Meredith,W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.

Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.

Mullen, M. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research.

Journal of International Business Studies, 3, 573–596.

Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The
use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pomplun, M. & Omar, M. H. (2001). The factorial invariance of a test of reading

comprehension across groups of limited English proficient students. Applied
Measurement in Education, 14, 261-283.
Ramos, C., Ng, M., Sung, J., & Loke, F. (2013). Wages and Skills Utilization: Effect of
Board Skills and generic Skills on Wages in Singapore. International Journal of Training
and Development, 17, 116-134.

Raykov, T. (2001), Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure

analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 54, 315-323.

Raykov, T. (2004), Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation

using latent variable modeling. Therapy, 35, 299-331.

Rosseel, Y. (2011). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more.
Retrieved August 17, 2012, from
http://users.ugent.be/~yrosseel/lavaan/lavaanIntroduction.pdf.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in
covariance structure analysis (ASA 1988 proceedings of the business and economic
section, pp. 308–313). Alexandria: American Statistical Association.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for
moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514.

Shapiro, S. S. and Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality

(complete samples), Biometrika, 52, 591-611.

Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in

cross- national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.

Tuker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.

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, 4–69.

White, S. W., Lerner, M. D., McLeod, B. D., Wood, J.J., Ginburg, G. S., Kerns, C.,
Ollendick, T., Kendall, P. C., Placentini, J., Walkup, J., & Compton, S. (2015). Anxiety in
youth with and without autism spectrum disorder: Examination of factorial equivalence.
Behavior Therapy, 46, 40-53.

Zwick, W. R. & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the
number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.
 Table 1:
Rotated Factor Pattern, Communalities, and Uniquenesses - Generic Skills Inventory

Problem Solving

Communication
Leadership

Teamwork

Numeracy
Influence

Planning

Physical
Literacy
SN Item h2 u2

1 Reading written information 0.82 -0.14 -0.09 -0.03 -0.11 0.11 0.09 0.21 0.06 0.69 0.31
2 Reading short documents 0.91 -0.07 -0.05 0.03 -0.08 0.03 -0.01 0.11 0.01 0.79 0.21
3 Reading long documents 0.93 0.04 0.00 0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.14 0.00 0.80 0.20
4 Writing materials such as forms, notices or signs 0.94 -0.03 -0.04 -0.08 -0.14 0.10 0.05 0.08 -0.01 0.74 0.26
5 Writing short documents 0.94 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.03 0.82 0.18
6 Writing long documents 0.91 0.13 0.06 -0.03 0.03 -0.12 -0.02 -0.18 -0.06 0.75 0.25
7 Physical strength 0.00 -0.09 0.01 0.14 0.09 -0.27 0.78 -0.02 0.00 0.69 0.32
8 Physical stamina -0.02 0.01 0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.77 0.11 -0.11 0.63 0.37
9 Skills or accuracy in using hands or fingers -0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.03 -0.07 0.16 0.84 -0.02 0.03 0.71 0.30
10 Knowledge of how to use tools or equipment 0.07 -0.01 0.00 -0.04 0.04 0.16 0.79 -0.09 0.01 0.64 0.36
Adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing
11 numbers -0.01 -0.14 0.06 0.05 -0.07 -0.06 0.02 0.11 0.94 0.81 0.19
Calculating using decimals, percentages or
12 fractions -0.03 -0.03 0.05 0.02 -0.10 0.20 -0.08 -0.03 0.88 0.83 0.17
Calculating using more advanced mathematical or
13 statistical tools 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.00 -0.35 0.57 0.62 0.38
14 Dealing with people -0.01 -0.16 0.50 0.09 -0.02 0.12 -0.11 0.42 -0.14 0.55 0.45
15 Making speeches or presentations 0.27 0.03 0.70 0.02 0.14 -0.04 -0.05 -0.26 -0.08 0.72 0.28
16 Persuading or influencing others -0.03 -0.04 0.79 0.01 0.12 0.11 -0.06 -0.02 -0.04 0.72 0.28
17 Selling a product or service -0.20 -0.12 0.94 -0.11 -0.15 -0.12 0.09 0.05 0.25 0.64 0.36
Counselling, advising or caring for customers or
18 clients 0.04 -0.04 0.83 -0.07 -0.19 0.01 0.04 0.22 -0.03 0.65 0.35
 Problem Solving

Communication
Leadership

Teamwork

Numeracy
Influence

Planning

Physical
Literacy
SN Item h2 u2

Instructing, training or teaching people,

19 individually or in groups 0.05 0.19 0.43 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.11 -0.14 -0.13 0.59 0.41
20 Planning your own activities -0.09 -0.14 -0.02 -0.11 1.11 0.01 0.01 0.02 -0.05 0.83 0.17
21 Organising your own time -0.10 -0.19 -0.08 -0.08 1.09 0.09 -0.01 0.08 -0.06 0.81 0.19
22 Thinking ahead 0.10 -0.04 -0.03 0.25 0.45 -0.03 -0.05 0.26 0.01 0.64 0.36
23 Looking for information that you need 0.24 -0.12 -0.04 0.09 0.41 0.01 -0.01 0.26 0.10 0.62 0.38
24 Managing your own feelings -0.01 -0.01 -0.08 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.78 0.00 0.67 0.33
25 Handling the feelings of other people -0.05 0.20 0.09 0.01 -0.09 0.04 -0.01 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.29
26 Negotiations 0.02 0.22 0.32 -0.06 0.02 -0.01 -0.06 0.42 0.10 0.63 0.37
27 Handling diversity 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.21 0.00 0.04 0.38 0.05 0.58 0.42
28 Spotting problems, error or faults 0.06 0.00 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.85 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.83 0.17
29 Working out the cause of problems or faults 0.00 0.04 -0.02 -0.03 0.01 0.92 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.90 0.10
30 Thinking of solutions to problems 0.01 0.04 0.02 -0.02 0.06 0.87 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.89 0.11
Analyzing complex work-related problems in
31 depth 0.08 0.17 0.06 -0.02 0.23 0.57 -0.03 -0.11 0.02 0.75 0.25
32 Planning the activities of others -0.06 0.52 0.06 0.09 0.36 0.01 0.04 -0.09 -0.09 0.63 0.37
33 Keeping a close control over resources -0.01 0.52 -0.12 -0.02 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.22 0.16 0.57 0.43
Making strategic decisions about the future of
34 your organization 0.11 0.49 0.16 -0.11 0.19 -0.40 0.02 0.07 0.18 0.61 0.39
Motivating the staff whom you manage or
35 supervise -0.02 0.99 -0.06 0.06 -0.16 0.08 -0.01 0.08 -0.07 0.84 0.16
36 Coaching the staff whom you manage -0.03 1.06 -0.08 0.00 -0.17 0.10 -0.02 0.07 -0.06 0.88 0.12
Developing the careers of the staff whom you
37 manage 0.01 1.07 -0.04 -0.04 -0.17 -0.01 -0.04 0.04 -0.03 0.85 0.15
 Problem Solving

Communication
Leadership

Teamwork

Numeracy
Influence

Planning

Physical
Literacy
SN Item h2 u2

38 Collaborating with colleagues -0.05 0.03 -0.11 1.00 -0.04 -0.06 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.82 0.18
39 Cooperating with colleagues 0.03 0.01 -0.15 0.84 -0.03 0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.09 0.72 0.28
40 Working with a team of people -0.03 0.01 0.18 0.83 -0.14 0.08 0.02 -0.07 -0.05 0.70 0.30
41 Listening carefully to colleagues 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.90 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.74 0.26
Table 2:
Fit Indices of Hypothesized CFA and Competing Models
Model χ2 df SB χ2 CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Hypothesized 9-factor 10304* 730 8196* .913 .902 .056 .063

Oblique
Competing 9-factor 11454* 757 9114* .903 .895 .058 .071
Second Order
Competing 9-factor 23579* 767 19669* .780 .765 .087 .308
Orthogonal
Competing 1-factor 30867* 766 24188* .728 .708 .096 .085

Note: χ2=Chi-square statistics; df=degree of freedom; SBχ2:Satorra-Bentler rescaled

χ2; CFI=comparative fit index; TLI=Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA= root mean square
error of approximation; SRMR=Standardized root mean square. * p <0.01

Table 3:
Factor Correlations, and Raykov’s Internal Consistency Reliabilities for the 9
Domains of Generic Skills Inventory
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Raykov’s
Reliability
Index
1. Literacy .93
2. Physical -.08 .70
3. Numeracy .46 -.10 .78
4. Influence .29 .03~ .23 .94
5. Planning .47 .01~ .35 .28 .86
6. Communication .30 .07 .23 .23 .36 .92
7. Problem Solving .65 -.07~ .58 .34 .54 .35 .90
8. Leadership .43 .09 .37 .33 .40 .34 .54 .91
9. Teamwork .41 .14 .28 .24 .43 .30 .49 .45 .90
Note. ~ p>.001
Table 4:
Factorial Invariance Tests across Gender, Race, Age Group, Income Group, Firm
Size, Occupation, and Industry
Model χ2 df SBχ2 χ2Diff CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Gender
Equal Form 11469* 1460 9154* - .911 .900 .057 .066
Equal FL 11544* 1492 9249* 73* .910 .901 .056 .066
Equal FL & Intercepts 11748* 1524 9481* 249* .908 .901 .056 .067
Equal Error Variances 12011* 1565 9552* 135* .907 .903 .055 .067
Equal Factor Means 12203* 1574 9735* 346* .905 .901 .056 .068
Equal Factor Variances 12231* 1583 9776* 31* .905 .901 .056 .072
Race
Equal Form 11293* 1460 9071* - .911 .900 .056 .065
Equal FL 11358* 1492 9154* 62* .910 .901 .056 .066
Equal FL & Intercepts 11529* 1524 9379* 246* .908 .901 .056 .066
Equal Error Variances 11717* 1565 9168* 61* .911 .907 .054 .066
Equal Factor Means 11784* 1574 9246* 100* .910 .906 .054 .066
Equal Factor Variances 11792* 1583 9277* 14 .910 .907 .054 .068
Age Group
Equal Form 11159* 1460 8924* - .911 .901 .056 .064
Equal FL 11325* 1492 9095* 165* .910 .901 .056 .067
Equal FL & Intercepts 11561* 1524 9353* 292* .907 .900 .056 .067
Equal Error Variances 11717* 1565 9790* 421* .902 .898 .057 .068
Equal Factor Means 12130* 1574 10110* 850* .899 .894 .057 .078
Equal Factor Variances 12706* 1583 10328* 410* .896 .893 .058 .130
Income Group
Equal Form 11364* 1460 9121* - .899 .887 .056 .067
Equal FL 11738* 1492 9435* 322* .896 .885 .057 .072
Equal FL & Intercepts 12254* 1524 9941* 741* .889 .881 .058 .071
Equal Error Variances 14019* 1565 11564* 3855* .869 .862 .062 .077
Equal Factor Means 15214* 1574 12667* .854 .848 .065 .143
Equal Factor Variances 15715* 1583 13100* 489* .849 .843 .067 .246
Firm Sizes
Equal Form 11184* 1460 8952* - .907 .896 .056 .065
Equal FL 11357* 1492 9120* 162* .906 .896 .056 .069
Equal FL & Intercepts 11815* 1524 9593* 772* .900 .893 .057 .070
Equal Error Variances 12429* 1565 10294* 1840* .892 .887 .058 .071
Equal Factor Means 12815* 1574 10655* 1666* .888 .883 .059 .082
Equal Factor Variances 13004* 1583 10844* 378* .886 .881 .060 .117
Occupation
Equal Form 11199* 1460 9069* - .899 .886 .056 .066
Equal FL 11596* 1492 9429* 398* .894 .884 .057 .072
Equal FL & Intercepts 12200* 1524 10019* 920* .887 .878 .058 .072
Equal Error Variances 14326* 1565 11221* 613* .871 .865 .062 .078
Equal Factor Means 15620* 1574 12353* .856 .850 .065 .176
Equal Factor Variances 16343* 1583 12900* 404* .849 .844 .066 .253
Industry
Equal Form 13339* 2920 10681* - .908 .897 .057 .068
Equal FL 13626* 3016 10961* 269* .906 .898 .057 .070
Model χ2 df SBχ2 χ2Diff CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Equal FL & Intercepts 14375* 3112 11758* 1296* .898 .892 .058 .071
Equal Error Variances 15070* 3235 12331* 574* .892 .891 .058 .073
Equal Factor Means 15070* 3262 12771* 1278* .887 .887 .060 .080
Equal Factor Variances 15623* 3289 12907* 913* .886 .886 .060 .088

Note: FL=factor loadings; χ2=Chi-square statistics; df=degree of freedom;

SBχ2:Satorra-Bentler rescaled χ2; χ2Diff: χ2 Difference; CFI=comparative fit index;
TLI=Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA= root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR=Standardized root mean square.
Figure 1: Histograms of the 9 Domains of Generic Skills
 Figure 2: 9-factor Oblique Confirmatory Factor Model of Generic Skills

View publication stats