Conceptualizing and Measuring Subjective Career Lock

	SAMPLE 1	SAMPLE 2	SAMPLE 3	SAMPLE 4	SAMPLE 5
N	483	1918	509	371	3281
Female (%)	68	91	78	76	84
Average age (SD)	48.0 (7.9)	54.7 (6.6)	47.2 (7.3)	44.6 (6.1)	51.4 (8.0)
% with Bachelors degree or higher	99.6	29.0	100	100	58.4
Sample description	Experts in natural, environmental and forestry sciences	Employees of several occupational fields (e.g. secretarial, administrative, ICT work, social and health care work)	Professionals and experts in social sciences	Graduates and experts in business administration	Full sample

Table 2

Factor Loadings from Confirmatory Factor Analyses.

ITEM	SCL			DISSATISFACTION			INABILITY
ITEM	SAMPLE 2	SAMPLE 3	SAMPLE 4	SAMPLE 2	SAMPLE 3	SAMPLE 4	SAMPLE 2	SAMPLE 3	SAMPLE 4
1. I feel stuck in my present job.	.91	.90	.92
2. I have ended up in a dead end in my career.	.91	.90	.90
3. I am stagnating in my career.	.84	.86	.89
4. I’ve been dissatisfied with my work for a long time.				.89	.90	.92
5. My present job does not fulfill my wishes.				.88	.91	.91
6. I do my work even though I don’t like it.				.86	.85	.90
7. The nature of my job does not correspond to what I would like to do.				.85	.86	.88
8. I would like to work doing something other than my current work.				.83	.87	.83
There are some moments during their careers when people think about other job roles or changing workplaces. When answering the following questions, imagine you are in a situation in which you’re planning this kind of change. Think about how much the following statements reflect your own experience in this situation.
If I wanted to change workplaces or roles within my organization…
9. …I’d have no real means to do so.							.71	.67	.69
10. …it wouldn’t be easy because I put off decisions concerning my career.							.68	.67	.71
11. …I wouldn’t be able to decide what new job to pursue.							.68	.61	.68
12. …I would not have sufficient skills for other job roles or jobs that interest me.							.69	.67	.71
13. …I would not be able to get other suitable work.							.74	.68	.71
14. …getting a new job would take too much effort.

[i] Note. CFA factor loadings were calculated using Samples 2–4, N = 371–1918.

Table 3

CFA Model Fit Comparisons in Samples 2–4.

MODEL	χ²(DF)	SCALING CORRECTION¹	SATORRA-BENTLER SCALED χ² DIFFERENCE TEST¹	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Sample 2 (N = 1918)
Three-factor	812.29(74)	1.24		.07	.95	.94	.05
Two-factor (SCL and dissatisfaction combined)	2181.62(76)	1.26	Δχ²(2) = 870.80***	.12	.85	.82	.07
One-factor (all combined)	4958.40(77)	1.27	Δχ²(3) = 2631.81***	.18	.65	.59	.16
Sample 3 (N = 509)
Three-factor	406.77(74)	1.25		.09	.92	.90	.06
Two-factor (SCL and dissatisfaction combined)	890.12(76)	1.26	Δχ²(2) = 376.13***	.15	.80	.76	.12
One-factor (all combined)	1019.20(77)	1.28	Δχ²(3) = 394.12***	.16	.77	.73	.12
Sample 4 (N = 371)
Three-factor	311.84(74)	1.19		.09	.93	.91	.05
Two-factor (SCL and dissatisfaction combined)	564.41(76)	1.20	Δχ²(2) = 195.03***	.13	.85	.82	.07
One-factor (all combined)	1076.44(77)	1.22	Δχ²(3) = 480.70***	.19	.70	.64	.15

[i] ¹ Note. Scaling correction = Scaling correction used for the Chi-square difference test in models estimated with maximum-likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR). RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

***p < .001.

Table 4

Correlations in Sample 5.

	M/%	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. SCL	2.80	1.26	.92
2. Dissatisfaction	2.47	1.19	.75**	.94
3. Inability	2.84	0.90	.42**	.27**	.85
4. Affective commitment	2.54	0.97	–.60**	–.70**	–.20**	.86
5. Job boredom	2.63	1.57	.43**	.49**	.23**	–.40**	.81
6. Job burnout	2.29	0.59	.54**	.60**	.36**	–.51**	.53**	.88
7. Self-reported health	7.75	1.54	–.25**	–.24**	–.25**	.27**	–.21**	–.44**	—
8. Work ability	7.97	1.60	–.32**	–.32**	–.26**	.33**	–.27**	–.52**	.75**	—
9. Job autonomy	3.39	0.86	–.33**	–.34**	–.24**	.40**	–.06**	–.32**	.27**	.28**	.82
10. Locked-in¹ (Stengård et al., 2016)	11.9%	–	.39**	.49**	.13**	–.45**	.27**	.36**	–.16**	–.22**	–.19**	—
11. Risk of locked-in² (Stengård et al., 2016)	18.6%	–	.21**	.21**	.17**	–.15**	.09**	.13**	–.06**	–.06**	–.07**	–.18**	—
12. Workplace locked-in³ (Fahlén et al., 2009)	27.0%	–	.49**	.54**	.28**	–.55**	.29**	.42**	–.23**	–.27**	–.29**	.47**	.25**	—
13. Occupational locked-in³ (Fahlén et al., 2009)	20.0%	–	.41**	.53**	.27**	–.40**	.31**	.37**	–.19**	–.22**	–.21**	.28**	.20**	.48**	—

[i] Note. Prior locked-in measures: ¹0 = not locked-in or risk of locked-in, 1 = locked-in; ²0 = not locked-in or locked-in, 1 = risk of locked-in; ³0 = not locked-in, 1 = locked-in.

**p < .01; Cronbach’s Alphas on diagonal.

Table 5

Incremental Validity Analyses with Prior Locked-in Measures.

	Job burnout				Self-reported health				Workability
	B	SE	β	ΔR²	B	SE	β	ΔR²	B	SE	β	ΔR²
Model 1
Step 1				.17***				.04***				.06***
Intercept	2.16	.01			7.91	.03			8.17	.04
Locked-in (Stengård et al.)¹	.73	.03	.40***		–.86	.09	–.18***		–1.20	.09	–.24***
Risk of locked-in (Stengård et al.)²	.31	.03	.20***		–.36	.07	–.09***		–.43	.08	–.11***
Step 2				.15***				.03***				.05***
Intercept	1.66	.02			8.52	.07			8.99	.07
Locked-in (Stengård et al.)¹	.37	.03	.21***		–.43	.10	–.09***		–.62	.10	–.13***
Risk of locked-in (Stengård et al.)²	.12	.03	.08		–.13	.08	–.03		–.12	.08	–.03
SCL	.20	.01	.44***		–.25	.03	–.21***		–.34	.03	–.27***
Total R²				.32***				.07***				.12***
Model 2
Step 1				.22***				.06***				.08***
Intercept	2.11	.01			8.00	.03			8.27	.03
Workplace locked-in (Fahlén et al.)³	.43	.02	.32***		–.62	.07	–.18***		–.77	.07	–.21***
Occupational locked-in (Fahlén et al.)³	.31	.03	.21***		–.38	.07	–.10***		–.48	.08	–.12***
Step 2				.12***				.02***				.04***
Intercept	1.67	.02			8.48	.07			8.95	.07
Workplace locked-in (Fahlén et al.)³	.22	.02	.17***		–.40	.07	–.12***		–.45	.07	–.12***
Occupational locked-in (Fahlén et al.)³	.18	.02	.12***		–.24	.08	–.06***		–.28	.08	–.07***
SCL	.19	.01	.40***		–.20	.02	–.17***		–.29	.03	–.23***
Total R²				.33***				.08***				.12***

[i] Note. ¹0 = not locked-in or risk of locked-in, 1 = locked-in; ²0 = not locked-in or locked-in, 1 = risk of locked-in; ³0 = not locked-in, 1 = locked-in. 2826 < n < 3249.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Appendix 1

Results from Exploratory Factor Analysis in Sample 1.

ITEM	SCL	DISSATISFACTION	INABILITY
1	.75*	.21*	–.03
2	.78*	.18*	.02
3	.91*	–.01	<.01
4	.14*	.82*	–.04
5	.19*	.76*	<.01
6	–.04	.88*	.09*
7	.02	.86*	.05
8	.37*	.56*	.04
9	.22*	.71*	–.05
10	.22*	.02	.58*
11	.11	<.01	.54*
12	–.02	<.01	.64*
13	–.01	.15*	.66*
14	.07	–.19*	.41*
15	.04	–.01	.42*
16	.18*	–.02	.61*
17	–.02	–.01	.69*

[i] Note. Geomin rotated factor loadings. The asterisk indicates a loading significant at 5% level.

χ²(df) = 286.11 (88), RMSEA = .07, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, SRMR = .03.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.250 | Journal eISSN: 2002-2867

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 10 - 10

Submitted on: Sep 25, 2023

Accepted on: Nov 8, 2024

Published on: Nov 20, 2024

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

subjective career lock,

scale development,

occupational well-being

© 2024 Otto Pankkonen, Marjaana Pöyry, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 9 (2024): Issue 1