A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practice
Researchers studying person-environment fit can choose between various measurement approaches. Even though these measures are distinctly different, they often get used interchangeably, which makes interpreting the results of person-environment fit studies difficult. In the present article, we contra...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896710/full |
| _version_ | 1811288416026886144 |
|---|---|
| author | Carla Bohndick Jonas Breetzke Tom Rosman |
| author_facet | Carla Bohndick Jonas Breetzke Tom Rosman |
| author_sort | Carla Bohndick |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Researchers studying person-environment fit can choose between various measurement approaches. Even though these measures are distinctly different, they often get used interchangeably, which makes interpreting the results of person-environment fit studies difficult. In the present article, we contrast the most commonly used measurement approaches for person-environment fit in higher education and compare them in terms of explained variance. We obtained data on the fit as well as subjective and objective study-related outcomes of N = 595 university students. We analyzed the fit between the demands of the study program and the abilities of the student, using the algebraic, squared and absolute difference score, response surface analysis (RSA), and direct fit as measurement approaches. Our results indicate that RSA explains the most variance for objective outcomes, and that direct fit explains the most variance for subjective outcomes. We hope that this contribution will help researchers distinguish the different measurement approaches of demands-abilities fit (and ultimately person-environment fit) and use them accordingly. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T03:37:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-41450c70b37f4562b1ebe1899ebbdd66 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T03:37:18Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-41450c70b37f4562b1ebe1899ebbdd662022-12-22T03:04:18ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782022-07-011310.3389/fpsyg.2022.896710896710A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practiceCarla Bohndick0Jonas Breetzke1Tom Rosman2Hamburg Center for University Teaching and Learning (HUL), University of Hamburg, Hamburg, GermanyHamburg Center for University Teaching and Learning (HUL), University of Hamburg, Hamburg, GermanyResearch Literacy Unit, Leibniz-Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, GermanyResearchers studying person-environment fit can choose between various measurement approaches. Even though these measures are distinctly different, they often get used interchangeably, which makes interpreting the results of person-environment fit studies difficult. In the present article, we contrast the most commonly used measurement approaches for person-environment fit in higher education and compare them in terms of explained variance. We obtained data on the fit as well as subjective and objective study-related outcomes of N = 595 university students. We analyzed the fit between the demands of the study program and the abilities of the student, using the algebraic, squared and absolute difference score, response surface analysis (RSA), and direct fit as measurement approaches. Our results indicate that RSA explains the most variance for objective outcomes, and that direct fit explains the most variance for subjective outcomes. We hope that this contribution will help researchers distinguish the different measurement approaches of demands-abilities fit (and ultimately person-environment fit) and use them accordingly.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896710/fullperson-environment fit theorydemands-abilities fitmeasurement approachesresponse surface analysisdifference scorestudy success |
| spellingShingle | Carla Bohndick Jonas Breetzke Tom Rosman A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practice Frontiers in Psychology person-environment fit theory demands-abilities fit measurement approaches response surface analysis difference score study success |
| title | A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practice |
| title_full | A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practice |
| title_fullStr | A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practice |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practice |
| title_short | A comparison between different ways to assess demands-abilities fit in higher education: Empirical results and recommendations for research practice |
| title_sort | comparison between different ways to assess demands abilities fit in higher education empirical results and recommendations for research practice |
| topic | person-environment fit theory demands-abilities fit measurement approaches response surface analysis difference score study success |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896710/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT carlabohndick acomparisonbetweendifferentwaystoassessdemandsabilitiesfitinhighereducationempiricalresultsandrecommendationsforresearchpractice AT jonasbreetzke acomparisonbetweendifferentwaystoassessdemandsabilitiesfitinhighereducationempiricalresultsandrecommendationsforresearchpractice AT tomrosman acomparisonbetweendifferentwaystoassessdemandsabilitiesfitinhighereducationempiricalresultsandrecommendationsforresearchpractice AT carlabohndick comparisonbetweendifferentwaystoassessdemandsabilitiesfitinhighereducationempiricalresultsandrecommendationsforresearchpractice AT jonasbreetzke comparisonbetweendifferentwaystoassessdemandsabilitiesfitinhighereducationempiricalresultsandrecommendationsforresearchpractice AT tomrosman comparisonbetweendifferentwaystoassessdemandsabilitiesfitinhighereducationempiricalresultsandrecommendationsforresearchpractice |