70

Requests for copies should be addressed to: LJ Van Vuuren, Programme in Industrial
Psychology, Department of Human Resource Management, RAU, PO Box 524,
Auckland Park, 2006.

REJOINDERTO ARTICLE BY DE BRUIN AND LEW:
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE

CAREER RESILIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (CRQ)
LJ VAN VUUREN

C FOURIE

Programme in Industrial Psychology
Department of Human Resource Management

Rand Afrikaans University

ABSTRACT
This rejoinder is presented in response to an analysis by De Bruin and Lew of the 1998 publication by Fourie and
VanVuuren on the career resilience construct. Comments and recommendations made by De Bruin and Lew in
respect of the construct validity of the CRQ are responded to in terms of the theoretical foundation of the CRQ,
the methodology used, the CRQ’s content validity, sample-related issues, the instrument’s construct validity, as
well as a perspective on the future of the instrument.

OPSOMMING
Hierdie repliek word voorgehou na aanleiding van’n ontledingdeur De Bruin en Lew wat op die1998-publikasie
van Fourie enVanVuuren aangaande die konstruk loopbaangehardheid, gebaseer is. Respons op die kommentaar
en aanbevelings deur De Bruin en Lew aangaande die konstrukgeldigheid van die Loopbaan-gehardheidsvraelys
(LGV) word voorgehou in terme van die teoretiese basis van die LGV, die metodologie wat gebruik is, die in-
houdsgeldigheid van die LGV, die instrument se konstrukgeldigheid, steekproefverwante vraagstukke, asook ’n
perspektief op die toekoms van die instrument.

A major concern for individuals pursuing careers in less than
optimal career conditions within the new career paradigm is
the enhancement of employability inside and outside their
present employers’contexts.The phenomenon career resilien-
ce, of which the opposite condition appears to be career vul-
nerability, may be a critical competency of individuals to
overcome adverse circumstances that impact career deploy-
ment and employability.

Since the career resilience concept is a relatively ‘‘new entrant’’
to the ¢eld of career management, any e¡ort to contribute to
the scienti¢c exploration of career resilience is deemed to en-
hance the understanding of the theoretical framework of
career resilience theory and imminent operationalisation
thereof.The opportunity to respond to the special e¡ort made
by De Bruin and Lew in this regard, is therefore appreciated.
Although each attempt at exploring and clarifying a construct
such as this may contribute to its body of knowledge, it
should, however, be borne in mind that the results of the
studies on career resilience as referred to in this rejoinder, may
all be regarded as sample-speci¢c. Cross-validation is therefore
ultimately required.

At he time of publication Fourie and VanVuuren (1998) were
fullyaware of the need for further exploration of their ¢ndings
by stating that‘‘there are certain limitations togeneralisingand
interpreting the ¢ndings of the study. In the ¢rst instance, the
construct of career resilience is a complex phenomenon and
research and inquiry into the nature thereof are notconclusive.
Secondly, the reliability and validity of the Career Resilience
Questionnaire (CRQ) as measuring instrument, have not
been substantiated conclusively’’ (p. 58). This reinforces the
scienti¢c notion that no instrument is a constant ^ the con-
tinued development thereof is a function of continuous
reciprocation between theory, research and practice. Blind em-
piricism is therefore not really an option when a construct like
career resilience, and the CRQ as its descriptive measure, is
scrutinised.

It has to be pointed out that the terms of the initial agreement
on gaining access to and administering the CRQ, Lew (the
second author) was explicitly alerted to the exploratory nature

of the Fourie andVanVuuren (1998) study, and that the CRQ
was still in the process of being validated. It was further agreed
that ¢ndings and results would be shared. The De Bruin and
Lew commentary therefore came as no surprise, since it was
prompted by Fourie and Van Vuuren. De Bruin and Lew’s
work is viewed as a contribution that will certainly add value
to the on-going analysis of the theoretical and statistical prop-
erties of the career resilience construct.

In response to De Bruin and Lew’s ¢ndings, some comments
regarding the theoretical foundation of the CRQ, the metho-
dology used, the CRQ’s content validity, sample-related
issues, the instrument’s construct validity, as well as a perspec-
tive on the future of the instrument, is provided henceforth.

Theoretical foundation of the CRQ

At the time of the Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) study, the
earlier research on resilience as a construct that may have ap-
plication in the ¢eld of career management, was limited. Nor
was there an instrument to measure career resilience more
comprehensively than the seven- and 13 item-approaches by
London (1983, 1993) and Noe, Noe and Bachhuber (1990)
provided for. London (1983), in his initial exploration of the
concept, conceded that the dimensions of career resilience are
neither independent nor necessarily exhaustive of all possible
important constructs. In con¢rming London’s initial reserva-
tions, De Bruin and Lew allude to the fact that ‘‘no explicit
theoreticallyderived multi-dimensional model of career resi-
lience is given’’ in the Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) article.
The latter research report was, however, based on the, albeit
few, e¡orts of Bridges (1995), Gordon and Coscarelli (1996),
London (1983,1993) and Noe, et al. (1990), who pioneered at-
tempts to describe and delineate the construct in terms of its
importance and utility.

The intention with the 1998 study by Fourie and VanVuuren
was not to develop such a model, but to explore the concept
that was originally coined by London (1983) as a dimension of
his multidimensional theory of career motivation. In line with
this aim it was decided to de¢ne and describe career resilience
within the new career paradigm, and to develop a measuring
instrument that may enable the researchers to shed more light
on the concept than initial London (1983,1993) and Noe, et al.
(1990) ¢ndings allowed for.

SAJournal of Industrial Psychology, 2002, 28(1),70-72
SATydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2002, 28(1),70-72



The process of theorising is necessarily intuitive, perhaps even
more so in the case of exploratory research. It also has to be
pointed out that for a study of an exploratory nature, a domain
of observables have to be outlined before the observables can
relate to a construct. In the Fourie and Vuuren (1998) study
several observables relating to competencies, attitudes and
orientations required of careerists in the so-called new career
paradigm, were explored. Thereafter the domain of career
resilience was outlined. This can be seen from the way in
which Fourie and Vuuren (1998, pp. 53-54) describe the be-
havioural component of career resilience.

It should be noted that a research project aimed at an in-depth
exploration of career resilience, the e¡ort of which may result
in exactly such a‘‘multi-dimensional model of career resilien-
ce’’ that De Bruin and Lew recommends, was initiated by the
present authors in April 2001.

Methodology

In order to obtain a simple structure of the constructs when
doing factor analytic studies, the present authors normally
make use of the pattern matrix rotated according to the direct
oblimin procedure. This is evident from Table 4 in Fourie
andVanVuuren (1998). De Bruin and Lew describe their use
of factor structure coe⁄cients to report on the correlations bet-
ween the items and factors of the CRQ.Whilst the present
authors agree with the factor analytic method used by De
Bruin and Lew, the reporting of the structure matrix rather
than the pattern matrix is unusual (cf. Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996), as the structure matrix seldom re£ects the underlying
simple factor structure. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) note
that there is some debate as to whether the pattern matrix or
the structure matrix should be interpreted after oblique rota-
tion has been executed. They further explain that ‘‘ the cor-
relations between variables and factors are in£ated by any
overlap between factors. The problem becomes more severe
as the correlations among factors increase and it may be hard
to determine which variables are related to a factor. On the
other hand, the pattern matrix contains values representing
the unique contributions of each factor to the variance in the
variables. Most researchers interpret and report the pattern
matrix rather than the structure matrix (p. 653) (emphasis
by present authors). This probably explains why De Bruin
and Lew describe their Table 2 as revealing ‘‘a very complex
factor solution’’and ‘‘shows that several items are factorially
complex, having more than one salient factor structure co-
e⁄cient’’. It would therefore have been interesting to see the
pattern matrix produced by De Bruin and Lew’s data.

Content validity

De Bruin and Lew recommend, amongst others, that items in
a questionnaire of career resilience should demonstrate face
validity. It should be noted that the CRQ items were initially
trialled, as is customary in questionnaire construction, andwas
also published in the public domain (Fourie & Van Vuuren,
1998). De Bruin and Lew decided to include and administer
the CRQ in their study after having had the opportunity to
inspect the items (and thus the face validity thereof). It is there-
fore assumed that the face validity of the CRQ’s items was of a
su⁄cient standard to warrant an application of the question-
naire in its original format, and without improvement of any
items.

In compiling the range of items of the CRQ, particular care
was exercised by Fourie and Van Vuuren not to formulate
the same item in 60-something di¡erent forms to ensure a
high reliability coe⁄cient, but to comprehensively cover the
domain of the career resilience construct as it existed at the
time of the research. Kerlinger and Lee (2000) suggest that
‘‘it is possible and desirable to assemble large collections of
items, especially in the achievement area. But the content
validity, no matter how large and‘‘good’’the items, is always in
question. Content validation consists essentially in judgment’’
(p. 667) (emphasis by present authors). The 60 items that

initially comprised the CRQ was a representative sample of
items, based on judgement, that could potentially have been
included in a such a questionnaire. As is the norm for research
of this type, a special e¡ort was made to achieve the highest
possible content validity of the CRQ. The 45 items that were
retained by means of item analyses are therefore regarded to be
representative of the career resilience domain that was ex-
plored in the Fourie andVanVuuren (1998) study.

De Bruin and Lew comment on items 7,8 and 38.These items,
on face value, seem to be aligned to career resilience theory.
The current state of career resilience theory indicates that the
construct is very much concerned with individuals’inclination
to take charge of their careers by exploring alternative career
management approaches in uncertain or adverse situations.
Even though item 38 may not directly re£ect adverse career
situations, it represents an attempt to establish the extent to
which respondents perceive job securityand the traditional pa-
radigm of extended employment in a particular organisation,
to be of less importance in the new career paradigm. Items 7
and 8 seem to adequately assess attitudes that re£ect indivi-
duals’willingness to be assertive in career situations that requi-
re more ingenuity than traditional ways to identify alternative
career strategies provide for.

Sample

The Fourie and VanVuuren (1998) study (N=352) was an ex-
ploratory study, the results of which were based on responses
by a sample drawn from employees who were positioned in
industries (motor manufacturing and short-term insurance)
that were deemed to be less than stable insofar as continued
job security and extended organisational membership were
concerned. This may then have required that the respondents
constituting the sample may have been required to revisit ex-
pectations around opportunities for continued career growth
and progression. This, in turn, may have required some form
of career resilience. Irrespective of this, as can be seen clearly
form the Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) Discussion section, no
recommendations were made regarding the generalisation of
empirical results. As such, the recommendations focused on
the possible value of career resilience, as becomes a study in
which a relatively new construct is explored.

The question has to be raised as to whether the di¡erences
evident between the results of the Fourie and Van Vuuren
(1998) and De Bruin and Lew studies, could be attributed to
some psychological di¡erentiation that may exist between
the samples of the two sets of researchers respectively.The ef-
fect of this should not be disregarded: validity is necessarily a
function of the interaction that exists between participants of
a sample and their particular context.What is valid for one
sample, is not necessarily valid for another. Insofar as career
resilience is concerned, it can be stated that the complex
nature of the concept, and therefore the domain of observables,
may be interpreted di¡erently by di¡erent research samples.
Furthermore, the contextual setting of adverse circumstances
and chronic or infrequent career barriers that may be present
for one set of participants, may be rather di¡erent from those
perceived by another sample.

Construct validity of the CRQ

Anastasi (1986) explains that a validation process begins with
psychological theory, prior research, or observation and analy-
ses of the relevant behaviour domain. As was explained pre-
viously, the 45-item Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) Career
Resilience Questionnaire (CRQ) resulted from an approach
based on observation and analysis of the relevant behaviour domain.
The four scales derived (consisting of14, 7,9 and15 items) pre-
sented Cronbach alphas of 0.73, 0.68, 0.62 and 0.72 respectively.
De Bruin and Lew state, somewhat ambiguously, that ‘‘it is ob-
vious that the reliability coe⁄cients of the scales range from marginally
satisfactory (=0.730) to unsatisfactory (=0.617) suggesting that the
items in the four scales are conceptually somewhat disconnected and not
tightly clustered’’.

VAN VUUREN, FOURIE 71



Since reliability sets the upper bound to validity, a measuring
instrument can generally be reliable but not necessarily valid
for a particular purpose. However, it cannot be valid and un-
reliable.With an ability or achievement test the minimum ac-
ceptable reliability coe⁄cients are deemed to be 0.7 or higher.
Once again the reliability coe⁄cient is an estimate, of a parti-
cular type based on a particular sample of respondents.

It has to be pointed out that the CRQ is a questionnaire. In this
case a questionnaire that is intended merely as a tool to be
utilised in career management programmes and interventions.
The instrument is not a clinical instrument that provides abso-
lute or conclusive estimates or predictions on career behaviour.
Nor is it a test upon which major life decisions can be based.
Ideally the CRQ is to be used as an instrument that can be used, in con-
junctionwithother interventions, toexplore issues, fosterself-insightand
create dialogue about career management behaviours that can be capita-
lised on or potentially put an individual at risk in the new career para-
digm.The CRQ may, however, be used to identify patterns of
resilience-related behaviour ^ these patterns may be explored
further during discussions aimed at future career planning.
Since no‘‘prediction’’of future performance is made, it is there-
fore certainly acceptable for the reliabilitycoe⁄cients of an in-
strument of this type to be lower than those usually sought for
tests of ability for example. Although continued validation
may be sought, the validity information available for the
CRQ suggests that is has reached an acceptable level for the
particular application as described above.

An analysis of the Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) data reveals
that the items of each scale displays statistically acceptable
variance. Each item of aparticular scale is therefore a miniature
version of the scale as a whole. De Bruin and Lew suggest that
there are too few items per scale. In practical terms, however,
this does not mean that the items that were eventually retained
were necessarily weak. Furthermore, the intercorrelations be-
tween the scales are low. This implies that the scales are rela-
tively independent. Depending on a broadening of the career
resilience research basis in the future, and the eventual practical
application of the CRQ, care will still have to be taken not to
include too many items in the questionnaire ^ few employees
have the time, or the inclination, to respond to questionnaires
that contain excessive numbers of items.

The fact that the scale reliabilities ‘‘range from marginally
satisfactory(=0.730)tounsatisfactory(=0.617). . .’’, in De Bruin and
Lew’s words, is acknowledged and indicates that the CRQ does
need some re¢nement.The need for this is further underlined
by the results of a study (N=176) by Botha (2001), in which
reliabilities of 0.72, 0.56, 0.63 and 0.73 were obtained for the
four existing CRQ-scales respectively.

The future of the CRQ

As has already been stated by Fourie and VanVuuren (1998), as
well as De Bruin and Lew, career resilience may be an important
competency forcareerists todemonstrate and/or foster inthe face
of the demands posed by the new career paradigm of less than
optimal conditions devoid of the conventional de¢nition of ca-
reer success, e.g. progression ‘‘up the corporate ladder’’. Further,
in-depth theoretical and empirical analyses of the construct are
therefore imperative. As has been mentioned earlier in this dis-
cussion, a ¢rst step in this direction may be the research project
aimed at an in-depth exploration of career resilience which has
alreadybeen under way sinceApril 2001 - theDe Bruin and Lew
call for the development of a‘‘multi-dimensional model ofcareer
resilience’’ had thus been pre-empted to an extent.

Anastasi (1986) emphasises that‘‘Construct validation is indeed
a never-ending process’’ (p.4). No measuring instrument in the
¢eld of psychology is perfect ^ further re¢nement of the CRQ
is therefore imminent. Apossible ¢rst step in this quest may be
to combine the Botha (2001), Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998),
and De Bruin and Lew data sets. Statistical analyses performed
on data from a sample size in excess of 700 may yield some-
what di¡erent results from those that have thus far been ob-
tained independently.

CONCLUSION

The importance of peer review type systems that make provi-
sion for reminding researchers of the importance of scienti¢c
and academic integrity, and that allow for objective ques-
tioning and scrutiny of research results previously published,
is once again underscored by the commendable e¡ort made by
De Bruin and Lew to challenge the construct validity of the
CRQ. It is through e¡orts like these that the ¢eld of industrial
psychology can grow through continued theorisation and
measurement of new constructs, in this case career resilience.
Furthermore, the erudite statistical analysis of the CRQ that
resulted from De Bruin and Lew’s e¡ort must have been con-
ceptualised within a broader theoretical framework and ideas
on career resilience, rather than being based on serendipity.
This is clear from the title of the broader research project on
which their commentary was based, namely ‘‘A factor analytic
study of adult career concerns, career status and career resilience’’ (Lew,
2001). Over and above the contribution of the empirical in-
formation contained in the Lew study to the future develop-
ment of the career resilience construct, the theoretical information
contained therein may be of particular signi¢cance for the
growth of the construct. Future contributions and possible
co-operation with the present authors may create some
synergy that bodes well for the continued development of
the career resilience construct.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. (1986). Evolving concepts of test validation. An-
nual Review of Psychology, 37,1-15.

Botha, E.M. (2001). Is a⁄rmative action an issue for career resilient
white males? Unpublished dissertation. Johannesburg:
Rand Afrikaans University.

Bridges,W. (1995). Jobshift: how to prosper in a world without jobs.
London: Brealey.

Fourie, C. & VanVuuren, L.J. (1998). De¢ning and measuring
career resilience. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 24(3), 52-59.

Gordon, K.A. & Coscarelli,W.C. (1996). Recognizing and fos-
tering resilience. Performance Improvement, 35(9),14-17.

Kerlinger, F.N. & Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral re-
search (4th ed.). FortWorth,TX: Harcourt.

Lew, C.C. (2001). Afactoranalyticstudyofadultcareerconcerns,career
statusand career resilience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Johannesburg: Rand Afrikaans University.

London, M. (1983).Toward a theory of career motivation. Aca-
demy of Management Review,8(4), 620-630.

London, M. (1993). Relationships between career motiva-
tion, empowerment and support for career development.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,66, 55-
69.

Noe, R.A., Noe, A.W. & Bachhuber, J.A. (1990). An investiga-
tion of the correlates of career motivation. Journal ofVoca-
tional Behaviour, 37(3), 340-356.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statis-
tics. NewYork: Harper Collins.

REJOINDERTO DE BRUIN AND LEW72