1. Research Paper
Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences
5(1): 89-93, January-February (2014)
ISSN: 0976-1675 https:// www.rjas.info DI: 1405-0308-2013-019
A Scale to Measure the Innovative Work Behavior of Extension Personnel
M Saad Ali, L Manjunath and V S Yadav
Department of Agricultural Extension Education,
College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, Karnataka, India
e-mail: biyumi2000@yahoo.com
Received: 03 August 2013; Revised accepted: 01 December 2013
A B S T R A C T
A study developed innovative work behavior scale of extension personnel was undertaken during 2012-2013 in
Dharwad district of Karnataka, India. Initially, there were 50 statements converting the two dimensions of
innovative work behavior were constructed. Each behavioral statement was judged by 45 experts. The selected 50
statements were administered on 99 extension personnel of both Agriculture State Department (ASD) and
University of Agriculture and Sciences (UAS) by accidental meeting technique. Schedule was used for collection of
information for developing innovative work behavior Scale from extension personnel. The each statement of the
scale was selected by applying several statistical methods presented. The results of the study revealed that 32
statements constructed the innovative work behavior Scale. Further, innovative work behavior Scale established
through applied both validity and reliability methods on the scale.
Key words: Innovative work, Behavior, Scale, Extension personnel
Innovative work behavior as an employee’s action
directed at the generation, application and implementation of
novelty ideas, products, processes and methods to his or her
job position, departmental unit, or organization (Kheng and
Mahmood 2013). Examples of such behavior include
seeking out new technologies, recommending new strategies
to achieve goals, applying new work methods and procuring
support and resources to implement novelty ideas.
Innovative work behavior can range from incremental
improvements to developing radically novel ideas that affect
processes or products across the whole organization (Axtell
et al. 2000). Employees’ innovative work behavior is crucial
in many contemporary management principles, such as
continuous improvement, corporate entrepreneurship and
suggestion programs (Fuller et al. 2006, Sharma and
Chrisman 1999). The present study was made an attempt to
develop innovative work behavior scale by focusing on
extension roles perspective of extension personnel to
measure the innovative behavior among extension
personnel.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The details of steps followed in the construction and
standardization of Innovative Work Behavior Scale of
extension personnel at lower level management. A study
developed innovative work behavior scale of extension
personnel was undertaken during 2012-2013 in Dharwad
district of Karnataka, India. Initially, there were 50
statements converting the two dimensions of innovative
work behavior were constructed. Each behavioral statement
was judged by 45 experts. The selected 50 statements were
administered on 99 extension personnel of both Agriculture
State Department (ASD) and University of Agriculture and
Sciences (UAS) by accidental meeting technique. Schedule
was used for collection of information for developing
innovative work behavior Scale from extension personnel.
Teaching role define as ability to transfer knowledge and
technologies by explore, adjust, or adopt new different ways
of teaching methods. Managerial role is define as the
capacity to planning and evaluating extension program by
search, modify, adopt, or apply new alternative techniques
of management.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Description of innovative work behavior scale
Innovative work behavior scale consist 32 statements
designed to measure the frequency with which an individual
experiences and expresses behavior of teaching role and
managerial role. The statements were scored on a 5 point
scale namely always, most of time, sometimes, rarely and
never. The two dimensions of innovative work behavior
scale are teaching role and managerial role motivation. The
statements were carefully edited in the light of 14 criteria
suggested by Edwards (1969).
Relevancy of statements
89

2. Initially, there were 50 statements. Each behavioral
statement was judged by 45 experts. The judges were
requested first to read the operational definition of each
characteristics of attribute and then evaluate each statement
on three alternative answers viz not relevant, relevant and
very relevant. The judges were also requested to make
necessary modification, addition or deletion of statements.
The results revealed that degree of relevancy of each
statement was calculated and it was between 70 and 100
(Table 1). The statements which had relevancy index above
than 70 percent were selected. All 50 statements were
selected on criterion of highest perceived relevancy. The
degree of relevancy of each selected statement was between
70 and 100.
Table 1 Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of teaching role and its
dimensions with also with the scale
Statements Relevancy
Teaching
role
Innovative work
behavior scale
Factor
loading
I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan 100.00 0.51** 0.51** 0.67
I develop only short education plan 92.68 0.36** 0.45** 0.60
I refuse accepting modern teaching methods 92.68 0.38** 0.43** 0.45 NS
I promote recent practices which are profitable 85.37 0.51** 0.51** 0.72
I use a single teaching method to change others attitude 95.12 0.52** 0.52** 0.74
I link training with other outside experience 82.93 0.33** 0.33** 0.72
For deliver single idea I apply demonstration 82.93 0.25* 0.33** 0.29 NS
I focus only on positive outcome of teaching methods 70.00 0.31** 0.31** 0.32 NS
I try to be with positive people 92.68 0.38** 0.38** 0.88
I spend time to think how to improve education outcome 92.68 0.38** 0.47** 0.56
I use traditional teaching methods 97.56 -0.44** 0.49** 0.51
I ask others to evaluate my work periodically 100.00 0.38** 0.38** 0.65
I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective 100.00 0.52** 0.55** 0.78
I use open questions to encourage new ideas 95.12 0.34** 0.40** 0.56
I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention 87.80 0.36** 0.36** 0.60
I generate original solutions for educating problems 78.05 0.36** 0.36** 0.39 NS
I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks 85.37 0.39** 0.43** 0.62
I use logical approach to convince others to accept recent practices 73.17 -0.45** 0.27* 0.19 NS
I use drama as teaching method 75.61 -0.43** 0.35** 0.51
I tell funny stories to audience 78.05 -0.40** 0.35** 0.70
I use e-mail to seek consult from experts 80.49 0.38** 0.38** 0.73
I adopt Logical Framework Matrix for planning 90.24 0.38** 0.38** 0.67
Table 2 Criterion group’s t-value of each item of teaching role dimension
Statements Higher group (26) Lower group (26) t- value
I have vision to frame outcomes of education plan 4.76 (0.51) 4.03 (0.72) 3.87*
I develop only short education plan 4.19 (1.02) 2.38 (1.23) 6.17**
I promote recent practices which are profitable 4.80 (0.49) 3.92 (0.74) 4.73**
I use a single teaching method to change others attitude 4.65 (0.56) 2.80 (1.32) 7.35**
I link training with other outside experience 4.73 (0.60) 3.69 (0.97) 4.61**
I try to be with positive people 4.03 (1.34 3.53 (1.10) 1.72NS
I spend time to think how to improve education outcome 4.76 (0.43) 3.80 (1.02) 4.40**
I use traditional teaching methods 3.34 (1.05) 2.61 (1.02) 2.81*
I ask others to evaluate my work periodically 4.00 (1.13) 3.23 (1.03) 2.42*
I use only one teaching method to achieve targeted objective 4.65 (0.62) 3.23 (1.03) 5.46**
I use open questions to encourage new ideas 4.69 (0.47) 3.80 (0.98) 4.07**
I apply colors in teaching aids to increase audience attention 4.53 (0.70) 4.03 (0.95) 2.38*
I apply traditional approaches to execute tasks 3.26 (1.21) 2.46 (0.90) 2.75*
I use drama as teaching method 2.73 (1.18) 2.57 (1.39) 0.60NS
I tell funny stories to audience -0.40** 0.35** 2.97*
I use e-mail to seek consult from experts 0.38** 0.38** 1.65NS
I adopt Logical Framework Matrix for planning 0.38** 0.38** 4.46**
Coefficient of correlation test
The all 50 statements were administered on 102
extension personnel of both State Department of Agriculture
(SDA) and University of Agricultural and Sciences (UAS)
by accidental meeting technique. Each statement has 5
alternatives answers viz always, most of the times,
Ali et al. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(1)
90

3. sometimes, rarely and never with scoring of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1,
respectively. The negative statements were reversely scored.
The necessary instructions were given to extension
personnel on mode of answering the statements and
necessary clarification was made whenever extension
personnel raised doubt while answering each statement. The
extension personnel were given enough time to answer all
the scale. The time taken by the extension personnel to
given responses to all the statements of scale was between
25 and 35 minutes. Out of 102 extension personnel only 99
had given responses to all the statements. The data of 99
extension personnel of State Department of Agriculture and
University of Agricultural Sciences were subjected to
correlation test. The results exhibited the coefficient of
correlation of each statement with innovative work behavior
Scale and its dimensions (Table 1, Table 2). It revealed that
correlation value of the statements for all scale between 0.25
and 0.68 and were all significant at least at 0.05 level. For its
dimensions the values were between -0.25 and 0.58 hence,
all 50 statements were retained for factor analysis.
Table 3 Factor loading with varimax rotation and coefficient of correlation between each statement of managerial role with
its dimensions and also with the scale
Statements Relevancy
Managerial
role
Innovative work
behavior scale
Factor
loading
I try one way to carry out the challenge task 82.93 0.58** 0.42** 0.63
I ask critical questions to analyses situation 73.17 0.25** 0.35** 0.47 NS
I select traditional techniques for data collection 95.12 0.56** 0.49** 0.60
I ignore graphs in evaluation reports 97.56 0.63** 0.43** 0.54
I apply classical techniques of problem analysis 97.56 0.53** 0.54** 0.72
I use computer program to analyze data 100.00 0.38** 0.37** 0.47 NS
I review all possibilities to achieve plan objectives 92.68 0.57** 0.55** 0.63
I follow outdated ways to execute tasks 90.24 0.50** 0.49** 0.46 NS
I state the problem in a old way 87.80 0.62** 0.52** 0.68
I formulate traditional objectives 90.24 0.55** 0.52** 0.77
I adopt classical evaluation criteria 82.93 0.68** 0.54** 0.75
I explore outside best practices to improve extension plan 82.93 0.34** 0.32** 0.54
I plan tomorrow’s goals before I leave the office 82.93 0.37** 0.43** 0.59
I ignore to prepare contingency plans 75.61 0.50** 0.43** 0.67
I translate goals into concrete work action plan 82.93 0.36** 0.41** 0.46 NS
I break down the task into the smallest possible steps 97.56 0.44** 0.33** 0.59
I gather only related information to the task on hand 92.68 0.28** -0.25** 0.10 NS
I use single method for data collection 97.56 0.48** 0.55** 0.62
I use traditional documentation approach during implementation 90.24 0.50** 0.38** 0.76
I spend time to update my knowledge 97.56 0.41** 0.33** 0.78
I take responsibility for my actions 90.24 0.52** 0.55** 0.49 NS
I articulate my plan vision with enthusiasm 90.24 0.34** 0.42** 0.44 NS
I try to master most management skills by trial and error method 85.37 0.55** 0.28** 0.47 NS
I repeat mistakes 90.24 0.53** 0.58** 0.68
I look at problem from single viewpoint 95.12 0.65** 0.58** 0.75
I develop lot of alternative solutions 82.93 0.49** 0.40** 0.76
I keep notebook to write ideas 85.37 0.54** 0.32** 0.61
I select a challenging tasks assignment that help me to learn from it 82.93 0.51** 0.36** 0.56
Factor analysis test
The results presented in Table 1 indicated that the factor
loading with Varimax rotation ranged from 0.19 to 0.73,
which identify each variable with a single factor and each
factor would tend to have either a large or small loading of
any particular variable. The results of factor loading
categorically justify that these 14 statements tend to measure
a specific character of teaching role. The factor loading for
managerial role (Table 3) with Varimax rotation ranged
from .10 to 0.78. The result of factor loading categorically
justify these 18 statements tend to measure a specific
character of managerial role.
Criterion group t-test analysis
Established that t-value of each statement was between
0.11 and 6.87 (Table 2, Table 4). The statements having
significant at 0.05 level were selected. On the basis of this
criterion, the 32 statements were selected. Therefore, 32
statements were included in final innovative work behavior
Scale.
Reliability
The Innovative Work Behavior scale was developed
basically using the “Method of Rational Scaling”, which is
based on two phenomenon; first, all items of each dimension
correlated particularly with the total of the dimension and
second, all items correlated with the scale. The Innovative
Work Behavior Scale internal consistency reliability
Innovative Work Behavior of Extension Personnel
91

4. (Cronbach’s ) are provided for the total Innovative Work
Behavior Scale and 2 dimensions across two samples
namely 99 extension personnel outside Karnataka State and
40 extension personnel inside the state. It can be observed
that total innovative work behavior scale was associated
with mediocre level of internal consistency reliability (i e
>0.50) across two samples (Table 6). Overwhelmingly, the
subscale score were also associated with respectable levels
of internal consistency reliability. Specially, it can be seen in
the far right columns of the table-16, the mean subscale
reliabilities were all above 0.50 ranging from 0.50 to 0.80.
The subsequent reliability analyses are: statements
dimension correlation and statement scale correlation. These
represent the degree of relation between a given statements
and the total subscale and also between a given statement
and the scale. Each item was associated with its subscale
and scale with coefficient of correlation which ranged from
0.25 and 0.68 and significant at least at 0.05 level which was
larger than the arguably acceptable minimum criterion of
0.20 (Table 1, Table 3). To support the internal consistency
reliability of innovative work behavior scale (Table 5)
justified that each subscale was positively and significantly
associated with other subscale and also the innovative work
behavior scale. Overall, however it may be contended that
the result associated with the internal consistency reliability
of the innovative work behavior scale was respectable.
Table 4 Criterion group’s t-value of each item of managerial role dimension
Statements Higher group (26) Lower group (26) t- value
I try one way to carry out the challenge task 3.46 (1.36) 2.84 (0.78) 2.68*
I select traditional techniques for data collection 3.57 (0.98) 2.23 (0.95) 6.27**
I ignore graphs in evaluation reports 4.69 (0.54) 3.07 (1.38) 5.49**
I apply classical techniques of problem analysis 2.07 (1.16) 2.61 (0.94) -1.71 NS
I review all possibilities to achieve plan objectives 4.7 (0.43) 3.84 (0.88) 4.62**
I state the problem in a old way 4. 57 (1.13) 3.11 (1.42) 5.14**
I formulate traditional objectives 4.34 (0.93) 2.92 (1.32) 5.01**
I adopt classical evaluation criteria 2.50 (1.33) 2.53 (1.33) - 0.11 NS
I explore outside best practices to improve extension plan 4.53 (0.70) 3.69 (0.88) 3.52*
I plan tomorrow’s goals before I leave the office 4.80 (0.40) 3.84 (1.04) 4.55**
I ignore to prepare contingency plans 4.76 (0.58) 3.11 (1.50) 4.71**
I break down the task into the smallest possible steps 4.65 (0.84) 4.03 (0.77) 2.47*
I use single method for data collection 4.23 (0.86) 2.92 (1.29) 3.73*
I use traditional documentation approach during implementation 3.88 (0.86) 2.96 (1.11) 3.20*
I spend time to update my knowledge 4.61 (0.63) 4.07 (0.97) 2.77*
I repeat mistakes 4.69 (0.54) 3.46 (1.33) 4.32**
I look at problem from single viewpoint 4.88 (0.43) 3.15 (1.34) 5.73**
I develop lot of alternative solutions 4.92 (0.27) 3.61 (0.94) 6.87**
I keep notebook to write ideas 4.65 (0.68) 3.76 (0.90) 3.72*
I select a challenging tasks assignment that help me to learn from it 4.69 (0.54) 3.65 (0.97) 4.61**
Split-half reliability
The data of innovative work behavior scale of 99
extension personnel of Karnataka State Department of
Agriculture (KSDA) and University of Agricultural Sciences
(UAS) consisting of 32 statements with five alternative
answers such as always, most of time, sometimes, rarely and
never was subjected to split-half reliability test and applied
Spearman-Brown formula to find out the coefficient of
correlation. The coefficient correlation of split correlation of
split-half reliability was 0.71, which was significant at level
0.01 level of significant.
Content validity
Content validity of the Innovative Work Behavior Scale
would be justified from literature, representative of relevant
populations and experts. The Innovative Work Behavior
Scale conceptualization emerged through a comprehensive
analysis of literature of innovative work behavior to define
characters of each dimension. Initial selection of items of the
Innovative Work Behavior Scale was based on the relevancy
index of each item in relation to its dimension constructs
based on the judgment of experts. The content validity of
Innovative Work Behavior Scale would be justified by the
results of coefficient of correlation of each item in relation
to dimension and scale. For these reasons, it is believed that
the innovative work behavior scale is associated with a
respectable level of content validity.
Discriminant validity
The criterion group t-value analysis of 99 extension
personnel (Table 2, Table 4) revealed that 32 statements of
the scale had discriminative potentiality which means that
each statement discriminates between the group of the
individuals who had developed innovative work behavior to
higher level and also had developed innovative work
behavior to the lower level. Hence, the scale had
discriminant validity.
Factorial validity
In order to identify factors of Innovative Work
Behavior Scale, the factor analysis was performed. The
results of factor analysis (principal component analysis with
Ali et al. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(1)
92

5. Varimax rotation) (Table 1, Table 3) revealed that all these
items of each dimension had factor loading 0.5 and above.
Factorial loading that was obtained in the instrument
considered to be plausible.
Table 5 Inter-correlations among the subscales for Innovative Work Behavior scale
Dimension Teaching role Managerial role
Teaching role dimension
Managerial role dimension 0.49**
Innovative Work Behavior scale 0.91** 0.80**
**Significant at 0.01 level
Table 6 Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s ) associated with the innovative work behavior score in both extension
personnel of outside and inside Karnataka state
Dimension Outside (r) Inside (r) Mean
Overall innovative work behavior scale 0.82 0.79 0.80
Teaching role dimension 0.68 0.40 0.50
Managerial role dimension 0.79 0.73 0.76
The innovative work behavior scale found to be
associated with respectable levels of internal consistency
reliability. Further, the innovative work behavior scale was
associated with an appreciable amount factorial validity and
discriminant validity.
LITERATURE CITED
Axtell C M, Holman D J, Unsworth K L, Wall T D, Waterson P E and Harrington E. 2000. Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating
the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupation Organ Psychology 73: 265-285.
Edwards A L. 1969. Techniques of attitude scale construction. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd. Sport Road, Ballerd
Estate, Bombay.
Fuller J B, Marler L E and Hester K. 2006. Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior:
exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organ Behavoir 27: 1089-1120.
Kheng Y K and Mahmood R. 2013. The relationship between pro-innovation organizational climate, leader-member
exchange and innovative work behavior: A study among the knowledge workers of the knowledge intensive business
services in Malaysia. Journal of Business Management Dynamics 2: 15-30.
Sharma P and Chrisman J J. 1999. Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate
entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneur Theory and Practice 23: 11-27.
Innovative Work Behavior of Extension Personnel
93