1. Running head: TECHNICAL REPORT 1
Technical Report
Brett Chase
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

2. TECHNICAL REPORT 2
Introduction
The psychological constructs we chose for the measurement are accountability and
irresponsibility. Through the use of divergent validity we will show that these two constructs do
not have any relationship. While there are many articles defining and measuring accountability
there were no examples found that could measure irresponsibility. In our attempt to create a
measure for this construct, we see many applicable uses in organizations of any size. One
intended purpose could be to identify current employees in an organization that will not succeed
at a managerial level or in any position were irresponsibility is an unwelcome quality.
Furthermore, it can be used for screening and weeding out individual candidates before they are
considered for promotions or wage increases. In more severe cases, this measure can be used to
identify current employees for termination in the effect of downsizing or corporate restructuring.
It is important to measure the construct of irresponsibility so employers can identify
personnel that are unable to handle the responsibilities of a supervisor or managerial role.
Promoting irresponsible employees to supervisory roles could cause a lot of damage within
organizations. The measurement tool of irresponsibility can be used to prevent unqualified and
reckless people from climbing up the corporate ladder. It will also help to identify employees
that convey a sense of accountability and may be better suited for a leadership position. In more
severe cases, this tool can also be used to identify any individuals that are currently causing
strain within a company. In these cases, managers can choose to work with the employees and
provide training to improve their work performance or they could be terminated if downsizing or
corporate restructuring is needed.
Kim and Lee (2010) argue that accountability is a complex, multidimensional construct
that can be defined in many ways. For their study, Kim and Lee (2010) identified four facets of
accountability: (1) hierarchal – “close supervision from a higher authority using organizational
rules and regulations”; (2) legal – “agency performance aimed at maintaining contractual
relationships”; (3) professional – “staff must work on the basis of their expertise and professional
norms and standards”; and (4) political – “responsiveness to the agency’s major stakeholders”.
While these four facets may be useful for other tools, we will be focusing on “professional”
irresponsibility for our measure. This dimension encompasses the overall goal of our measure: to
determine which employees are too professionally irresponsible to succeed in a supervisory role.
Our unique construct of irresponsibility will be operationally defined as, “An employee
who exhibits a lack of foresight and relies on others to complete objectives while portraying
minimal self-restraint regarding timelines and schedules.” This definition builds off of the work
done by Stice, E., Myers, M. G., & Brown, S. A. (1998) who designed the Behavioral Under-
control Questionnaire to, “assess impulsivity, spontaneity, sensation seeking, disorganization,
irresponsibility, and unconventionality, as well as lack of foresight and delay of gratification”.

3. TECHNICAL REPORT 3
Methods
Scale Development
The sampling technique used to determine the content of our items was a literature
search. Specifically, we focused our attention on ProQuest to look for psychological scales and
measures that were already in use. This would give us an idea of the direction we would take to
construct our items.
The item format we chose was a multiple choice, constructed-response format. The
multiple choice format has a Likert rating scale for multiple reasons. First, the construct in which
we are trying to prove divergent validity with uses a multiple choice select response format and
Likert scale as well. This way we could create more uniformity with our scales in order to
improve validity in the future. Secondly, we feel like the Likert scale is the most widely
understood measurement tool and therefore would be the least complicated measure to
administer and collect data from. Subject matter experts were used for construct validation of the
items.
Participants
The target population of this measurement tool is nonprofit organizations. Many
nonprofit organizations provide services to populations in need. If the supervisors at these
agencies are not responsible, most likely their subordinates will also not be responsible. As a
result, these populations will not receive the quality of services they need. Therefore, it is
important to ensure the most qualified individuals are being promoted to supervisory and
managerial levels.
Current supervisors/managers of nonprofit organizations reported the level of
accountability and irresponsibility they witnessed in their subordinates. In total, data was
collected from 30 participants.
Materials
Our scale consists of 18 items, using behavioral statements, and four subscales are being
measured: hierarchal, legal, professional and political (See Appendix B). Kim and Lee (2010)
identified these four facets of accountability for their measure, “Survey Items to Measure
Accountability Types”, and we used these four facets to create our measure of irresponsibility.
These dimensions are important to factor in when considering the different roles and
responsibilities of a supervisor. Kim and Lee (2010) defined these facets as the following:
hierarchal – “close supervision from a higher authority using organizational rules and
regulations”; legal – “agency performance aimed at maintaining contractual relationships”;
professional – “staff must work on the basis of their expertise and professional norms and
standards”; and political – “responsiveness to the agency’s major stakeholders”. The survey

4. TECHNICAL REPORT 4
consists of 18 items and uses these four subscales (hierarchal, legal, professional and political).
See Appendix A for more information. The reliability of the Accountability Survey is high, with
Cronbach’s alpha < .80.
Procedures
Both scales were administered in an online format. The instructions for both measures
consisted of the following statement: “With a specific employee in mind, please indicate how
frequently you have observed the following behaviors”. It will use a Likert measurement scale:
“1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rather often, 5 = all the time”.
Results
Factor Analysis
A factor analysis using the principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was
conducted to assess the factor structure of the 18 Irresponsibility Scale items. All 18 items
correlate with one another at a range of at least 0.5 to 0.8, suggesting high correlation and
reasonable factorability. The results also suggest that the items show multicollinearity, with the
determinant being 5.60E-014, which is less than the recommended value of 0.00001. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy is 0.829, above the recommended value of 0.5, with
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity being significant (p < 0.01).
All of the scale items examined have primary loadings over 0.7. Initial eigenvalues show
that there is only one factor, which accounts for 76.045% of the variance. The factor loading
matrix is presented in Table 1.
Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the internal consistency among all 18 items of the
Irresponsibility Scale. The items appear to have a strong internal consistency with an alpha of
0.981. There is only one factor for this scale: Irresponsibility (18 items). All items refer to high
irresponsibility and have high loadings. There would be no increases in alpha by eliminating any
of the items.
Convergent/Divergent Validity
Divergent validity was examined between the Irresponsibility Scale and the
Accountability Scale. Based on Pearson correlation analysis the Irresponsibility Scale was
significantly and negatively correlated with the Accountability Scale (coefficient r = -0.973; p<
0.01). The negative correlation indicates divergence between the two scales.

5. TECHNICAL REPORT 5
Discussion
Results
The convergent/divergent analysis indicates that there is a negative correlation between
the two scales. It appears to show that when accountability increases, irresponsibility decreases
and vice versa. We predicted divergence between the two scales. Our results indicate our
prediction was correct, showing that the scores of our Irresponsibility Scale are the opposite of
the scores of the Accountability Scale. Based on Pearson correlation analysis, the Accountability
scale was significantly and negatively correlated with our Irresponsibility Scale (coefficient r = -
0.973; p< 0.01). The negative correlation indicates divergence between the two scales.
Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the internal consistency among all 18 items of our
Irresponsibility Scale. The items appear to have a strong internal consistency with an alpha of
0.981. There is only one factor for this scale: Irresponsibility (18 items). All items refer to high
irresponsibility and have high loadings. These results indicate that there would be no increases in
alpha by eliminating any of the items.
Limitations
The factor analysis shows one highly reliable factor of the Irresponsibility Scale. This is a
distinction from our previous belief that our scale had three factors. Our scale also showed a high
correlation between each of the items, even indicating multicollinearity within the scale. While
we wanted a high correlation among our scale items, some may have been a bit redundant.
The population we targeted for this measurement tool was pulled from nonprofit
organizations. Although this sample of the population was highly accessible and seen as a
reliable source of information, their answers may not be applicable to the general population as a
whole.
Future Directions
To reduce multicollinearity in this scale, future researchers may choose to remove some
of the items all together or replace them with more concise items. Alternatively, dimensions of
individual’s behavior and personality might be explored as well in order to more clearly define
what is meant by irresponsibility. Some of these dimensions might include variables such as
responsiveness vs sense of urgency, reactiveness vs proactiveness, indifference vs
conscientiousness, and reliance on others vs self-motivating.
To further test the validity of the measure we recommend that our survey consisting of
both the Accountability Scale and the Irresponsibility Scale be given to a larger amount of
people in order for it to be more representative of the population as a whole. “Larger numbers of
subjects make the statistics generated by that sample more representative of the population of
people than would a smaller sample” (Kline, 2005). We recommend that future studies use

6. TECHNICAL REPORT 6
populations from all industries, especially for-profit organizations since these were not included
in our study.
We further recommend that the sample populations utilized in future studies actively seek
out people of different ethnicities, gender, and age in order to gage whether or not our factor
structure is consistent across all sub-samples. From our research, we do not see a difference in
irresponsibility from different ethnicities or gender, but age may play more of an important role
in this determination as it relates to the maturity of the subjects that are being evaluated.
Table 1
Factor Loading for the Rotated Factors
Item
Factor
Loading
Communalit
y
1
I14 .924 0.854
I2 .920 0.846
I11 .919 0.844
I15 .904 0.817
I17 .897 0.805
I5 .886 0.786
I12 .885 0.783
I13 .882 0.778
I18 .881 0.777
I16 .878 0.770
I7 .870 0.758
I6 .869 0.755
I4 .853 0.727
I1 .853 0.727
I8 .838 0.703
I3 .834 0.695
I10 .821 0.674
I9 .769 0.591
Eigenvalues
13.688
% of Variance
76.045

7. TECHNICAL REPORT 7
References
Divergent Validity - Google Search. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2016, from
https://www.google.com/search?q=Divergent Validity
Kim, S.E. & Lee, J.W. (2010). Impact of competing accountability requirements on perceived
work performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(1), 100-118.
Kline, T. B. (2005). Psychological testing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN-13:
978-1412905442.
Stice, E., Myers, M. G., & Brown, S. A. (1998). Behavioral Under-control questionnaire doi:
http://dx.doi.org.tcsedsystem.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/t05161-000

8. TECHNICAL REPORT 8
Appendix A
Scale 1 – Accountability
With a specific employee in mind, please indicate how frequently you have observed the following
behaviors:
"1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rather often, 5 = all the time".
1. Employee follows administrative rules and procedures.
2. Employee maintains confidentiality.
3. Employee stays compliant with all state required certifications and/or training.
4. Employee follows manager's directions.
5. Employee stays up to date on all legal obligations.
6. Employee completes all required paperwork for their position (case notes,billing statements,
client contracts, etc).
7. Employee maintains a positive relationship with the local community.
8. Employee applies the agency ethical guidelines when providing services to clients.
9. Employee is dedicated to the mission of the agency.
10. Employee responds to concerns within 2 business days (from clients, coworkers,stakeholders,
etc).
11. Employee participates in professional development.
12. Employee stays on task.
13. Employee helps those in need (clients and/or coworkers).
14. Employee takes in consideration the needs of the clients when performing job duties.
15. Employee communicates with the local media effectively.
16. Employee works to improve the quality of services and best practices.
17. Employee treats others with respect (clients, coworkers,supervisors, etc).
18. Employee collaborates with all parties (clients, community members, stakeholders, etc) when
shaping policies.

9. TECHNICAL REPORT 9
Appendix B
Scale 2 – Irresponsibility
With a specific employee in mind, please indicate how frequently you have observed the following
behaviors:
"1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rather often, 5 = all the time".
1. Employee does not complete work on time.
2. Employee does not maintain confidentiality.
3. Employee does not treat others with respect.
4. Employee does not stay up to date on training obligations.
5. Employee makes no effort to maintain a relationship with the local community.
6. Employee makes the duties of others more difficult than they have to be.
7. Employee does not follow management directives.
8. Employee refuses to work in teams to accomplish the goals of the organization.
9. Employee distracts co-workers and colleagues from their work.
10. Employee does not collaborate with others when shaping policies (clients, coworkers,
stakeholders, etc).
11. Employee does not consider client needs when performing job duties.
12. Employee makes no effort to follow legal guidelines.
13. Employee fails to follow administrative procedures.
14. Employee does not respond to concerns (from clients, stakeholders, coworkers,etc) in a timely
manner.
15. Employee fails to complete all required paperwork for their position (case notes,billing
statements,client contracts,etc).
16. Employee ignores the agency’s ethics policy when providing services to clients.
17. Employee does not follow up on legal procedures.
Employee fails to communicate effectively with the local media

10. TECHNICAL REPORT 10