Adolescent readers' self-perceptions of affective factors related to performance on standardized tests

The purpose of this study was to investigate which affective factors of adolescent high school readers were related to high-level readers, middle-level readers and low-level readers. The research problem was to determine the relationship between adolescent high school students' self-perceived reading self-efficacy factors and the students' reading performance on a standardized reading assessment considering demographic factors of age, gender and socio-economic status as covariates. The research design was ex post facto making inferences without direct intervention. The sample was obtained from one large, diverse, urban high school, consisting of 9th and 10th grade adolescent students (N = 176). Students voluntarily completed a self-report, reading self-efficacy survey. School records were used to obtain standardized reading level scores, age, gender, and socio-economic status data. An exploratory factor analysis of the self-efficacy survey responses resulted in the identification of 7 underlying factors. The striving (low-level) readers had significantly lower self-perceptions on 5 of the 7 affective factors than the middle-level readers, and strong (high-level) readers, p < .05. The 5 affective factors on which the striving readers had significantly lower self-perceptions were: (a) Observational Comparison, (b) Progress, (c) Lack of Progress, (d) Lack of Anxiety, and (e) Positive Social Feedback. The 2 affective factors which were not significantly different for reader level were Anxiety and Negative Social Feedback. Girls had significantly less anxiety than boys for both of the factors in the Anxiety category. Statistical results showed that none of the demographic covariates tested; age, gender, or socio-economic status, moderated the relationship between affective reader self-efficacy factors and reader level. This study concluded that there were distinguishable differences for striving, middle, and strong readers' self-efficacy factors. Determining affective factors related to reading can be used to create better instructional environments and instruction for adolescent students.

Workplace Discrimination Climate and Team Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Collective Value Congruence, Team Cohesion, and Collective Affective Commitment

This study explored the relationship between workplace discrimination climate on team effectiveness through three serial mediators: collective value congruence, team cohesion, and collective affective commitment. As more individuals of marginalized groups diversify the workforce and as more organizations move toward team-based work (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2010), it is imperative to understand how employees perceive their organization’s discriminatory climate as well as its effect on teams. An archival dataset consisting of 6,824 respondents was used, resulting in 332 work teams with five or more members in each. The data were collected as part of an employee climate survey administered in 2011 throughout the United States’ Department of Defense. The results revealed that the indirect effect through M1 (collective value congruence) and M2 (team cohesion) best accounted for the relationship between workplace discrimination climate (X) and team effectiveness (Y). Meaning, on average, teams that reported a greater climate for workplace discrimination also reported less collective value congruence with their organization (a1 = -1.07, p < .001). With less shared perceptions of value congruence, there is less team cohesion (d21 = .45, p < .001), and with less team cohesion there is less team effectiveness (b2 = .57, p < .001). In addition, because of theoretical overlap, this study makes the case for studying workplace discrimination under the broader construct of workplace aggression within the I/O psychology literature. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis found that workplace discrimination based on five types of marginalized groups: race/ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and disability was best explained by a three-factor model, including: career obstruction based on age and disability bias (CO), verbal aggression based on multiple types of bias (VA), and differential treatment based on racial/ethnic bias (DT). There was initial support to claim that workplace discrimination items covary not only based on type, but also based on form (i.e., nonviolent aggressive behaviors). Therefore, the form of workplace discrimination is just as important as the type when studying climate perceptions and team-level effects. Theoretical and organizational implications are also discussed.