This research presents results from two studies investigating the psychometric qualities of a graphic single-item measuring organizational identification (i.e., the individual’s perception of unity and feeling of being one with the organization in which they work). Conducted on two samples, the first study revealed the convergent validity of a single-item graphic scale, obtaining a positive correlation with a measure of the same construct but comprising multiple written items. This study also showed the incremental validity of the graphic single-item in explaining job satisfaction and work engagement over and above the variance explained by the multiple written items instrument. The second study replicated the results observed in the first study and established the test-retest reliability of the graphic single-item. Taken together, these results recognize the potential and qualities of the French adaptation of the graphic single-item and offer researchers and organizations a rapid and effective way of measuring this construct in French-speaking populations.
graphic single-itemorganizational identificationreliabilitytest-retestvaliditySocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada10.13039/501100000155633-2022-00060-SUPPThe author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (633-2022-00060-SUPP).section-at-acceptanceOrganizational PsychologyIntroduction
Organization identification (OI), defined as “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization” (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, p. 104), is an important part of contemporary research in industrial/organizational psychology (Ashforth et al., 2008; Greco et al., 2022) notably due to its clear links to the Great Resignation1 (Klotz, 2022) and staff turnover (Riketta, 2005). Considered one of the main factors that can explain the investments and sacrifices employees are willing to make for their organization (Ashforth and Schinoff, 2016), OI is a predictor of a wide range of outcomes (Riketta, 2005; Lee et al., 2015; Greco et al., 2022), including: job involvement, job satisfaction, work engagement, and in-role and extra-role performance.
Inspired by the work of Mael and Ashforth (1992) on OI, Shamir and Kark (2004) created an instrument in English that has two distinguishing features: (1) it consists of a single item and (2) it is presented in a graphic form. On the one hand, single-item devices are appreciated for their simplicity and speed of administration (Fisher et al., 2016), sometimes offering an effective alternative to traditional multi-item instruments (Brown and Grice, 2011; Matthew et al., 2022), especially in work environments that are fast-paced, volatile and increasingly difficult to control (Ryan and Pulakos, 2007), i.e., asking researchers to adapt and speed up their assessment practices. In addition, these instruments reduce respondents’ cognitive load, arouse their interest, stimulate new thinking, minimize response bias, and may also promote higher participation rates (Allen et al., 2022). Although single-item instruments are sometimes criticized for their difficulty in translating complex multi-dimensional psychological concepts, recent work suggests that they may be as valid and reliable as unidimensional measures comprising multiple written items (see Allen et al., 2022; Fisher et al., 2016; Matthew et al., 2022).
On the other hand, graphical single-item instruments are a very special subform of such measurement tools. Notably, these instruments make it possible to measure constructs as varied as job satisfaction (Kunin, 1955), work intensity (Soucek and Voss, 2022), burnout (Muir et al., 2023), and energy level (Weigelt et al., 2022). Although not free of problems, including those related to cultural differences or the obsolescence of the elements presented graphically (Sauer et al., 2021), these instruments have the advantage of broadening the pool of potential respondents by including, for example, people with low literacy levels (Kunin, 1955; Sauer et al., 2021). Their use therefore makes it possible to broaden the range of respondent profiles that can participate in a study or respond to a request from an organization. Moreover, studies on the reliability and validity of these instruments show that they are generally less cognitively demanding on respondents, are completed faster, facilitate data collection that requires repeated measurements, and limit the impact on the cost of use (Allen et al., 2022; Matthew et al., 2022; Sauer et al., 2021).
Given the previously discussed advantages, the graphical single-item developed by Shamir and Kark (2004) seems an interesting and valid alternative for measuring OI, which also justifies the relevance of continuing the work initiated by Brousseau and Lauzier (2024) on its adaptation for French populations. While also responding to the call from Allen et al. (2022) for more work on the validation of single-item measures, this research has three objectives. First, it seeks to evaluate the level of readability of a French version of the graphic item of OI [adapted by Brousseau and Lauzier (2024)] compared to an instrument measuring the same construct, but which includes multiple written items. Second, this research aims to estimate the validity of the graphical single-item by showing, first, the existence of a positive correlation between the score observed on it and the score observed on an instrument measuring the same construct but which includes multiple written items; on this front, the research also shows an incremental contribution by the graphical single-item, i.e., beyond the variance explained by the instrument comprising multiple written items, in explaining certain criterion variables often studied in relation to OI (e.g., job satisfaction and work engagement). Third, this research aims to evaluate the reliability of the French version of the OI graphic item through a test-retest.
Study 1Objectives
This first study aims to evaluate the level of readability of the French version of the graphic item of the OI translated by Brousseau and Lauzier (2024), as well as to determine the degree to which it converges with the instrument comprising multiple written items developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). This objective is based on the work of Shamir and Kark (2004), who observed high correlations between the two instruments, ranging from r = 0.51 to r = 0.69. This first study also seeks to evaluate the incremental contribution of the graphic item in its relationship to job satisfaction and work commitment. As observed by meta-analyses (Greco et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005) as well as other recent reviews on the subject (Weisman et al., 2023), these constructs were chosen because of the repeated positive relationships they have with OI.
MethodologyParticipants
Participants in this study were drawn from two separate samples (n1 = 376; n2 = 80), mostly consisting of women (n1 = 301 women, 80%; n2 = 63 women, 78.8%), with mean ages (M n1 = 43.84 years [SD = 9.72]; M n2 = 40.63 years [SD = 11.24]) and similar levels of work experience (M n1 = 8.63 years [SD = 7.83]; M n2 = 11.46 years [SD = 9.17]). Participants in each sample completed an electronic questionnaire that included the graphical single-item, the multi-item written instrument, and measures of job satisfaction and work engagement.
The graphic single-item developed by Shamir and Kark (2004), then translated by Brousseau and Lauzier (2024), was one of the instruments used to measure OI. This graphical device comprises seven pairs of circles (Figure 1), each presenting a different degree of overlap between circles, ranging from zero (i.e., rectangle 1) to complete (i.e., rectangle 7). Greater overlap between the circles contained in each rectangle indicates a higher level of identification, whereas a less pronounced overlap between the circles indicates a lower level of OI.
Seven panels labeled one to seven display pairs of overlapping circles. Each panel contains two circles except for panel seven, which has one (as the two circles are now overlaping perfectly). The circles’ overlap increases progressively through panels one to seven.Organizational identification (written instrument)
A French version of the instrument developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) was used to measure this construct. Translated by Stinglhamber et al. (2015), this instrument consists of six items (e.g., When I talk about my organization, I usually say “we” rather than “they”) and uses a seven-point Likert scale to have respondents express their degree of agreement (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). A high score on this instrument indicates a higher level of identification with the organization. In this first study, Cronbach’s alphas of n1 = 0.902 and n2 = 0.936 are observed for this instrument.
Job satisfaction
Inspired by the work of Dolbier et al. (2005), this variable was measured using a written single-item (e.g., I am generally satisfied with my work) with a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). A high score on this item indicates a higher level of satisfaction. The valid reporting of job satisfaction using such an item has been recognized by numerous studies (Fisher et al., 2016; Tavani et al., 2014; Wanous et al., 1997).
Work engagement
This variable was measured using the instrument developed and translated by Schaufeli et al. (2006), which consists of 9 written items (e.g., I am full of energy for my work) and has a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). Scoring high on this instrument means a higher level of engagement. In this first study, Cronbach’s alphas of n1 = 0.922 and n2 = 0.925 are observed for this instrument.
Results
The respective readability levels of the graphic and written measures of OI were obtained through Scolarius2, an online app that quantifies the extent to which a text in French is accessible. The principles and formulas that guide this app are widely used in the field of linguistics in general (see Pires et al., 2017), as well as when creating or adapting instruments intended for French populations (e.g., Robichaud et al., 2024). The smaller the index given the app, the more the text is readable and therefore accessible. The higher the index, the more difficult the text is considered to be and therefore preferable for specialized or more educated audiences. In this first study, the indices observed via the application show that the French version of the graphic item is more accessible (i.e., 115) than the French version of the multi-item written instrument developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992), which obtains an index suggesting a more difficult level of comprehensibility (i.e., 303).
As shown in Table 1, the results obtained in this first study also indicate that the scores observed from the graphic item and those from the written multi-item instrument correlate positively (n1r = 0.619; n2r = 0.654). For Sample 1, both instruments show positive correlations with job satisfaction (graphic item: r = 0.384; multi-item measure: r = 0.398) and work engagement (graphic item: r = 0.432; multi-item measure: r = 0.465). For Sample 2, both instruments show positive correlations with job satisfaction (graphic item: r = 0.548; multi-item measure: r = 0.654) and work engagement (graphic item: r = 0.516; multi-item measure: r = 0.568). Meng et al. (1992) provided a simple method for comparing (dependent) correlation coefficients. Based on the Fisher z-transform, this method makes it possible to estimate the differences between pairs of correlations coming from the same sample (e.g., by comparing the correlation of one predictor with one criterion compared to that of another predictor with the same criterion). As shown in Table 1, comparisons of correlation pairs (based on a dependent correlation test) show no statistically significant differences (i.e., p < 0.05). The absence of significant results for these few tests suggests that the strength of the relationship is statistically comparable between instruments. Finally, hierarchical regression analysis conducted on both samples in this first study shows that the results obtained from the graphic item present an improvement (see incremental contribution) in predicting each criterion variable (Table 2), i.e., beyond what the multi-item measure already predicts. This pattern held across all regression models except one for job satisfaction (Sample 2). Although marginally significant (p < 0.10), the effect is directional only and should be interpreted cautiously (Pritschet et al., 2016).
Means, standard deviations and correlations between studied variables (study 1).
Sample 1: N = 376
Sample 2: N = 80
Variables
M
SD
r(1)
r(2)
r(3)
M
SD
r(1)
r(2)
r(3)
Descriptive statistics and correlations between instrument types
OI (graphic single-item)
3.989
1.346
0.619**
4.550
1.466
0.654**
OI (written multi-items)
4.836
1.313
5.506
1.288
Descriptive statistics and correlations with the criterion variables
Job satisfaction
5.547
1.321
0.384**
0.398**
5.812
1.264
0.548**
0.516**
Work engagement
5.223
1.137
0.432**
0.465**
5.515
1.066
0.654**
0.568**
Gender: 1 = Male; 0 = Female; M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; r(1) = Correlations between instruments (graphical – multi-items); r(2) = Correlations with the graphical instrument; r(3) = Correlations with the multi-item instrument.
**p < 0.01.
Incremental contribution of the OI graphic single item on job satisfaction and work engagement (study 1).
Sample 1: N = 376
Sample 2: N = 80
Job satisfaction
Work engagement
Job satisfaction
Work engagement
Variables
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
Gender
0.059
0.034
0.041
0.076
0.047
0.055
−0.213†
−0.145
−0.107
−0.115
−0.058
−0.006
Age
−0.004
−0.024
−0.030
0.031
0.008
0.003
0.049
0.066
−0.060
0.321*
0.223†
0.231*
Tenure
0.057
0.062
0.043
0.074
0.086
0.067
0.157
0.138
0.131
−0.095
−0.112
−0.120
OI (multi-items)
0.396**
0.259**
0.460**
320**
0.617**
0.496**
30**
0.369**
OI (graphic item)
0.221**
0.226**
0.191†
0.255**
R2
0.007
0.163
0.192
0.016
0.226
0.247
0.078
0.437
0.457
0.093
0.358
0.393
ΔR2
0.156
0.030
0.210
0.031
0.359
0.019
0.265
0.035
S1 = Step 1 (socio-demographic indices); S2 = Step 2 (multi-items instrument); S3 = Step 3 (graphic item). OI multi-items = Instrument developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992); OI graphic item = Single graphical item developed by Shamir and Kark (2004).
**p < 0.01;
*p < 0.05;
p < 0.10.
Discussion
Overall, the results of this first study show that the French version of the graphic item compares adequately to its counterpart comprising multiple written items. Notably, the graphic item has a better readability index than that observed for the other instrument, which favors broader usability, including that for workers with lower literacy levels. In terms of convergent validity, the results of this first study are similar to those observed by Shamir and Kark (2004). Finally, the results also show the incremental contribution of the graphic item in explaining job satisfaction and work engagement.
Study 2Objectives
In addition to evaluating the reliability (test-retest) of the French adaptation of the single graphic item, the second study aims to replicate the results observed in the first. Test–retest reliability is crucial for single items as it ensures they produce consistent results over time. In this respect, Shamir and Kark (2004) reported high test-retest correlations (based on a 2-weeks interval between tests), ranging from r = 0.73 to r = 0.80 for two of their samples. Brousseau and Lauzier (2024), on the other hand, observed a test-retest correlation equivalent to r = 0.66 [ICC = 0.69] established according to a 3-months interval between test administrations. For this second study, a 1-month interval between test administrations was preferred (Vallerand, 1989).
MethodologyParticipants
This second study relied on a convenience sampling method. The survey group consisted of 92 Canadian respondents who completed a brief questionnaire twice, containing the graphic item. Respondents in this second study were on average 25.88 years old (SD = 7.72), were a little over half women (55; 59.8%) and had an average of 3.19 years of experience (SD = 3.55) in the job held at the time of the study.
Instruments
All variables were measured with the instruments used for Study 1.
Results
First, the calculation of the correlation between the scores obtained with each instrument reveals some convergence (r = 0.540). Although within the range of results observed by Shamir and Kark (2004), this result is somewhat lower than the correlations found by the first study. Again, using Meng et al.’s (1992) method for comparing pairs of (dependent) correlations did not indicate a significant difference between instruments used (i.e., p < 0.05). Hierarchical regression analyses conducted on this new sample also show the incremental contribution of the single graphic item in explaining job satisfaction and work engagement (see Table 3).
Incremental contribution of the OI graphic single item on job satisfaction and work engagement (study 2).
Sample 3: N = 92
Job satisfaction
Work engagement
Variables
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
Gender
−0.076
−0.053
−0.050
−0.198
−0.168
−0.165*
Age
−0.119
−0.139
−0.129
0.193
0.167
0.178*
Tenure
0.107
0.107
0.098
−0.073
−0.074
−0.085
IO (multi-items)
0.428**
0.294**
0.560**
0.407**
IO (graphic item)
0.264*
0.302**
R2
0.023
0.205
0.257
0.070
0.382
0.450
ΔR2
0.182
0.052
0.312
0.068
S1 = Step 1 (socio-demographic indices); S2 = Step 2 (multi-item instrument); S3 = Step 3 (graphic item). OI multi-items = Instrument developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992); OI graphic item = Single graphical item developed by Shamir and Kark (2004).
**p < 0.01;
*p < 0.05.
While the calculation of a Pearson r is the most common approach for estimating test-retest reliability, Matthew et al. (2022) indicate that this procedure offers little guidance as to what constitutes “acceptable” reliability. Thus, some suggest that it is preferable to calculate an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), considering that this index offers benchmarks (i.e., ICC closer to 0 indicates low/poor reliability and ICC closer to 1 indicates high/excellent reliability). Hence, to evaluate the graphic item’s test-retest reliability, Pearson r and ICC were calculated between the scores provided by the respondents at each measurement time. According to Cicchetti (1994), ICC values greater than 0.74 indicate excellent reliability, those between 0.60 and 0.74 good reliability, those between 0.40 and 0.59 medium reliability, and those below 0.40 low reliability. In this second study, a positive correlation was found (r = 0.818; ICC = 0.815). Above all, these results suggest that the two ways of estimating the test-retest reliability of the graphical item (i.e., Pearson r and ICC) offer fairly similar values, a finding that is consistent with the observations made by Matthew et al. (2022).
Discussion
Overall, the observations made in this second study suggest that the French adaptation of the graphic single-item converges with a French version of the instrument comprising multiple written items developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992), while reconfirming its incremental contribution in explaining job satisfaction and work engagement. Also, the results of this new study show excellent test-retest reliability for this French version of the graphic item. In this respect, it is relevant to note that the values reported by Shamir and Kark (2004), despite a shorter interval between test administrations (i.e., only 2 weeks), are lower than those observed in this second study.
General discussion
The main objective of this research was to further advance the psychometric qualities of a French version of a graphic item of OI. Overall, the results indicate a convergence between the graphic single item and an instrument with multiple written items, also measuring OI. This validation is based on analyses conducted on three distinct samples, collected in different contexts from various work environments. Although there may be slight variations in each study’s findings, it is reassuring that the relationships and indices observed are generally in line with previous work. Taken together, the results of this study, when compared to those of Shamir and Kark (2004) and those of Brousseau and Lauzier (2024), are considered satisfactory.
Limitations of the study and future avenues of research
The validation of any measuring instrument is an ongoing process. Although the convergent validity of this French adaptation of the graphic single-item of OI is evident and its incremental contribution now recognized, the results observed in these two studies suggest that the two instruments (graphic and written) can probably not be considered as simple substitutes. Hence, the qualities of the graphic single-item deserve further exploration in the context of future research. In particular, this work could allow for a more precise documentation of the general functioning of the graphic single-item by examining in greater detail some of the slight inter-sample variations observed in the two studies. Also, the generalizability of these findings may be limited by the overrepresentation of women in Study 1 and the relatively young, low-tenure profile of participants in Study 2. Hence, future research should aim to replicate these results with more diverse and representative samples.
Regarding the measurement of the criterion variables used in this study, it is important to note that it is based on respondents’ perceptions only. Given the biases commonly associated with self-reported measures (Podsakoff et al., 2024), the use of objective measures (such as effective turnover rate) represents a promising avenue for further efforts to validate this French adaptation of the graphic single-item. In addition, a major challenge that researchers face in this field is the organization of data collections, including different measurement points in time or coming from multiple sources. Given its brevity, the graphic item could facilitate the collection of dyadic data (i.e., by shortening the time each dyad member needs to respond), thus offering a more nuanced view of French-speaking workers’ OI level. Another promising avenue for future research lies in the evolutionary approach that characterizes OI. Indeed, some changes can induce significant transformations over time in terms of potentially influencing workers’ attitudes and, consequently, their level of identification with their organization (Stinglhamber et al., 2015). Further studies are therefore needed to better understand the evolution of OI as measured by this graphic item among French-speaking worker populations. Coming research could also investigate whether the graphic items capture more intuitive and/or affective components of organizational identification (OI) compared with traditional measures.
Conclusion
The objective of this research was to further substantiate the psychometric qualities of a graphic single-item of OI translated into French by Brousseau and Lauzier (2024). More specifically, this research has shown through two studies the convergent validity of the graphic item with its counterpart comprising multiple written items, while also showing its incremental contribution to explain certain criterion variables commonly studied in relation to OI (i.e., job satisfaction and work engagement). Finally, this study also validates the excellent test-retest reliability of the French adaptation of the graphic item. Short, effective and accessible, this version appears to be a useful and attractive alternative for collecting data from Francophone worker populations.
Data availability statement
The datasets generated for this study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Comité d’éthique de la recherche de l’UQO (2025–3388). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
ReferencesAllenM. S.IliescuD.GreiffS. (2022). Single-item measures in psychological science.Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.381–5. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000699AshforthB. E.SchinoffB. S. (2016). Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations.Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.3111–137. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062322AshforthB. E.HarrisonS. H.CorleyK. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions.J. Manag. Inquiry34325–374. 10.1177/0149206308316059BrousseauE.LauzierM. (2024). Mesurer différemment l’identification à l’organisation: résultats d’une série d’études sur l’adaptation française et la validation d’un instrument graphique [Measuring organizational identification differently: Results of a Series of Studies on the French-Adaptation and Validation of a Graphic-Item Scale].Revue Québécoise Psychologie44153–175. 10.7202/1114904arFrench.BrownE. A.GriceJ. W. (2011). One is enough: Single-item measurement via the dynamic analog scale.Sage Open11–10. 10.1177/2158244011428647CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumbs for evaluating normed and standardized assessments instruments in psychology.Psychol. Assess.6284–290. 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284DolbierC. L.WebsterJ. A.McCalisterK. T.MallonM. W.SteinhardtM. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of job satisfaction.Am. J. Health Promot.19194–198. 10.4278/0890-1171-19.3.19415693347FisherG. G.MatthewsR. A.GibbonsA. M. (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research.J. Occup. Health Psychol.213–23. 10.1037/a003913925894198GrecoL. M.PorckJ. P.WalterS. L.ScrimpshireA. J.ZabinskiA. M. (2022). A meta-analytic review of identification at work: Relative contribution of team, organizational, and professional identification.J. Appl. Psychol.107795–830. 10.1037/apl000094134591563KlotzA. C. (2022). The Great Resignation is Still Here, but Whether it Stay is Up to Leaders.Paris: OECD.KuninT. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure.Personnel Psychol.865–77. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1955.tb01189.xLeeE.-S.ParkT.-Y.BoonjinK. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic Review.Psychol. Bull.1411049–1080. 10.1037/bul000001225984729MaelF.AshforthB. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification.J. Organ. Behav.13103–123. 10.1002/job.4030130202MatthewR. A.PineaultL.HongY.-H. (2022). Normalizing the use of single-item measures: Validation of the single-item compendium for organizational psychology.J. Bus. Psychol.37639–673. 10.1007/s10869-022-09813-3MengX. L.RosenthalR.RubinD. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients.Psychol. Bull.111172–175. 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172MuirC. P.CalderwoodC.BoncoeurO. D. (2023). Matches measure: A visual scale of job burnout.J. Appl. Psychol.108977–1000. 10.1037/apl000105336442027PiresC.CavacoA.VigárioM. (2017). Towards the definition of linguistic metrics for evaluating text readability.J. Quantitative Linguistics24319–349. 10.1080/09296174.2017.1311448PodsakoffP. M.PodsakoffN. P.WilliamsL. J.HuangC.YangJ. (2024). Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.11, 17–61. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030PritschetL.PowellD.HorneZ. (2016). Marginally significant effects as evidence for hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades.Psychol. Sci.271036–1042. 10.1177/095679761664567227207874RikettaM. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis.J. Vocat. Behav.66358–384. 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005RobichaudL. A.FelipeJ.DuvalM.MichonB.Olivier-D’AvignonM.PerreaultS.et al. (2024). Quality-of-life assessment in pediatric advanced cancer: Development of the patient-reported outcome measure Adv.QoL. Curr. Oncol.312289–2304. 10.3390/curroncol3104017038668073RyanA. M.PulakosE. D. (2007). “Conducting meaningful research in a fast-paced and volatile world of work: Challenges and opportunities,” in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22edsDansG. P.HodgkinsonE. T.FordK. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 265–290.SauerJ.BaumgartnerJ.FreiN.SondereggerA. (2021). Pictorial scales in research and practice.Eur. Psychol.26112–130. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000405SchaufeliW.BakkerA.SalanovaM. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study.Educ. Psychol. Meas.66701–716. 10.1177/0013164405282471ShamirB.KarkR. (2004). A single-item graphic scale for the measurement of organizational identification.J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.77115–123. 10.1348/096317904322915946SoucekR.VossA. S. (2022). A picture is worth a thousand words: Pictorial scales for the assessment of work intensity.EWOP Pract.1645–59. 10.21825/ewopinpractice.87161StinglhamberF.MariqueG.CaesensG.DesmetteD.HansezI.HaninD.et al. (2015). Employees’ organizational identification and affective organizational commitment: An integrative approach.PLoS One10:e0123955. 10.1371/journal.pone.012395525875086TavaniJ. L.BotellaM.CollangeJ. (2014). Quelle validité pour une mesure de la satisfaction au travail en un seul item ? [Validity of a single-item measure of job satisfaction?].Psychol. Pract.20125–142. 10.1016/j.prps.2014.03.001French.VallerandR. J. (1989). Towards a methodology for the trans-cultural validation of psychological questionnaires: Implications for research in the French language.Can. Psychol.30662–680. 10.1037/h0079856WanousJ. P.ReichersA. E.HudyM. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?J. Appl. Psychol.82247–252. 10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.2479109282WeigeltO.GiererP.PremR.FellmannM.LambuschF.SiestrupK.et al. (2022). Time to recharge batteries: Development and validation of a pictorial scale of human energy.Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol.31781–798. 10.1080/1359432X.2022.2050218WeismanH.WuC.-H.YoshikawaK.Hyun-JungL. (2023). Antecedents of organizational identification: A review and agenda for future research.J. Manag.462030–2061. 10.1177/01492063221140049
Edited by: Adriana Zait, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Romania
Reviewed by: Denis Morin, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
Andreia Andrei, UAIC, Romania
The Great Resignation (or Great Reshuffle), a term coined by Klotz (2022), describes a post-2021 trend where large numbers of workers chose to leave their jobs in search of higher pay, greater flexibility, improved work-life balance, and better mental health, leading to workforce shortages in many sectors and forcing employers to adapt.