2011 Society for Community Research & Action Presentation

1. Christopher R. Beasley
Leonard A. Jason
Steven A. Miller
2011 SCRA Biennial

2.  (Mis)Fit
 Alienation 1
 Anxiety 2
 Depression 2
 Diminished well-being 2
 Fit
 Satisfaction 3,4,5,6,7,
 Commitment 3,6,8
 Identification with a setting 3
 Citizenship behaviors 3
 Social integration 9
 Intent to stay in a setting 6
 Attendance of meetings 10,11
 Group involvement 12
Conceptualization Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results DiscussionIntroduction

3. Introduction Implications GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
Value
Congruence
 Value Congruence 13
 When an individual’s
values are similar to
those of the setting
 Example
 Individual value for
12-step recovery and
setting emphasis on
12-step recovery

4. Interpersonal
Similarity
Value
Congruence
 Supplementary 14
 When individuals are
similar to other
members of an
environment
 Example
 Military veterans
living with other
veterans
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

5. Needs
Supplies
Interpersonal
Similarity
Value
Congruence
 Needs-Supplies 15
 When a setting
supplies what an
individual needs
psychologically and
physically
 Example
 An individual with a
high need for cognitive
structure in a highly
structured
environment
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

6. Needs
Supplies
Individual
Contributions
Interpersonal
Similarity
Value
Congruence
 Complementary 14
 When individuals
complement
environments
 Example
 Individuals with
leadership skills in a
house that otherwise
lacks leadership
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization

7. Needs
Supplies
Interpersonal
Similarity
Demands
Abilities
Value
Congruence
 Demands-Abilities 15
 When individuals have
the ability to meet the
demands of their
environment
 Example
 When a person has the
life skills and cognitive
abilities needed to live
in a self-sufficient
setting
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
Individual
Contributions

8. Needs
Supplies
Interpersonal
Similarity
Demands
Abilities
Value
Congruence
Direct
Subjective
 Direct vs. Indirect 16
 Direct assesses P & E
simultaneously
 Indirect assesses P & E
separately
 Subjective vs. Objective
 Subjective is a person’s
perception of fit
 Objective is a third-party
assessment of fit
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
Individual
Contributions

9. Needs
Supplies
Interpersonal
Similarity
Demands
Abilities
Value
Congruence
 P-E Fit
 Directly, Subjectively
 Value Congruence
 Interpersonal
Similarity
 Needs-Supplies Fit
 Individual
Contributions
 Demands-Abilities Fit
Direct
Subjective
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
Individual
Contributions
Person-
Environment
Fit

10. Introduction Conceptualization
 GEFS
 Person-environment fit measure
 Brief 15-item measure
 Flexible language for various settings
 Forward & reverse phrasing
 Five components of fit
GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

11. Introduction Conceptualization
 Value Congruence
 My values prevent me from fitting in with my
Oxford House.*
 The values of my Oxford House do not reflect my
own values.*
 My personal values are similar to those of my
Oxford House.
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
GEFS Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

12.  Interpersonal Similarity
 The other residents of my Oxford House are
similar to me.
 The other residents of my Oxford House are
different from me.*
 I am different than the other residents of my
Oxford House.*
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

13.  Unique Contributions
 My unique differences add to the success of my
Oxford House.
 Nothing unique about me adds to the success of
my Oxford House.*
 I make unique contributions to my Oxford House.
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

14.  Needs-Supplies Fit
 The Oxford House that I currently live in gives me
just about everything I could ever need from a
recovery home
 There is a poor fit between what my Oxford House
offers me and what I need in a recovery home.*
 The Oxford House that I live in does not have the
attributes that I need in a recovery home.*
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

15.  Demands-Abilities Fit
 I have the ability to meet the demands of my
Oxford House.
 The match is very good between the demands of
my Oxford House and my personal skills.
 I am not able to meet the demands of my Oxford
House.*
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS

16.  246 attendees of the annual Oxford HouseWorld
Convention
 Mutual-help addiction recovery housing system
 No professional staff
 Over 1400 houses across the U.S. and abroad
 Sample demographics
 71%White, 19% Black, 11% Multiple or Other
 52% Male, 48% Female
 Median recovery = 24 months (SD = 42.86, 0-326)
 79% current residents (Median = 12 mo., SD = 20.97,
0-117)
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethodsMethods

17.  GEFS
 Person-environment fit
 26-item 4-point Likert-type
 Job Satisfaction Index Subcale Judge, Bono, and
Locke’s (2000) Rothe (1951)
 Modified measure of workplace satisfaction
 Replaced “Job” with “Oxford House”
 6-item 7-point Likert-type
 α = .81
 Tenure
 How much longer do you expect to live in yourOxford
House?Years? Months?
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods

18. Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods Results
Variable means and standard deviations
Min Max Mean SD
GEFS 33 60 50.02 5.19
Satisfaction 6 35 30.49 4.36
Tenure 0 117 21.08 46.9

19. Subscale internal consistency, descriptive statistics, and inter-scale correlations
Subscale α Min Max Mean SD VC IS UR NS
Value Congruence .65 4 12 10.12 1.57 ---
Interpersonal Similarity .78 3 12 8.14 2.08 .38* ---
Unique Role .72 3 12 9.93 1.65 .20* -.14 ---
Needs-Supplies Fit .71 6 12 10.43 1.57 .54* .29* .26* ---
Demands-Abilities Fit .49 7 12 10.52 1.24 .33* .07 .47* .43*
Notes. *p < .01
VC = Value Congruence subscale
NS = Needs-Supplies subscale
DA = Demands-Abilities subscale
IS indicates Interpersonal Similarity subscale
UC = Unique Contribution subscale
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

20. CFA Model Fit Statistics
Models χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA RMSEA
C.I.
SRMR
Model 1a 124.37** 80 .94 .92 .05 [.03, .07] .06
Model 1b 126.48** 80 .92 .90 .06 [.04, .07] .06
Model 2 389.17** 90 .57 .50 .12 [.11, .14] .12
Model 3 338.44** 89 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .13] .11
Model 4 336.04** 87 .64 .57 .11 [.10, .13] .11
Model 5 338.13** 90 .64 .58 .11 [.10, .12] .19
Model 6 172.52** 85 .87 .84 .07 [.05, .08] .08
Notes. aTheorized five-factor model using the entire sample.
bTheorized five-factor model using only current residents.
CFI = Comparative Fit Index;
TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index;
RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
**p < .001
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

21.  Needs-Supplies fit
 β = .52, t(151) = 7.50, p < .001 rp
2 = .25
 Explained 25% of the variance
 Interpersonal Similarity
 β = .14, t(151) = 1.94, p = .05 rp
2 = .02
 Explained 2% of the variance
 These two aspects of fit explained 33% of the
variance in resident satisfaction
 R2 = .33, F(2, 153) = 37.21, p < .001
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

22.  Interpersonal Similarity
 β = .20, t(122) = 2.43, p = .02, rp
2 = .04
 Explained 4% of the variance
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results

23. Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results
 Existing measures of P-E fit are not adequate
for community settings
 Not flexible across settings
 Do not examine all facets of fit
 Interpersonal similarity seems to be
important in community settings
 Need fulfillment may be more important in
service settings
DiscussionDiscussion

24.  Convenience sample
 Limited range
 Limited validity
 Internal consistency of Demands-Abilities Fit
andValue Congruence
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion

25.  5-point scale
 Other settings
 Multiple setting fit and global outcomes
 Benefits of misfit
 Program-environment fit
Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion

26. 1. Thomson, W.C. & Wendt, J.C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by student teachers. The Journal of
Educational Research, 88(5), 269-274.
2. Caplan, R.D., Tripathi, R.C., & Naidu, R.K. (1985). Subjective past, present, and future fit: Effects on anxiety, depression, and other indicators of well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 180-197.
3. Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
4. DeRue, D.S & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Stability and change in person–team and person–role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction,
performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253.
5. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of
elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453.
6. Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 63, 473-489.
7. Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The
moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.
8. Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and
performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477.
9. Segal, S.P., Silverman, C., & Baumohl, J. (1989). Seeking person-environment fit in community care placement. Journal of Social Issues, 45(3), 49-64.
10.Humphreys, K. & Woods, M.D. (1993). Researching mutual help group participation in a segregated society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
29(2), 181-201.
11.Luke, D.A., Roberts, L., & Rappaport, J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-fit predictors of self-help group attendance. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 216-238.
12.Mankowski, E.S., Humphreys, K., & Moos, R.H. (2001). Individual and contextual predictors of involvement in twelve-step self-help groups after
substance use treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 537-563.
13.Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-
349.
14.Muchinsky, P.M. & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.
15.Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.
16.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology,
49(1), 1-49.
N
E
T
D
H
E
?