Development of Scales for Assessing Sense of Integrity and Acts of Integrity Among Public Sector Personnel: The Chiang Mai University Context
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to develop scales for assessing the sense and acts of integrity among public sector personnel within the context of Chiang Mai University and to investigate the predictive power of the sense of integrity on acts of integrity. The research adopted a mixed-method approach organized into 3 phases. Phase 1 involved qualitative research to delineate the definitions of the sense and acts of integrity, using data gathered through interviews with 11 Chiang Mai University administrators. Phase 2 involved the development of measures for the sense and acts of integrity using a sample of 817 Chiang Mai University staff and 352 public and private sector employees. Phase 3 consisted of hypothesis testing with 2 sample groups: Chiang Mai University staff and their direct superiors, each comprising 738 individuals. Data analysis for Phase 1 entailed content analysis, while Phase 2 and 3 employed the SmartPLS 4.0.8.9 program to assess the psychometric properties of the measures, and hypothesis testing was conducted using a path analysis with AMOS version 29.
The results of Phase 1 found that the sense and acts of integrity consisted of 9 aspects, i.e., (1) honesty and having good faith, (2) transparency and verifiability, (3) having a sense of shame and fear of wrongdoing, (4) taking responsibility for one's duties and actions, (5) following rules and regulations, (6) opposing corruption, (7) not seeking or accepting illegal benefits, (8) not abusing power, and (9) protecting the benefit of organization. Research Phase 2 found that the developed measures exhibit appropriate psychometric properties. Research Phase 3 indicated that Chiang Mai University personnel demonstrate high levels of the sense and acts of integrity and that the sense of integrity has a direct influence on acts of integrity.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
ชูชัย สมิทธิไกร, วีรวรรณ วงศ์ปิ่นเพ็ชร์, ฉัตรวิบูลย์ ไพจ์เซล, ทัศนีย์ หอมกลิ่น, และพลภัทร เจริญเวียงเวชกิจ (2566). รายงานการวิจัยเรื่อง การพัฒนามาตรวัดจิตสำนึกสุจริตและพฤติกรรมสุจริตสำหรับบุคลากรมหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่. มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่.
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการป้องกันและปราบปรามการทุจริตแห่งชาติ (2566) . https://itas.nacc.go.th/
report/rpt0202?Year=2023&AssessmentId=182&Keyword=&MinistryId=&DepartmentCatId=&ProvinceId=&IsPublic=True
มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่. (2564). คู่มือการประเมินคุณธรรมและความโปร่งใสในการดำเนินงานของส่วนงาน มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่ประจำปีงบประมาณ พ.ศ. 2565. https://ita.library.cmu.ac.th/api/assets/
manuals/1/Book-CMU-ITA-2022_2022020204034416.pdf
Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2009). Workplace deviance: The role of voluntary work behaviors. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 555-578). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
Baxter, J., Dempsey, J., Megone, C., & Lee, J. (2012). Real Integrity: Practical solution for organizations seeking to promote and encourage integrity. ICAEW.
Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 154-161. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.
Black, J. E., & Reynolds, W. M. (2016). Development, reliability, and validity of the Moral Identity Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.041
Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz, (Eds.) Morality, Moral Behavior and Moral Development (pp. 128-139). Wiley.
Cambridge University. (2023). Cambridge dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Online: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/integrity
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10(4), 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1004_2
Creswell J. W. & Clark, V. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
Cunningham, M. R. (1989). Test-taking motivations and outcomes on a standardized measure of on-the-job integrity. Journal of Business Psychology, 4, 119-127. https://doi.org/10.
/BF01023042.
Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (Eds). (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Halsted.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2010). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.03.001
Goodin, R. E. (2010). An epistemic case for legal moralism. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30(4), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqq026
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd Ed). Sage.
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 43–62. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.94.2.353
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. S. & Pauline, A. R. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116 (1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-09-2015-0382
Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16(2), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6696(198004)16:2<107::aid-jhbs2300160202>3.0.co;2-y
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509
Kolthoff, E.W. (2007). Ethics and new public management: Empirical research into the effects of businesslike government on ethics and integrity. BJU Legal Publishers.
Krambia-Kapardis, M., & Zopiatis, A. (2014). The influence of corporate social responsibility on consumers' attitudes and intentions toward luxury hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(2), 272-292. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2012-0097
Krettenauer, T., Lefebvre, J. P., Hardy, S. A., Zhang, Z., & Cazzell, A. R. (2021). Daily moral identity: Linkages with integrity and compassion. Journal of Personality, 90(5), 663–674. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12689
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mohyeldin, T. & Suliman, A. (2003). Self and supervisor ratings of performance. Employee Relations, 25(4), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450310483389
Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C. H., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679-703. https://doi.org/10.1037/
-9010.78.4.679
Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual confusion. European Management Journal, 25(3), 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.emj.2007.04.006
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2022). PwC’s global economic crime and fraud survey 2022 -Thailand report. https://www.pwc.com/th/en/consulting/forensic/assets/eco-nomic-crime-and-fraud-survey-2022.pdf
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (2000). A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. Journal of Moral Education, 29(4), 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610-1624. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1610
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. (2022). SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS. https://www.smartpls.com
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
Sheeran, P. (2005). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013478.ch1
Transparency International. (2023). Corruption perceptions index 2022. https://reliefweb.int/
attachments/0b61e9c2-df7e-440d-b7be-e96e6948fd83/Report_CPI2022_English.pdf
Wanek, J. E. (1999). Integrity and Honesty Testing: What Do We Know? How Do We Use It? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(4), 183–195. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00118