A Content Validation of Work Passion: Was the Passion Ever There?

Abstract

Work passion research most frequently utilizes the dualistic model of passion, which asserts two types of passion that differ based on the internalization of passion into one’s identity: harmonious (adaptive) and obsessive (maladaptive) passion. While interest in work passion is exponentially increasing, scholars have recently pointed out concerns regarding the content validity of the most commonly used measure of the dualistic model of work passion, The Passion Scale. To address these questions, we conduct a content validation of The Passion Scale employing recent best practices in content validation research. Specifically, we examine the degree of content validity of the focal constructs (i.e., the facets of work passion), as well as the distinctiveness of the focal constructs from orbiting constructs (i.e., related but conceptually and empirically distinct constructs), such as work engagement and workaholism. The findings of this research highlight several areas for improvement regarding the content validity of The Passion Scale. Additionally, we include a pool of sample items that could be used to create a revised scale. Implications and future directions for work passion research are discussed.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Journal of Business and Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09807-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Content Validation ofWork Passion: Was thePassion Ever There?
RachelWilliamsonSmith1 · HanyiMin2· MatthewA.Ng3· NicholasJ.Haynes4· MalissaA.Clark5
Accepted: 6 March 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022
Abstract
Work passion research most frequently utilizes the dualistic model of passion, which asserts two types of passion that dif-
fer based on the internalization of passion into one’s identity: harmonious (adaptive) and obsessive (maladaptive) passion.
While interest in work passion is exponentially increasing, scholars have recently pointed out concerns regarding the con-
tent validity of the most commonly used measure of the dualistic model of work passion, The Passion Scale. To address
these questions, we conduct a content validation of The Passion Scale employing recent best practices in content validation
research. Specifically, we examine the degree of content validity of the focal constructs (i.e., the facets of work passion),
as well as the distinctiveness of the focal constructs from orbiting constructs (i.e., related but conceptually and empirically
distinct constructs), such as work engagement and workaholism. The findings of this research highlight several areas for
improvement regarding the content validity of The Passion Scale. Additionally, we include a pool of sample items that could
be used to create a revised scale. Implications and future directions for work passion research are discussed.
Keywords Work passion· Content validation
Introduction
The construct of work passion has received increasing atten-
tion in both the academic literature (Pollack etal., 2020;
Vallerand & Houlfort, 2019) and the popular press (Hansen,
2018; Hedges, 2017). A passionate person experiences a
motivational love toward a specific and meaningful activity
(i.e., work), exhibits high levels of persistence and effort
toward this activity, and the activity ultimately becomes a
part of one’s identity. Work passion research most frequently
utilizes the dualistic model of passion (e.g., Curran etal.,
2015; Ho & Astakhova, 2018), which asserts two types of
passion that differ based on the internalization of passion
into one’s identity: harmonious (adaptive) and obsessive
(maladaptive) passion (Vallerand etal., 2003). Harmonious
passion is defined by autonomous motivation wherein an
individual pursues work willingly with a sense of volition.
On the other hand, obsessive passion is defined by controlled
motivation, wherein an individual pursues work because of
contingencies, pressures, or outcomes. Meta-analytic evi-
dence suggests that harmonious passion is associated with
positive outcomes (e.g., positive affect, work engagement),
whereas obsessive passion is associated with both positive
(e.g., positive affect, organizational commitment) and nega-
tive (e.g., negative affect, emotional exhaustion) outcomes
(Pollack etal., 2020).
Past research has demonstrated both the reliability and
validity (Ho & Astakhova, 2020; Vallerand etal., 2003) of
the most commonly used work passion measure, The Pas-
sion Scale (Vallerand etal., 2003). Specifically, there is evi-
dence of factorial (Vallerand etal., 2003), convergent (Ho &
Astakhova, 2018; Marsh etal., 2013), predictive (Birkeland
& Buch, 2015), and discriminant (Birkeland & Buch, 2015;
Ho & Astakhova, 2018; Marsh etal., 2013) validities. Fur-
thermore, The Passion Scale has demonstrated measurement
invariance across languages and gender (Marsh etal., 2013).
However, evidence of content validity is lacking. Moreover,
recent meta-analytic evidence suggests that work passion
research has resulted in mixed findings (Pollack etal., 2020),
which we posit may be due to a lack of content validity.
* Rachel Williamson Smith
rachelwilliamson2493@gmail.com
1 Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA
2 Pennsylvania State University, StateCollege, PA, USA
3 University ofCentral Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
4 Anthem, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA
5 University ofGeorgia, Athens, GA, USA

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
Indeed, The Passion Scale has yet to undergo a crucial
step in the validation process: content validation. Content
validation is a process that establishes the degree to which
items adequately capture every aspect of the content domain.
Despite being one of the major forms of validity in various
validity taxonomies (e.g., Clark & Watson, 1995) and that
some scholars argue it is a prerequisite to construct validity
(Cascio & Aguinis, 2011; Guion, 2011), content validation
is one of the least frequently used methods in organizational
behavior research to establish validity when creating and/
or using a scale (Aguinis & Vandenberg, 2014; Colquitt
etal., 2019). As noted by other scholars (Chen etal., 2020a;
Tóth-Király etal., 2017), The Passion Scale (Vallerand etal.,
2003) appears to follow this common trend in organizational
research, meaning The Passion Scale is long overdue for a
content validation. Chen etal. (2020a) noted that the low
intercorrelations among the harmonious and obsessive facets
of passion in The Passion Scale suggested the items may
not adequately capture the definitional elements of passion.
In another study, Tóth-Király etal. (2017) applied explora-
tory structural equation modeling to The Passion Scale. The
authors noted several concerns with their findings, such as
certain items exhibiting cross-loadings (e.g., multiple har-
monious passion items loaded onto the obsessive passion
facet, and vice versa). The authors recommended that future
passion researchers may need to adjust the item wording of
certain items in The Passion Scale, and that their findings
“warrant a thorough item-level re-examination” (p. 11) of
The Passion Scale.
A content validation would address multiple concerns
in the work passion literature. For instance, theoretically,
obsessive passion should be associated with negative
outcomes given its maladaptive nature, yet previous studies
have observed both positive (Carbonneau etal., 2008;
Forest etal., 2011; Li etal., 2019) and negative (Dalla
Rosa & Vianello, 2020; Kong & Ho, 2018; Vallerand
etal.,2010) relationships between obsessive passion and
outcomes (Pollack etal., 2020). This could be due to a
lack of content validity in The Passion Scale, as scholars
have noted that inconsistent measurement often leads to
inconsistent results (Schnackenberg etal., 2020). Indeed,
Lilienfeld and Strother (2020) note that one of the most
common questionable measurement practices leading to the
replication crisis in psychology is a lack of content validity
in widely used measures of psychological phenomena.
Additionally, work passion scholars have called for
empirical research to “determine the unique place of the
passion construct within the myriad motivational constructs
already present in industrial/organizational psychology
such as job involvement, commitment, and workaholism”
(Vallerand & Houlfort, 2019, p. 55). We argue that a content
validation of work passion is necessary given the breadth
of the definition of general passion, harmonious passion,
and obsessive passion, to ensure all aspects of passion are
adequately covered and that these measures do not overlap
with related constructs.
The purpose of the current article is not to criticize the
construct of work passion or the scale development pro-
cess undergone by Vallerand etal. (2003). As mentioned
above, failing to provide evidence of content validity is a
very common issue in our field (Aguinis & Vandenberg,
2014; Colquitt etal., 2019). Rather, the purpose of this arti-
cle is to conduct the first thorough content validation of the
most commonly used measure of work passion, The Passion
Scale, by following current scale development and valida-
tion best practices (Clark & Watson, 2019; Colquitt etal.,
2019; DeVellis, 2017; Zickar, 2020). This paper makes four
primary contributions to the literature.
First, two overlapping yet distinct forms of The Passion
Scale exist and are frequently used in the literature (Val-
lerand, 2010; Vallerand etal., 2003). The current research
seeks to compare these versions of The Passion Scale in
the context of content validity and, if necessary, provide
recommendations for revising this measure. Indeed, many
popular psychological measures have been refined over
time, such as perfectionism (Slaney etal., 1995; Slaney
etal., 2001), organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer,
1990; Culpepper, 2000), and job characteristics (Idaszak &
Drasgow, 1987; Kulik etal., 1988). Scales often taken on a
“life of their own” in practice, as scholars frequently adapt
and revise measures, often without paying attention to con-
tent validity. Thus, scrutinizing the most popular versions
of The Passion Scale may be necessary to reel back in the
measurement of work passion to align with its conceptual
components.
Second, we examine the degree to which the facets of
work passion are distinct from its orbiting constructs (i.e.,
related but conceptually and empirically distinct constructs),
such as work engagement and workaholism. Recent research
has highlighted the issue of scholars in different subfields
studying the same construct under different names, such as
grit and conscientiousness (Credé etal., 2017) or self-com-
passion and neuroticism (Pfattheicher etal., 2017). Thus, we
seek to empirically identify the degree to which this may be
the case for work passion and related constructs.
Third, our study underscores the importance of the con-
tent validation procedure as an aspect of science that is often
absent in organizational research, adding to a recent increase
of item-level examination of psychological measures in
the organizational literature (e.g., Bokrantz etal., 2020;
Chen etal., 2020b; Cho etal., 2020). Taking an item-level
approach allows us the opportunity to examine the degree
to which each unique facet of work passion is or is not ade-
quately measured in the existing forms of The Passion Scale.
In other words, our study investigates The Passion Scale
item-by-item and identifies the degree to which each item is

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
conceptually appropriate for capturing the unique facets of
work passion moving forward.
Finally, as our results suggest that The Passion Scale dis-
plays a less than ideal degree of content validity, we share
guidance for what researchers should do when they find that
an existing scale lacks content validity. Put differently, the
content validity scholarship has clearly established guide-
lines and best practices on identifying content validity in
the scale development process (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991;
Colquitt etal., 2019; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999), yet scholars
face a perplexing situation if their results suggest a com-
monly utilized existing scale does not exhibit adequate
content validity. Thus, we seek to provide guidance on this
potentially common yet rarely discussed situation in organi-
zational research, and include sample items that could be
used in a future revision of The Passion Scale.
The Dualistic Model ofWork Passion: Defining Work
Passion
Vallerand etal. (2003, 2010;Vallerand & Houlfort, 2019)
proposed seven core facets comprising any type of passion
(e.g., passion about work, reading, sports, relationships),
which we refer to as facets of general passion. As our focus
is on work passion specifically, we refer to these core facets
as characterizing general work passion. First, passion exists
in the context of a specific activity; in this case, the focus is
on work (Vallerand, 2010; Vallerand etal., 2003; Vallerand
& Houlfort, 2019). Additionally, work passion involves an
enduring love of the activity (i.e., work), and the individual
must view the activity as valued or meaningful. Work pas-
sion is motivational (as opposed to affective) in that there
is an inclination or striving toward the activity of working.
Work passion leads to the activity becoming a part of one’s
identity and requires high levels of persistence toward the
activity. Lastly, work passion is dualistic, in that it can be
either adaptive (i.e., harmonious passion) or maladaptive
(i.e., obsessive passion).
While The Passion Scale (Vallerand etal., 2003) is the
most commonly used measure of work passion to date, two
other passion scales have since been developed with their
own unique conceptualizations of passion. In 2013, Cardon
and colleagues developed the entrepreneurial passion scale.
They defined entrepreneurial passion as (1) experiencing
intense positive feelings, (2) that these feelings are a core
component of one’s self-identity, and (3) that these intense
positive feelings and identity centrality pertain to specific
aspects of entrepreneurship (inventing products or services,
founding new organizations, and developing one’s organiza-
tion). Notably, the last two components map onto two of Val-
lerand etal’s. (2003) core facets of work passion: the activ-
ity being a part of one’s identity and passion being directed
toward a specific activity (i.e., entrepreneurship). There are
a few notable distinctions between Vallerand etal.’s (2003)
and Cardon etal.’s (2013) conceptualizations, such as Cardon
etal. focusing on entrepreneurial passion, whereas Vallerand
and colleagues focusing on general work passion. Addition-
ally, Cardon etal. (2013) stipulate that a core facet of passion
is the experience of positive feelings, whereas Vallerand etal.
(2003) argues that positive feelings about one’s work are an
outcome of work passion. Lastly, Vallerand etal. (2003)
posits five additional facets of work passion, which were
described in detail above (e.g., its dualistic nature).
The other measure of work passion that was recently
developed is the work passion scale (Chen etal., 2020a).
Chen and colleagues define work passion as (1) the experi-
ence of positive affect, (2) feeling strong identification with
one’s work, and (3) feeling motivated to engage in work.
Two of these facets of work passion map onto two of Valle-
rand etal.’s (2003) core facets of work passion—the activity
being a part of one’s identity and the motivational aspect
of work passion. Although Chen, Lee, and Lim’ (2020a)
conceptualization does focus specifically on work passion,
which is consistent with Vallerand etal.’s (2003) approach,
there are notable differences. Similar to Cardon etal. (2013),
Chen etal. (2020a) posit that the experience of positive feel-
ings are a core facet of passion, whereas Vallerand etal.
(2003) explicitly state that positive affect is an outcome of
work passion. Chen etal. (2020a) conceptualization is also
more aligned with harmonious passion (discussed in detail
below), as it excludes negative/obsessive aspects of work
passion (e.g., controlling the individual, conflicting with
other activities). Additionally, Vallerand etal. (2003) posits
five additional facets of work passion.
While multiple measures of work passion exist, the
present study focuses explicitly on The Passion Scale
given that it is the most popular measure of work passion
to date, and since it captures the dualistic nature of work
passion (whereas the previously mentioned measures only
capture the positive/harmonious aspect of work passion).
Given that the goal of this paper is to evaluate the content
validity of The Passion Scale (Vallerand, 2010; Vallerand
etal., 2003), we adopt Vallerand’s conceptualization in
defining general work passion. Specifically, we focus on
the seven facets of work passion set forth by Vallerand
and colleagues—focus on a specific activity, an endur-
ing love of the activity (i.e., work), viewing the activity
as valued or meaningful, work passion is motivational,
leads to the activity becoming a part of one’s identity,
requires high levels of persistence toward the activity,
and is dualistic.
Defining the facets that characterize the two forms of work
passion—harmonious and obsessive—is less straightforward,
as research describing these constructs are not consistent. As
the definition of a given construct underlies the very foundation
of a content validation, we reviewed a number of seminal

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
articles and chapters on the dualistic model of work passion (see
Table1 for an overview; Birkeland & Buch, 2015; Ho etal.,
2011; Ho & Astakhova, 2018; Ho & Astakhova, 2020; Pollack
etal., 2020; Vallerand etal., 2003; Vallerand& Houlfort, 2019).
We selected these articles by identifying the most cited and/or
recent articles and chapters on work passion that utilized the
dualistic model of work passion (i.e., distinguished between
harmonious passion and obsessive passion) and that provided
a clear yet distinct definition of general passion, harmonious
passion, and obsessive passion. We identified four facets that
were consistently mentioned in defining each of these forms
of work passion in the aforementioned articles and used this
framework for our content validation. First, harmonious
passion is comprised of an autonomous internalization of
work, meaning the individual experiences a motivational force
to pursue work willingly. With harmonious passion, work is
in harmony (i.e., complementary) with other aspects of one’s
life and occupies a significant but not overpowering space in
one’s identity. Lastly, harmonious passion elicits the experience
of positive emotions when working. On the other hand,
obsessive passion is comprised of a controlled internalization
of work, meaning one feels pressured to work because of
certain contingencies, pressures, or outcomes (e.g., rewards,
recognition, self-esteem). Additionally, one feels compelled
to work because of internal contingencies that are controlling
in nature. In other words, their passion for work becomes
uncontrollable. Obsessive passion results in work conflicting
with other activities such that work takes up a disproportionate
amount of one’s identity and ultimately conflicting with
one’s personal life. Finally, obsessive passion elicits negative
emotions when working or when prevented from working.1
Content Validation ofWork Passion
Colquitt et al. (2019) provide clear evaluation criteria
and best practice recommendations for content validation
within the fields of industrial-organizational psychology
and organizational behavior. Specifically, they describe
two complementary forms of content validity: definitional
correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Definitional
correspondence reflects the degree to which a measure’s
items align with the construct’s definition. Definitional
distinctiveness, on the other hand, represents the degree to
which a measure’s items align more with the focal construct’s
definition (e.g., a facet of passion) than with orbiting construct
definitions (e.g., work engagement or workaholism). Taken
Table 1 Overview of articles used to define the facets of harmonious and obsessive passion
Note: X= facet discussed within article
Facets
Harmonious passion Obsessive passion
Article Autonomous
internalization
Harmony Significant
part of
identity
Positive emo-
tions
Controlled
internaliza-
tion
Controls indi-
vidual
Conflicts with
other activities
Negative
emotions
Birkeland and
Buch (2015)
X X X X
Ho etal. (2011) X X X X X X
Ho and Astak-
hova (2018)
X X X X X X X
Ho and Astak-
hova (2020)
X X X X X X
Pollack etal.
(2020)
X X X X X X X
Vallerand etal.
(2003)
X X X X X X
Vallerand
& Houl-
fort(2019)
X X X X X X X X
Total (percent-
age)
100% 85.71% 85.71% 42.86% 100% 85.71% 85.71% 42.86%
1 It should be noted that the positive emotions facet of harmonious
passion and the negative emotions facet of obsessive passion were
mentioned in 3 of the 7 (42.86%) articles we reviewed. To ensure
thoroughness, we included these facets in our content validation. All
other facets for harmonious and obsessive passion were mentioned in
all 7 articles except: significant part of identity (harmonious passion;
6 of 7); harmony (harmonious passion; 6 of 7); controls individual
(obsessive passion; 6 of 7); conflicts with other activities (6 of 7).

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
together, assessing these two forms of content validity
allows researchers to evaluate the extent to which the items
adequately represent the full scope of the construct as well
as the extent to which they can be distinguished from related
constructs. We discuss our conceptual approach to definitional
correspondence and distinctiveness in the following sections.
Definitional Correspondence
Definitional correspondence pertains to the focal construct defi-
nition and scale items (e.g., the passion facet of interest). The
first step to this approach is to select a definition and scale for the
construct. In this article, we focus on the most frequently used
model and scale of work passion, the dualistic passion model and
The Passion Scale (Vallerand etal., 2003; cited over 2400 times,
Google Scholar, 12/10/2021). Although the central characteris-
tics of work passion and its dualistic dimensions were previously
outlined, a few key issues with the conceptualization and meas-
urement of work passion are worth emphasizing. First, although
the seven facets of general work passion are concisely described
in past research (e.g., Vallerand, 2010), the facets of harmonious
passion and obsessive passion have not been as straightforward.
For instance, some articles included increased positive and nega-
tive emotions as defining features of harmonious passion and
obsessive passion, respectively (e.g., Ho & Astakhova, 2018;
Pollack etal., 2020; Vallerand& Houlfort, 2019), whereas other
studies did not (e.g., Ho etal., 2011; Vallerand et al., 2003).
Additionally, there are two overlapping yet distinct forms of
The Passion Scale (Vallerand, 2010; Vallerand etal., 2003),
both of which are frequently used in the literature. Perhaps most
importantly, the items within The Passion Scale are delineated
between harmonious passion or obsessive passion; however, no
guidance is provided regarding which items correspond to the
specific facets of harmonious passion (e.g., autonomous inter-
nalization) or obsessive passion (e.g., controlled internalization).
Notably, all items within The Passion Scale were developed to
capture harmonious passion or obsessive passion, meaning this
scale does not include any items intended to explicitly capture
general passion, much less its specific facets (e.g., high levels
of persistence).
Additionally, there are multiple forms of The Passion Scale
that are often used interchangeably. The first version of The
Passion Scale created by Vallerand etal. (2003) consists of 14
items, seven of which capture harmonious passion and seven
of which capture obsessive passion. Yet, a book chapter by
Vallerand (2010) details a second Passion Scale that consists of
16 items: six measuring harmonious passion and six measuring
obsessive passion.2 Between these two versions (2003 and
2010), only six items are consistent in both (four harmonious
passion items and two obsessive passion items). In other words,
the 2003 measure includes eight items that do not exist in the
2010 version, and the 2010 version includes six items that do
not exist in the 2003 version.3 Furthermore, there are no details
regarding why certain items were dropped from the 2003
measure or how the items that were added to the 2010 measure
were developed, adapted, or chosen. Both of these versions of
The Passion Scale continue to be used frequently by researchers,
but because they differ in item content, it is unclear whether
they are both assessing the same aspect(s) of work passion. Due
to this inconsistency, we analyze both versions of The Passion
Scale in our study (referred to as the 2003 version or the 2010
version), as well as a combination of both forms which includes
all possible harmonious and obsessive passion items (referred
to as the full versions of the scales). Thus, we seek to clarify
whether the facets of general passion, harmonious passion, and
obsessive passion are adequately captured in each version of
The Passion Scale.
Research question 1: Is the content domain of the gen-
eral passion facets, harmonious passion facets, and obses-
sive passion facets adequately covered by the work pas-
sion measure items?
Definitional Distinctiveness
The second form of content validation described by
Colquitt etal. (2019) is definitional distinctiveness.
Whereas definitional correspondence focuses solely on
the focal construct, definitional distinctiveness shifts
this focus to the degree of distinctiveness between
the focal construct and its orbiting constructs. In a
content validation, the construct of focus is referred to
as the focal construct; in the case of the current paper,
the focal constructs are the facets of general work
passion, harmonious passion, and obsessive passion.
Additionally, two of the most common content validation
approaches used in organizational behavior (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1991; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999) utilize orbiting
constructs (related but conceptually and empirically
distinct constructs), which create a stronger threshold
to compare the content validity of the focal construct
than a comparison of the focal construct and random
2 The 2010 measure also includes a “passion criteria” subscale con-
sisting of four items which assess whether someone is passionate or
not. We view this as external to the dualistic model of passion and
thus did not include it in our content validation.
3 The explanation given regarding this discrepancy (Vallerand, 2010,
pg. 107) states “the original passion scale (Vallerand et al., 2003)
consisted in two 7-item subscales. A slightly revised scale consisting
of 6-item scales is now used. These subscales correlate very highly
with their respective original subscale (r = 0.80 and above) and yield
the same findings with determinants and outcomes. In addition, we
have used a 3-item version (Vallerand etal., 2007) and even a 1-item
version (Philippe & Vallerand, 2007) of each subscale with much suc-
cess.”

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
constructs (Colquitt etal., 2019). We selected a multitude
of orbiting constructs to examine in the present paper,
taking into account the focal constructs of general work
passion, harmonious passion, and obsessive passion (see
Table2 for a complete list of focal and orbiting constructs
as well as their definitions). Specifically, these orbiting
constructs were selected because they conceptually
overlap with one or more facets of the focal construct
(i.e., general, harmonious, and obsessive passion) and/or
have demonstrated a strong relationship with one or more
facets of the focal construct in previous empirical studies
or meta-analyses.
We selected the facets of work engagement (vigor,
absorption, and dedication), positive affect, affective com-
mitment, job satisfaction, and the facets of meaningful work
(positive meaning, meaning through work, and greater good)
as orbiting constructs of general work passion and harmoni-
ous passion. We selected the facets of workaholism (motiva-
tion, cognitive, emotion, and behavioral), negative affect,
and emotional exhaustion as orbiting constructs of general
work passion and obsessive passion. Next, we discuss each
Table 2 Definitions of focal and orbiting constructs
Note: GP= general passion; HP= harmonious passion; OP= obsessive passion
Facet (construct) Definition
Love (GP) A profound and enduring love of work
Valued or meaningful (GP) Work is highly valued and meaningful
Motivational (GP) There is an impulse, inclination, goal, tendency, desire, or striving toward work
Identity (GP) Work is part of one’s identity
Persistence (GP) High levels of psychological energy, effort, and persistence during one’s involvement with work
Specific activity (GP) Passion that is experienced toward a specific activity, such as work
Maladaptive/adaptive (GP) Work passion can take an adaptive or maladaptive form
Autonomous internalization (HP) A motivational force to engage in work willingly, engendering a sense of volition and personal endorsement
about pursuing work
Harmony (HP) Work is in harmony with other aspects of one’s life
Significant part of identity (HP) Work occupies a significant but not overpowering space in one’s identity
Positive emotions (HP) Experiencing positive emotions while working
Controlled internalization (OP) Pressure to work because of certain contingencies, pressures, or outcomes (e.g., rewards, recognition, or
self-esteem)
Controls individual (OP) Feeling compelled to work because of internal contingencies that control you
Conflict with other activities (OP) Work occupies a disproportionate amount of a person’s identity and thus conflicts with other aspects of a
person’s life
Negative emotions (OP) Experiencing negative emotions while working or when prevented from working
Vigor (engagement) High levels of energy and mental resilience when working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and
persistence even in the face of difficulties
Absorption (engagement) Being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has dif-
ficulties with detaching oneself from work
Dedication (engagement) Being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration,
pride, and challenge
Motivation (workaholism) An inner pressure or compulsion to work; feeling one “ought to be” or “should be” working
Cognitive (workaholism) Persistent, uncontrollable thoughts about work
Emotion (workaholism) Feeling negative emotions when not working or when prevented from working
Behavioral (workaholism) Excessive working that goes beyond what is required or expected
State positive affect The subjective experience of pleasant and energized mood states when working
State negative affect The subjective experience of distress and unpleasant mood states when working
Affective commitment Emotional attachment to the organization such that one identifies with, is involved in, and enjoys member-
ship in the organization
Emotional exhaustion Feeling that one’s emotional resources are depleted
Job satisfaction How people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs. The extent to which people like (satisfac-
tion) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs
Positive meaning (meaning) Judging one’s work to matter and be meaningful
Meaning through work (meaning) Work is an important source of meaning in life as a whole
Greater good (meaning) The desire to make a positive impact on the greater good through one’s work

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
of these orbiting constructs and their relation to work pas-
sion in greater detail.
Orbiting Constructs: Harmonious Passion
Work Engagement Work engagement refers to “a positive,
fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli etal., 2002,
p. 74). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and
resilience toward one’s work, willingness to devote efforts
into one’s work, and showing persistence even when one
faces a difficulty or challenge. Dedication is characterized by
being fully involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense
of enthusiasm, significance, and inspiration during work.
Absorption is characterized by being highly concentrated
and fully engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes
quickly, and experiencing a difficulty detaching from work.
Though harmonious passion is similar to work engage-
ment in that they both focus on a specific activity (i.e.,
work) and involve the regulation of persistent behavior,
previous studies provide both conceptual and empirical
evidence that these two constructs are distinct. Ho and
Astakhova (2018) posited two key differences that dis-
tinguish harmonious passion from work engagement.
First, engaged workers do not necessarily include work as
a part of their self-identity, whereas passionate workers
view work as part of their self-identities and reflect who
they are. Second, harmonious passion is more consistent
and stable whereas work engagement can fluctuate daily.
Additionally, Curran etal. (2015) pointed out that work
engagement has cognitive and affective facets, whereas
work passion is a motivational construct. Although the
two constructs are theoretically distinct, meta-analytic
evidence suggests a strong positive correlation (⍴ = .64)
exists between harmonious passion and work engage-
ment (Pollack etal., 2020). Notably, these studies exam-
ined work engagement and harmonious passion from the
broader domain level, as opposed to their nuanced facets.
Therefore, greater overlap may occur when examining spe-
cific aspects of harmonious passion and work engagement,
such as the autonomous internalization facet of harmo-
nious passion and the vigor facet of work engagement,
as both are characterized by high levels of motivation to
invest in one’s work willingly (see Table2).
Positive Affect State positive affect refers to the subjective
experience of a pleasant and energized mood state (Barsade
& Gibson, 2007; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Positive affect
overlaps with the positive emotion facet of harmonious pas-
sion and is considered an outcome of harmonious passion
(e.g., Curran etal., 2015; Pollack etal., 2020). Harmoniously
passionate individuals experience more positive affect when
working and less negative affect when not working (Valle-
rand etal., 2003). At least two meta-analyses have shown that
harmonious passion and positive affect exhibit a strong posi-
tive relationship, ranging from .50 (Curran etal., 2015) to .78
(Pollack etal., 2020). However, positive emotions are also
a core facet of harmonious passion, such that harmonious
passion is associated with increased positive emotions when
the individual is performing the passion activity (Pollack
etal., 2020; Vallerand etal., 2003). Thus, we included posi-
tive affect in our content validation to examine whether the
harmonious passion items overlap with state positive affect.
Affective Commitment Affective commitment is defined as
“the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with,
and involvement in the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991,
p. 67). Affective commitment and harmonious passion are
conceptually distinct because these two constructs focus on
different referents: affective commitment focuses on the organ-
ization whereas harmonious passion focuses on work. Moreo-
ver, affective commitment is an affective construct whereas
harmonious passion is motivational. However, meta-analyses
showed that these two constructs exhibit a strong positive rela-
tionship (⍴ = .71; Pollack etal., 2020). Thus, we include affec-
tive commitment in our content validation to examine whether
measures of these two constructs overlap, which may account
for the high correlation between these two constructs.
Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction reflects the degree to which
people like different aspects of their job (Spector, 1997).
Job satisfaction differs from harmonious passion in that job
satisfaction is an attitudinal construct whereas work pas-
sion is motivational. Though job satisfaction and harmoni-
ous passion are conceptually distinct, meta-analytic evidence
suggests a strong positive relationship between these two
constructs (⍴ = .72; Pollack etal., 2020). Past research has
theorized that, in line with affective events theory (Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996), the positive emotions characterized by
harmonious passion may elicit positive gains in the form of
job satisfaction (Burke etal., 2015). Given the high correla-
tion between these two constructs, we seek to establish the
degree to which the measures of harmonious passion (i.e.,
versions of The Passion Scale) and the orbiting construct of
job satisfaction are distinct.
Meaningful Work Meaningful work refers to work that is
perceived as significant and positive in valence and consists
of psychological meaningfulness, meaning making through
work, and greater good motivations (Steger etal., 2012).
Psychological meaningfulness refers to the feeling that one’s
work has personal significance (Steger etal., 2012). Mean-
ing making through work refers to the degree to which peo-
ple are able to make meaning from their work (Steger etal.,
2012). Finally, greater good motivations refer to the extent to

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
which work can make a positive impact on others. Addition-
ally, meaningful work has a growth- and purpose-oriented
focus, rather than a pleasure-oriented focus.
Meaningful work conceptually overlaps with harmoni-
ous passion because they both involve feelings that work is
significant and positive in value. However, unlike harmoni-
ous passion, meaningful work does not require employees
to internalize work into their identity and does not require
work to be in harmony with other aspects of life. We inves-
tigated several different but similar constructs in place of
meaningful work including work involvement (Lodahl &
Kejnar, 1965), work centrality (Paullay etal., 1994), and
work-based identity (Walsh & Gordon, 2008). All of these
constructs have a common focus on the significance of work
in one’s life; however, only meaningful work includes a posi-
tive valence aspect in its conceptualization (Steger etal.,
2012). Additionally, meaningful work and harmonious work
passion are strongly correlated (r = .63, Forest etal., 2011).
Research question 2: Are the facets of harmonious pas-
sion distinct from its orbiting constructs (work engage-
ment, positive affect, affective commitment, job satisfac-
tion, and meaningful work)?
Orbiting Constructs: Obsessive Passion
Workaholism Workaholism is a four-dimension construct
encompassed by motivational, cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral dimensions (Clark etal., 2020). The motiva-
tional dimension represents an inner compulsion to work;
the cognitive dimension represents uncontrollable and con-
stant thoughts about working; the emotional dimension
represents the experiences of negative emotions when not
working or being prevented from working; and the behav-
ioral dimension represents excessive working which goes
beyond requirement or expectation.
Both workaholics and obsessively passionate workers
work excessively, cannot control their compulsion to work,
and experience negative emotions when not working (Clark
etal., 2020; Vallerand, 2010). However, researchers have
pointed out at least two important differences between work-
aholism and obsessive work passion (Birkeland & Buch,
2015; Curran etal., 2015). First, obsessive passion involves
liking one’s work or what the work provides, whereas worka-
holism does not. Additionally, workaholics are addicted to
the behavior of working, whereas obsessively passionate
people are addicted to “their particular line of work (the
noun) and what it can give them” (Birkeland & Buch, 2015,
p. 395). Past research suggests workaholism and obsessive
work passion are moderately correlated (study 1 r = .33,
study 2 r = .67, Birkeland & Buch, 2015; r = .52, Dalla Rosa
& Vianello, 2020; r = .58, Lajom etal., 2018). Notably,
these studies examined workaholism and obsessive passion
from the broader domain level, as opposed to their nuanced
facets. Thus, greater overlap may occur when examining
specific aspects of obsessive passion and workaholism, such
as the controlling individual facet of obsessive passion and
the cognitive dimension of workaholism, as both are char-
acterized by uncontrollable cognitions and motivation (see
Table2).
Negative Affect State negative affect represents the subjective
experience of an unpleasant and distressed mood state (Barsade
& Gibson, 2007; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). The current study
focuses on negative affect as one of the orbiting constructs of
obsessive passion considering the theoretical overlap of their
definitions; obsessively passionate workers experience negative
mood states when working and when prevented from working.
Previous studies demonstrated that obsessive passion had a weak
to moderate positive relationship with negative affect, ranging
from .15 (Pollack etal., 2020) to .31 (Curran etal., 2015).
Emotional Exhaustion Emotional exhaustion is a dimen-
sion of burnout which is characterized by “a chronic state
of physical and emotional depletion that results from exces-
sive job demands and continuous hassles” (Wright & Cro-
panzano, 1998, p. 486). Obsessively passionate workers are
more likely to experience emotional exhaustion because they
experience negative emotions both when working and when
prevented from working. Meta-analytic results suggest that
emotional exhaustion is moderately correlated with obses-
sive passion (⍴ = .31; Pollack etal., 2020).
Research question 3: Are the facets of obsessive passion
distinct from its orbiting constructs (workaholism, nega-
tive affect, and emotional exhaustion)?
Method
Participants
Eligibility requirements included living in the USA, being
at least 18 years of age or older, working at least 20 h per
week, and possessing at least a college degree. In line
with recommendations from seminal articles on content
validation (Colquitt etal., 2019; Schriesheim etal., 1993),
we included college degree as a requirement because we
wanted to ensure participants possessed a certain level of
intellectual ability to appropriately complete the task given
its complexity. Additionally, we required that participants
were employed per best practices in content validation
research (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991; Colquitt etal., 2019;
Hinkin & Tracey, 1999). Content validity scholars have
recommended this requirement to ensure that participants

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
met a baseline level of skill in terms of their ability to
evaluate work-related items and constructs within the
organizational behavior and industrial/organizational
psychology literature (Colquitt etal., 2019). We sought
naive judges (i.e., judges lacking experience in this type
of task, as opposed to experts in organizational psychology
and/or content validity) per recommendations by Anderson
and Gerbing (1991), who proposed that naïve judges were
preferable as they are closer to the population of interest
and study samples. We began with 638 participants who
completed the study and removed 26 participants who
indicated that we should not use their data and another
58 participants who failed the attention check (i.e.,
the exact facet definition was provided for one of the
facets, participants were removed if they rated the item
correspondence to the facet as a 4 or below on a 7-point
scale, consistent with Colquitt etal., 2019). We removed an
additional 26 participants who did not meet one or more of
the eligibility requirements (e.g., some participants were no
longer employed). Our final sample was 528 participants.
Our final sample (N = 528) was almost evenly split on
sex (50.9% male). The majority of participants were Cauca-
sian (70.1%), followed by Asian American/Pacific Islander
(17.4%), Black (7.8%), Hispanic (4.7%), Native American
(1%), and other (2.5%)4. The average age of participants was
34.48 years (SD = 10.10). Participants reported working
39.26 h a week on average (SD = 8.10) and had been working
in their current position for 5.09 years on average (SD = 5.34).
Participants held a variety of jobs including software engineer,
journalist, marketing director, music producer, and nurse.
Procedure
Participants were recruited using Prolific.co, a platform
which connects researchers and participants (see Palan &
Schitter, 2018). Empirical evidence suggests that Prolific
participants are less dishonest and more naïve than other
crowdsourcing samples (Peer etal., 2017). We sought naive
judges per recommendations by Anderson and Gerbing
(1991), who proposed that naïve judges were preferable as
they are closer to the population of interest and study sam-
ples. Additionally, research suggests that online panel data
(e.g., Prolific.co, MTurk) has similar psychometric proper-
ties as conventional data collections (Walter etal., 2019).
Finally, we selected to use online panel data in line with the
type of sample used by Colquitt etal. (2019), who also used
online panel data (i.e., MTurk).
To reduce fatigue effects and ensure participants received
an equal distribution of focal and orbiting constructs,
participants were randomly assigned to rate four facets:
one general work passion facet, one harmonious passion or
obsessive passion facet, one work engagement or worka-
holism facet,5 and one other orbiting construct facet (e.g.,
meaning, emotional exhaustion; the last eight constructs
listed in Table2). Although the constructs within each group
were randomly selected, all participants rated the category of
constructs in the same aforementioned order. In other words,
all participants first received one randomly selected general
work passion facet, followed by one randomly selected har-
monious or obsessive passion facet, followed by one ran-
domly selected facet from work engagement or workaholism,
and finally, one randomly selected other orbiting construct
facet. Our goal was to have at least 70 participants rate each
item on each facet per recommendations by Colquitt etal.
(2019). After cleaning the data, the range of judges per facet
was 59 (the harmony facet of harmonious passion) to 81 (the
absorption facet of work engagement). The average number
of judges per item was 70.4 (SD = 6.12). In sum, our final
sample comprised 528 participants, with an average of 70.4
participants rating each facet.
Before beginning the main portion of our study, we first
had participants complete a practice exercise with three
items detailed in Colquitt etal.’s (2019) paper. This exercise
provided participants with the definition for work motiva-
tion (“the effort expended in relation to work”) and three
items, two of which capture work motivation and one of
which does not. Participants then rated the degree to which
each practice item matched the aforementioned definition
using a 7-point scale (1 = item does an extremely bad job of
measuring the bolded concept provided above, to 7 = item
does an extremely good job of measuring the bolded concept
provided above).
In line with Colquitt etal.’s (2019) recommendations, if
participants answered any of the practice questions incor-
rectly, a message appeared asking them to reread the direc-
tions and check their answers. They were then given another
chance to try the exercise. Colquitt etal. (2019) defined
responses as incorrect if they selected options 1–3 on our
7-point scale described above (meaning the item does not
measure work motivation) for the two example items that
measured work motivation: “I work hard in my job” and “I
lack energy when working.” Additionally, the third question
does not capture work motivation; thus, in line with Colquitt
etal. (2019), incorrect responses were identified if partici-
pants selected options 5–7 on our 7-point scale mentioned
above (meaning the item does work motivation) for this
item: “I work in a basement” (see Appendix B in Colquitt
4 Percentages sum to > 100% as participants were instructed to select
all that apply.
5 These two orbiting constructs were paired together based on their
large number of facets and to ensure participants received an equal
distribution of focal and orbiting constructs.

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
etal., 2019 for the full exercise). Participants were required
to successfully complete the practice exercise before they
could move on to the full study.
Measures
Work Passion We conducted a content validation on 21 work
passion items from The Passion Scale, with nine items cap-
turing harmonious passion and 12 items capturing obsessive
passion (Vallerand, 2010; Vallerand etal., 2003). Partici-
pants rated all 21 items four times on a randomized set of
four constructs, which were selected from a pool of 30 total
constructs (see Table2 which includes the constructs and the
definitions utilized in our data collection). Each facet was
rated using the detailed instructions for Hinkin and Tracey’s
(1999) approach described in Colquitt etal. (2019). Specifi-
cally, we provided participants with the definition of a focal
facet (see Table2) in bold and then asked participants to
rate the degree to which each item matched the definition
using a 7-point scale (1 = item does an extremely bad job of
measuring the bolded concept provided above, to 7 = item
does an extremely good job of measuring the bolded concept
provided above).
Analyses
We measured content validation through two statistics
adapted from Hinkin and Tracey (1999) and Anderson and
Gerbing (1991) by Colquitt etal. (2019). Both statistics were
examined in the context of both the scale as well as each
individual item, to provide a deeper analysis of the work pas-
sion measure. The first statistic, the htc (i.e., Hinkin Tracey
correspondence), captures the degree to which an item or
scale possesses content adequacy (i.e., definitional corre-
spondence). The htc is calculated by dividing the average
definitional correspondence rating by the number of anchors
(in this case, we used a 7-point scale, meaning there were 7
anchors). In other words, if an item or scale had an average
correspondence rating of 6.2 (out of 7), this number would
be divided by seven to calculate the htc (e.g., .89).6 Thus,
an htc of 1 would indicate perfect correspondence such that
all raters selected the highest rating for the item or scale.
Colquitt etal. (2019) conducted correlation-based norms to
interpret this statistic.
An additional aspect worth noting pertaining to Colquitt
etal. (2019) correlation-based norms is that there are dif-
ferent benchmarks utilized depending on the strength of
the correlation between the focal and orbiting construct(s).
Colquitt etal. (2019) provide four sets of guidelines classi-
fied as weaker average correlation between focal scale and
orbiting scales (r = .34 or below), more moderate average
correlation between focal scale and orbiting scales (r = .35
to .50), stronger average correlation between focal scale and
orbiting scales (r = .51 or above), and overall criteria not
normed to average correlation between focal scale and orbit-
ing scales. It is critical to select the most appropriate evalua-
tion criteria based on the constructs at hand, as doing so has
immense implications on one’s results. Given the correla-
tions between harmonious passion and its orbiting constructs
(i.e., those mentioned in our literature review range from
.50 to .78, with an average correlation of .66), we utilize
Colquitt etal. (2019) evaluation criteria for stronger aver-
age correlation between focal scale and orbiting scales in
evaluating htc values. Colquitt etal. identified four differ-
ent categories of evaluation criteria for interpreting htc or
htd (i.e., Hinkin Tracey distinctiveness, discussed further
in the next paragraph) statistics depending on the average
correlation between the construct of focus and its orbiting
construct(s). Within each set of evaluation criteria, there are
five groupings of percentiles based on the strength (or lack
of) evidence of content validity. Regarding the htc and htd
statistics, “Lack of” evidence reflects the 0th–19th percen-
tile; “weak” reflects the 20th to 39th percentile; “moderate”
reflects the 40th to 59th percentile; “strong” reflects the 60th
to 79th percentile; and “very strong” reflects the 80th to 99th
percentile (for more information, see Table 5 in Colquitt
etal., 2019). Specifically, this evaluation criteria suggest that
values of .90 and above indicate “very strong” definitional
correspondence, values from .86 to .89 indicate “strong”
definitional correspondence, values from .82 to .85 indicate
“moderate” definitional correspondence, values from .63 to
.81 indicate “weak” definitional correspondence, and values
.62 or below indicate “lack of” definitional correspondence.7
Given the correlations between obsessive passion and its
orbiting constructs (i.e., those mentioned in our literature
review range from .15 to .67, with an average correlation
of .41), we utilize Colquitt etal. (2019) evaluation criteria
for more moderate average correlation between focal scale
and orbiting scales in evaluating htc values. Specifically,
these evaluation criteria suggest that values of .92 and above
indicate “very strong” definitional correspondence, values
from .89 to .91 indicate “strong” definitional correspond-
ence, values from .85 to .88 indicate “moderate” definitional
correspondence, values from .60 to .84 indicate “weak”
6 Although we intentionally modeled our methodology after Colquitt
etal.’s (2019), we would like to echo Colquitt etal.’s word of caution
in that the htc and htd may be impacted by a number of variables,
such as the number of anchors chosen, the wording of anchors, num-
ber of judges, and type of judges.
7 While Colquitt etal.’s (2019) cutoffs were established using a large
sample (N = 2119), it is worth noting that these cutoffs were establish
relative to 112 scales. Thus, over time, these values may be updated
as more studies are conducted and/or are refined in the context of a
specific variable (i.e., work passion).

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
definitional correspondence, and values .59 or below indi-
cate “lack of” definitional correspondence. Given the lack
of research regarding the general passion facet and orbit-
ing constructs, we evaluated the htc values for the general
passion scale using the more moderate average correlation
between focal scale and orbiting scales which provides a
more conservative evaluation.
The second statistic, the htd statistically compares the
degree to which the item or scale corresponds to the focal
construct (e.g., a work passion facet) compared to orbiting
construct(s) (e.g., workaholism, work engagement). The htd
is calculated by subtracting the average orbiting construct
correspondence rating from the average focal construct cor-
respondence rating and dividing this value by the number of
scale anchors minus one. For instance, imagine the average
correspondence rating for a work passion facet is 6.2, the
average orbiting construct correspondence rating is 5.3, and
there are seven scale anchors. We would subtract 5.3 from
6.2 (which equals 0.9) and divide this number by six (seven
scale anchors minus one), resulting in an htd of .15. The
larger and more positive the htd value, the greater distinc-
tiveness of the item onto the focal construct compared to the
orbiting construct(s). The htd values for harmonious passion
and its orbiting constructs were evaluated using Colquitt
etal. (2019) norm-based criteria for stronger average cor-
relation between focal scale and orbiting scales, such that
values of .23 and above indicate “very strong” distinctive-
ness, values from .15 to .22 indicate “strong” distinctiveness,
values from .11 to .14 indicate “moderate” distinctiveness,
values from .01 to .10 indicate “weak” distinctiveness, and
values .00 or below indicate “lack of” distinctiveness. The
htd values for obsessive passion and its orbiting constructs
were evaluated using Colquitt etal. (2019) norm-based cri-
teria for more moderate average correlation between focal
scale and orbiting scales, such that values of .34 and above
indicate “very strong” distinctiveness, values from .27 to
.33 indicate “strong” distinctiveness, values from .20 to .26
indicate “moderate” distinctiveness, values from .09 to .19
indicate “weak” distinctiveness, and values .08 or below
indicate “lack of” distinctiveness. Consistent with recom-
mendations by Colquitt etal. (2019), we examined two orbit-
ing constructs per focal facet to provide a high threshold for
definitional distinctiveness for all item-level htd analyses.
We selected the two orbiting constructs for each item with
the highest htc, which represents the two orbiting constructs
that had the highest definitional correspondence.
To explain how we calculated the scale-level htd, we
will walk through an example using harmonious passion as
our focal construct and work engagement as the orbiting
construct of interest. We began by calculating the average
focal construct correspondence rating (e.g., for item #1, the
average htc rating of all four harmonious passion facets for
this item). We then calculated the average orbiting construct
correspondence rating (e.g., for item #1, the average htc rat-
ing of all three work engagement facets for this item). From
these two values, we calculate the average htd for harmoni-
ous passion and work engagement for item #1. This was
repeated for all harmonious passion items. Lastly, we aver-
aged these htd values to arrive at one overall scale-level htd
reflecting the average distinctiveness of the harmonious pas-
sion items from the work engagement items. This process
was applied to harmonious passion and obsessive passion
with each of their respective orbiting constructs.
Results
Our first research question regarding whether the content
domain of the general passion, harmonious passion, and
obsessive passion facets are adequately covered by the work
passion items at both the item and scale levels through the
item-level correspondence and the scale-level correspond-
ence (i.e., the item- and scale-level htc). Our second and
third research questions pertain to the distinctiveness of har-
monious passion and obsessive passion from their respec-
tive orbiting constructs. Both of these research questions are
examined at the item and scale levels through the item-level
distinctiveness and the scale-level distinctiveness (i.e., the
item- and scale-level htd).
Item‑Level Correspondence
Item-level results for the htc statistic can be found in Table3,
which outlines the 21 items and their corresponding htc for
each of the 15 facets (seven general passion facets, four
harmonious passion facets, and four obsessive passion
facets). Htc statistics were evaluated according to Colquitt
and colleague’s framework (Colquitt etal., 2019): lack of,
weak, moderate, strong, and very strong. Htc’s of moderate,
strong, or very strong are preferable, as this indicates that,
for instance, an item has “very strong” definitional corre-
spondence with the facet of interest. In the context of how
this corresponds with judge’s ratings, a moderate, strong, or
very strong statistic would indicate that the average judge
rated the item at least 5.74 out of 7.00 for harmonious pas-
sion, or at least 5.95 out of 7.00 for obsessive passion and
general passion (as these are equivalent to the minimum cut-
off for moderate ratings). In other words, a moderate, strong,
or very strong statistic indicates that the average judge rated
the item as doing a “very good” or “extremely good” job
of measuring the respective facet. Items 1–9 in Table3 are
harmonious passion items, and items 10–21 are obsessive
passion items.
For the htc of the general passion facets (love, valued
or meaningful, motivational, identity, persistence, specific
activity, and maladaptive/adaptive), zero items (0.00%)

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
Table 3 Item-level htc values
Note: Items #1–9 represent harmonious passion items; items #10–21 represent obsessive passion items. Value/Mean= valued or meaningful; Motiv= motivational; Persist= persistence; Spe-
cAct= specific activity; Mal/Adpt= maladaptive/adaptative; AutoInt= autonomous internalization; SigIden= significant part of identity; PosEmos= positive emotions; ContInt= controlled
internalization; ContInd = controls individual; Conflict= conflict with other activities; NegEmos= negative emotions. General passion and obsessive passion were evaluated using the “more
moderate average correlation between focal scale and orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of = 0.59 and below; Weak = .60 to .84; Moderate (*) = .85 to .88; Strong (**) = .89 to .91; Very Strong
(***) = .92 and above; Harmonious passion was evaluated using the “stronger average correlation between focal scale and orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of = 0.62 and below; Weak = .63 to
.81; Moderate (*) = .82 to .85; Strong (**) = .86 to .89; Very Strong (***) = .90 and above. Bolded values indicate significant htc values per the aforementioned criteria
General passion Harmonious passion Obsessive passion
Item content Love Value/Mean Motiv Identity Persist SpecAct Mal/Adpt AutoInt Harmony SigIden PosEmos ContInt ContInd Conflict NegEmos
1. My work allows me to live a variety of experi-
ences
.57 .68 .61 .56 .46 .57 .55 .52 .68 .63 .65 .54 .41 .47 .36
2. The new things that I discover within the
confines of my work allow me to appreciate it
even more
.80 .83 .72 .57 .59 .77 .65 .60 .55 .63 .80 .55 .45 .43 .30
3. My line of work reflects the qualities I like
about myself
.63 .73 .61 .85* .50 .58 .54 .56 .61 .78 .76 .60 .47 .43 .33
4. My work is in harmony with the other activities
in my life
.62 .69 .57 .71 .55 .55 .66 .61 .96*** .79 .68 .49 .51 .55 .34
5. My work is a passion, that I still manage to
control
.86* .81 .82 .77 .76 .88* .83 .81 .66 .76 .74 .57 .70 .55 .42
6. My work allows me to live memorable experi-
ences
.70 .72 .65 .59 .50 .64 .55 .53 .61 .67 .78 .56 .43 .49 .33
7. I am completely taken with my work .84 .74 .79 .75 .81 .87* .77 .76 .60 .59 .67 .61 .82 .73 .56
8. My work is well integrated in my life .63 .66 .62 .78 .59 .57 .68 .65 .91*** .84* .63 .50 .50 .55 .33
9. My work is in harmony with other things that
are part of me
.63 .71 .61 .78 .56 .60 .68 .56 .95*** .81 .70 .51 .50 .52 .35
10. I cannot live without my work .83 .79 .78 .85* .72 .82 .80 .71 .61 .60 .55 .63 .83 .74 .65
11. The urge is so strong, I can't help myself from
doing my work
.82 .72 .83 .73 .80 .84 .80 .80 .56 .53 .53 .66 .92*** .74 .62
12. I have difficulty imagining my life without
my work
.81 .80 .74 .88* .74 .77 .79 .70 .64 .60 .54 .65 .71 .71 .57
13. I am emotionally dependent on my work .74 .70 .71 .79 .74 .73 .79 .65 .58 .61 .57 .70 .84 .70 .70
14. I have a tough time controlling my need to do
my work
.71 .58 .74 .68 .76 .71 .74 .69 .55 .52 .41 .66 .88* .75 .70
15. I have almost an obsessive feeling for my work .81 .70 .82 .78 .82 .87* .82 .74 .53 .56 .56 .66 .90** .75 .68
16. My mood depends on my being able to do
my work
.68 .59 .70 .74 .74 .67 .72 .61 .62 .54 .68 .63 .72 .63 .73
17. I have difficulties controlling my urge to work .74 .59 .75 .66 .77 .75 .79 .68 .54 .52 .44 .63 .86* .73 .68
18. Work is the only thing that really turns me on .85* .74 .77 .77 .73 .85* .79 .69 .53 .53 .75 .60 .77 .64 .51
19. If I could, I would only work .83 .70 .77 .76 .77 .79 .75 .75 .55 .52 .55 .54 .75 .75 .49
20. I have the impression that my work controls
me
.54 .49 .66 .67 .72 .55 .70 .62 .60 .54 .37 .74 .91** .81 .74
21. Work is so exciting that I sometimes lose
control over it
.83 .71 .79 .62 .77 .91** .80 .72 .54 .53 .78 .60 .80 .69 .52

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
received a “very strong” correspondence rating for any of the
general passion facets. One item (4.76%) received a “strong”
correspondence rating (item #21) for the general passion
facet specific activity. Seven items (33.33%) received a
“moderate” correspondence rating for one or more of the
general passion facets (items #3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 18; items
#5 and 18 received a “moderate” correspondence rating on
two facets). Specifically, these “moderate” correspondence
ratings pertain to the general passion facets of love, identity,
and specific activity. In total, six of the nine harmonious
passion items (66.67%) received “lack of” or “weak” htc
ratings for all seven facets of general passion (items #1, 2,
4, 6, 8, and 9), and seven of the twelve obsessive passion
items (58.33%) received “lack of” or “weak” htc ratings for
all seven facets of general passion (items #11, 13, 14, 16,
17, 19, and 20).
Regarding the htc for the harmonious passion facets
(autonomous internalization, harmony, significant part
of identity, and positive emotions), three of the harmoni-
ous passion items (33.33%) received a “very strong” cor-
respondence rating (items #4, 8, and 9), which all pertained
to the facet of harmony. None of the harmonious passion
items received a “strong” correspondence rating to any of
the harmonious passion facets. Item 8 received a “moderate”
correspondence rating to the identity facet of harmonious
passion. Overall, six of the nine harmonious passion items
(66.67%) received “lack of” or “weak” htc ratings for all four
facets of harmonious passion (items #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7). As
expected, all of the obsessive passion items received “lack
of” or “weak” htc ratings for all four facets of harmonious
passion.
Regarding the htc for the obsessive passion facets (con-
trolled internalization, controls individual, conflicts with
other activities, and negative emotions), one of the obses-
sive passion items (8.33%) received a “very strong” corre-
spondence rating (item #11), which pertained to the controls
individual facet of obsessive passion. Two of the obsessive
passion items (16.67%) received a “strong” correspond-
ence rating (items #15 and 20) and two obsessive passion
items (16.67%) received a “moderate” correspondence rat-
ing (items #14 and 17), all four of which pertained to the
controls individual facet of obsessive passion. Seven of the
twelve obsessive passion items (58.33%) received “lack of”
or “weak” htc ratings for all four facets of obsessive passion
(items #10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 21). As expected, all of
the harmonious passion items received “lack of” or “weak”
htc ratings for all four facets of obsessive passion.
Scale‑Level Correspondence
The htc values at the scale level can be found in Table4. Htc
values were calculated for both the 2003 and 2010 versions
of the harmonious and obsessive passion scales, as well as
for all harmonious passion items and all obsessive passion
items. We did not calculate htc values for the obsessive pas-
sion items corresponding to the harmonious passion facets,
or vice versa. Out of the 66 htc values, six values (9.09%)
received a “lack of” definitional correspondence rating (i.e.,
htc values .62 or below for harmonious passion or htc values
.59 or below for obsessive passion and the full scale). 60 htc
values (90.90%) received a “weak” definitional correspond-
ence rating. None of the htc values received a “moderate,”
“strong,” or “very strong” definitional correspondence rat-
ing. In sum, all three versions of the harmonious passion and
obsessive passion scales exhibit low content validity.
In sum, the results of item- and scale-level htc together
answer research question 1 that the items of The Passion
Scale do not adequately cover the content domain of the
majority of the general passion facets, harmonious passion
facets, or obsessive passion facets.
Item‑Level Distinctiveness
Next, we examined the degree to which items were distinct
from orbiting constructs (see Table5). Recall that for all
htd analyses, we examined two orbiting constructs per item,
which were selected by identifying the two orbiting con-
structs with the highest htc (i.e., the two orbiting constructs
with the highest definitional correspondence). Notably, this
reflects the strongest test of distinctiveness, in that if an item/
scale is statistically distinct from the two most highly cor-
related orbiting constructs, there is very strong evidence of
item/scale distinctiveness. For example, the focal work pas-
sion facet for item #1 was value (general passion) because
it had the highest htc for this item out of all of the passion
facets. The orbiting facets for item #1 (meaning making and
positive meaning) were selected because they had the high-
est htc for this item out of all of the orbiting constructs.
This is in line with Colquitt etal. (2019) given that each
item may (and should) have different focal facets and thus
different orbiting constructs. Of the 21 work passion items,
one harmonious passion item (item #5; 4.76%) exhibited
“moderate” distinctiveness from the two closest orbiting
constructs, one harmonious passion item (item #8; 4.76%)
exhibited “strong” distinctiveness from the two closest orbit-
ing constructs, and two harmonious passion items (items #4
and 9; 9.52%) exhibited “very strong” distinctiveness from
the two closest orbiting constructs. The remaining 17 items
(80.95%) demonstrated “weak” or “lack of” distinctiveness
from their two closest orbiting constructs.
There were four items (two harmonious passion and two
obsessive passion; 19.05%) with negative htd values, indi-
cating the orbiting construct had a higher definitional corre-
spondence rating than the intended construct (work passion).
Items 1 and 6 were rated higher on the meaning making and
positive meaning facets of meaningfulness than any work

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
passion facet. Item 16 was rated higher on the emotion facet
of workaholism than any work passion facet. Finally, item
17 was rated higher on the cognitive facet of workaholism
than any work passion facet.
Scale‑Level Distinctiveness
The htd was calculated for all versions of the harmonious
passion and obsessive passion scales, and for all of the
orbiting constructs (see Table6). We discuss the htd scale
level results one orbiting construct at a time, beginning
with harmonious passion’s orbiting constructs. Two of the
three harmonious passion scales (the 2010 version and the
full scale) exhibited “moderate” distinctiveness from work
engagement. The 2003 version of the harmonious passion
scale exhibited “weak” distinctiveness from work engage-
ment. All three versions of the harmonious passion scale
(the 2003 version, the 2010 version, and the full harmonious
passion scale) exhibited “lack of” or “weak” distinctiveness
from the orbiting constructs of positive affect, affective com-
mitment, job satisfaction, and meaningful work. Regarding
obsessive passion’s orbiting constructs, the three obsessive
passion scales (the 2003 version, the 2010 version, and the
full obsessive passion scale) exhibited “lack of” or “weak”
distinctiveness from workaholism. The three versions of
the obsessive passion scale exhibited “weak” distinctive-
ness from negative affect. The 2010 version of the obsessive
passion scale demonstrated “moderate” distinctiveness from
emotional exhaustion, while the 2003 and full versions of the
obsessive passion scale demonstrated “weak” distinctiveness
from emotional exhaustion.
To answer research questions 2 and 3, the item- and scale-
level htd results indicate that the majority of the harmonious
passion facets are not distinct from its orbiting constructs
and the facets of obsessive passion are not distinct from its
orbiting constructs.
Discussion
The present study is the first content validation of the
most commonly used work passion measure utilized in the
organizational literature (i.e., The Passion Scale; Vallerand
etal., 2003). At least three takeaways are apparent from our
Table 4 Scale-level htc values
Note: HP = harmonious passion; OP = obsessive passion. Harmonious passion was evaluated using the
“stronger average correlation between focal scale and orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of = 0.62 and below;
Weak = .63 to .81; Moderate = .82 to .85; Strong = .86 to .89; Very Strong = .90 and above. The obses-
sive passion scales were evaluated using the “more moderate average correlation between focal scale and
orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of = 0.59 and below; Weak = .60 to .84; Moderate = .85 to .88; Strong = .89
to .91; Very Strong = .92 and above. Asterisks are not included in this table as none of the scale-level htc
values significant
Facet 2003 HP
[1–7]
2003 OP
[10–16]
2010 HP
[1–4, 8, 9]
2010 OP
[15, 17– 21]
Full HP
[1–9]
Full OP
[10–21]
General passion
Love .72 .77 .65 .77 .70 .77
Valued or meaningful .74 .70 .72 .65 .73 .68
Motivational .68 .76 .63 .76 .67 .76
Identity .69 .78 .71 .71 .71 .75
Persistence .60 .76 .54 .76 .59 .76
Specific activity .69 .77 .61 .79 .67 .77
Maladaptive/adaptive .65 .78 .63 .78 .66 .78
Harmonious passion
Autonomous internalization .63 – .58 – .62 –
Harmony .67 – .78 – .73 –
Significant part of identity .69 – .75 – .72 –
Positive emotions .73 – .70 – .71 –
Obsessive passion
Controlled internalization – .66 – .63 – .64
Controls individual – .83 – .83 – .82
Conflict with other activities – .72 – .73 – .72
Negative emotions – .66 – .60 – .63

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
findings. First, there are a handful of strengths regarding
the content validity of The Passion Scale. At the item level,
certain items are particularly strong in their correspondence
to certain facets of passion, as well as their distinctiveness
from orbiting constructs (items 4, 8, and 9, discussed in the
“Recommendations for Work Passion Measurement” section
below). However, at the scale level, none of the facets of
general passion, harmonious passion, or obsessive passion
exhibited statistically significant evidence of content validity
in any of the three versions of The Passion Scale. In terms of
distinctiveness, two of the three versions of the harmonious
passion scale are statistically distinct from work engagement
(2010 version and the full harmonious passion scale), and
one version of the obsessive passion scale is statistically
Table 5 Item-level htd values
Note: Items #1–9 represent harmonious passion items; items #10–21 represent obsessive passion items. GP= general work passion; HP= har-
monious passion; OP= obsessive passion. Harmonious passion items were evaluated using the “stronger average correlation between focal scale
and orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of = 0.00 and below; Weak = 0.01 to 0.10; Moderate (*) = 0.11 to 0.14; Strong (**) = 0.15 to 0.22; Very
Strong (***) = 0.23 and above. Obsessive passion items were evaluated using the “more moderate average correlation between focal scale and
orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of = 0.08 and below; Weak = 0.09 to 0.19; Moderate (*) = 0.20 to 0.26; Strong (**) = 0.27 to 0.33; Very Strong
(***) = 0.34 and above
Item content Focal work passion facet Orbiting facet #1 Orbiting facet #2 htd
Facet MFacet MFacet M
1. My work allows me to live a variety of
experiences
Value (GP) 4.78 Meaning making 5.45 Positive meaning 5.15 −.09
2. The new things that I discover within the
confines of my work allow me to appreciate
it even more
Value (GP) 5.78 Meaning making 5.83 Positive meaning 5.77 .00
3. My line of work reflects the qualities I like
about myself
Identity (GP) 5.97 Positive meaning 5.65 Meaning making 5.44 .07
4. My work is in harmony with the other
activities in my life
Harmony (HP) 6.75 Meaning making 5.34 Job satisfaction 5.06 .26***
5. My work is a passion, that I still manage
to control
Specific activity (GP) 6.16 Job satisfaction 5.45 Dedication (Eng) 5.29 .13*
6. My work allows me to live memorable
experiences
Positive emotions (HP) 5.44 Meaning making 5.83 Positive meaning 5.48 −.04
7. I am completely taken with my work Specific activity (GP) 6.07 Absorption (Eng) 6.11 Cognitive (Whlsm) 5.91 .01
8. My work is well integrated in my life Harmony (HP) 6.39 Meaning making 5.42 Job satisfaction 5.10 .19**
9. My work is in harmony with other things
that are part of me
Harmony (HP) 6.68 Meaning making 5.28 Job satisfaction 5.10 .25***
10. I cannot live without my work Identity (GP) 5.92 Cognitive (Whlsm) 5.90 Behavioral (Whlsm) 5.64 .03
11. The urge is so strong, I can't help myself
from doing my work
Controls individual (OP) 6.41 Cognitive (Whlsm) 6.44 Behavioral (Whlsm) 5.97 .03
12. I have difficulty imagining my life without
my work
Identity (GP) 6.15 Cognitive (Whlsm) 5.82 Emotion (Whlsm) 5.73 .06
13. I am emotionally dependent on my work Controls individual (OP) 5.89 Emotion (Whlsm) 6.00 Cognitive (Whlsm) 5.66 .01
14. I have a tough time controlling my need
to do my work
Controls individual (OP) 6.18 Cognitive (Whlsm) 6.08 Behavioral (Whlsm) 5.71 .05
15. I have almost an obsessive feeling for my
work
Controls individual (OP) 6.31 Cognitive (Whlsm) 6.53 Behavioral (Whlsm) 6.09 .00
16. My mood depends on my being able to do
my work
Persistence (GP) 5.20 Emotion (Whlsm) 5.84 Positive affect 5.38 −.07
17. I have difficulties controlling my urge to
work
Controls individual (OP) 6.05 Cognitive (Whlsm) 6.31 Behavioral (Whlsm) 5.87 −.01
18. Work is the only thing that really turns
me on
Specific activity (GP) 5.97 Positive affect 5.25 Behavioral (Whlsm) 5.14 .13
19. If I could, I would only work Love (GP) 5.84 Behavioral (Whlsm) 5.82 Motivation (Whlsm) 5.45 .03
20. I have the impression that my work
controls me
Controls individual (OP) 6.35 Cognitive (Whlsm) 5.96 Behavioral (Whlsm) 5.74 .08
21. Work is so exciting that I sometimes lose
control over it
Specific activity (GP) 6.34 Absorption (Eng) 5.89 Cognitive (Whlsm) 5.64 .10

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
distinct from emotional exhaustion (2010 version). Taken
in conjunction, the majority of our results suggest an overall
lack of content validity (i.e., content correspondence and
distinctiveness) of The Passion Scale, but that the 2010
version has a slight advantage in terms of scale-level defi-
nitional distinctiveness from two orbiting constructs (i.e.,
work engagement and emotional exhaustion). These findings
should be taken into consideration when evaluating the util-
ity of past work passion research.
The second major takeaway from our study is that mul-
tiple orbiting constructs emerged as problematic for the
distinctiveness of harmonious passion and obsessive pas-
sion. None of the three versions of the harmonious passion
measure was distinct from positive affect, affective com-
mitment, job satisfaction, or meaningful work. Additionally,
none of the three versions of the obsessive passion scale
was significantly distinct from workaholism. None of the
versions of the obsessive passion measure was significantly
distinct from negative affect, and only the 2010 version of
the obsessive passion measure was statistically distinct from
emotional exhaustion.
The lack of distinctiveness between facets of passion
and particular orbiting constructs highlights the issue of
researchers in different subfields studying the same con-
struct under different names, such as grit and conscien-
tiousness (Credé etal., 2017) or self-compassion and neu-
roticism (Pfattheicher etal., 2017). We encourage passion
researchers to exercise caution when interpreting studies
utilizing The Passion Scale until a revised version with
stronger evidence of content validity is developed. The
development of a work passion scale with content validity
can be informed by the program of results reported here.
Additionally, we add to the growing body of research
examining item-level content validity of psychological
measures (Bokrantz etal., 2020; Chen etal., 2020b; Cho
etal., 2020), and urge future researchers to address this
when developing any scale. Although addressing this
aspect of content validity is complex, skipping it alto-
gether can lead to inconsistent findings (Bokrantz etal.,
2020; Schnackenberg etal., in press; Watson etal., 1988),
ultimately impacting the entire body of literature on a
given topic.
The final major takeaway is that there are multiple
ways in which this measure can be strengthened, as evi-
denced by the results of our content validation. A number
of items exhibit low levels of definitional correspond-
ence, which ultimately impacts the scale-level defini-
tional correspondence (i.e., scale-level htc). Similarly,
the large number of items that exhibit low definitional
distinctiveness from orbiting constructs impact the scale-
level definitional distinctiveness between the various ver-
sion of the passion measures and the orbiting constructs
(i.e., scale-level htd). Notably, past research has observed
inconsistent relationships between obsessive passion and
outcomes (Pollack etal., 2020). One explanation could
be due to which version of The Passion Scale is being
used (2003 vs. 2010). While none of the obsessive pas-
sion scales exhibited significant scale-level correspond-
ence, it is worth noting that each version of the obsessive
passion scale reflects certain facets of work passion more
than others (see Table4). Specifically, items in the 2003
version of the obsessive passion scale are rated higher on
the controlled motivation and negative emotions facets
compared to items in the 2010 version of the obsessive
passion scale.
One explanation regarding the lack of evidence of
adequate content validity for The Passion Scale stems
from the fact that the items in The Passion Scale are
not developed to capture the specific facets within the
harmonious and obsessive passion facets; nor are they
Table 6 Scale-level htd values
Note: HP = harmonious passion; OP = obsessive passion. The obsessive passion scales were evaluated
using the “more moderate average correlation between focal scale and orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of
= 0.08 and below; Weak = 0.09 to 0.19; Moderate (*) = 0.20 to 0.26; Strong (**) = 0.27 to 0.33; Very
Strong (***) = 0.34 and above. Harmonious passion scales were evaluated using the “stronger average cor-
relation between focal scale and orbiting scales” criteria: Lack of = 0.00 and below; Weak = 0.01 to 0.10;
Moderate (*) = 0.11 to 0.14; Strong (**) = 0.15 to 0.22; Very Strong (***) = 0.23 and above
Orbiting construct 2003 HP
[1–7]
2003 OP
[10–16]
2010 HP
[1–4, 8, 9]
2010 OP
[15, 17– 21]
Full HP
[1–9]
Full OP
[10–21]
Work engagement .08 – .16** – .11* –
Positive affect −.01 – .05 – .03 –
Affective commitment −.06 – −.01 – −.03 –
Job satisfaction −.09 – −.05 – −.07 –
Meaningful work −.02 – .00 – .01 –
Workaholism – −.09 – −.10 – −.10
Negative affect – .16 – .19 – .17
Emotional exhaustion – .15 – .20* – .17

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
developed to capture the seven facets of general passion
present in the conceptual definition. Stated another way,
the operationalizations of work passion, harmonious pas-
sion, and obsessive passion in The Passion Scale do not,
nor are they intended to, match the nuanced conceptual
discussions of these constructs present in the literature.
Does The Passion Scale Measure Work Passion?
Given the lack of content validity evidenced by these results,
one may naturally wonder, what does The Passion Scale
measure then, if not work passion? Results of our study sug-
gest that The Passion Scale does not measure work passion
as conceptualized in theory. The dualistic model of passion
paints a nuanced, multifaceted picture of adaptive and mala-
daptive forms of passion. The theoretical understanding of
work passion is deep, spanning 15 distinct facets. Unfortu-
nately, evidence from this study suggests that our empirical
understanding of work passion may be shallower. Given all
of this, how confident can we be that past study results mean
what we believe them to mean? As is true of most organiza-
tional research, it depends.
Each version of the scale touches on slightly different
facets of work passion. However, no version of the scale
hits every conceptualized facet. Moreover, each version of
the scale has differing degrees of overlap with other con-
structs. In other words, The Passion Scale is both deficient
and contaminated; however, the severity depends on what
version of the scale authors have used. Table7 summarizes
for each version of the scale (1) what it proports to measure
(i.e., the theoretical content), (2) what it actually measures
(i.e., the actual content), (3) what it measures that matches
the conceptualization (i.e., relevance), (4) what it does not
measure from the conceptualization (i.e., deficiency), and
(5) what it measures outside the conceptualization (i.e., con-
tamination). We hope this table can be used as a reference
to work passion researchers to both evaluate the validity of
inferences and conclusions made in previous research using
variations of The Passion Scale as well as guide the infer-
ences and conclusions that can be made with these scales
moving forward.
Our results suggest that some of The Passion Scale items
do capture work passion; however, they are primarily meas-
uring only six of the 15 work passion facets (see Table3,
specifically, a handful of items capture the general passion
facets of love, identity, and specific activity; the harmonious
passion facets of harmony and significant part of identity;
and the obsessive passion facet of controls individual). This
is notable to consider in the context of past work passion
research, as previous findings which utilized The Passion
Scale may have been more indicative of one or more of these
specific facets of work passion rather than all of the nuanced
aspects of work passion.
Relatedly, approximately half of the items in The Passion
Scale received higher htc ratings for orbiting constructs than
for work passion facets. In other words, judges consistently
identified these work passion items as measuring orbiting
constructs such as meaningfulness and workaholism to a
higher degree than any of the work passion facets. These
results (see Table5) suggest that four of the nine harmo-
nious passion items are tapping into the meaning making
dimension of work meaningfulness (items #1, 2, and 6) and
the absorption dimension of work engagement (item #7)
rather than harmonious passion (or general passion).8 Simi-
larly, five of the obsessive passion items are tapping into the
cognitive dimension (items #11, 15, and 17) or emotional
dimension (#13, 16) of workaholism rather than obses-
sive passion (or general passion). Notably, neither work
meaningfulness nor workaholism was included in a recent
meta-analysis that examined the dualistic model of passion
and its related constructs (Pollack etal., 2020), likely due
to a lack of studies that have examined these constructs
simultaneously.
Additionally, past research examining the predictive and
discriminant validity of work passion found that both har-
monious passion and meaningful work (r = .63, Forest etal.,
2011) as well as obsessive passion and workaholism (study
1 r = .33, study 2 r = .67, Birkeland & Buch, 2015; r = .52,
Dalla Rosa & Vianello, 2020, r = .58, Lajom etal., 2018) are
positively related. However, each of these studies relied on
overall work meaningfulness and workaholism as opposed
to their facets (e.g., the cognitive and emotional facets of
workaholism). Thus, our findings build upon this research
by both applying a content validation to The Passion Scale
and doing so at the nuanced facet level of both work passion
and its orbiting constructs. In sum, the current versions of
The Passion Scale appear to measure a handful of the work
passion facets, but also appears to be contaminated by facets
of related, orbiting constructs.
While these findings are not ideal for work passion
research, we want to clarify that we wholeheartedly view
work passion as a viable, unique, and important construct
in the organizational literature. We are not saying that har-
monious passion is equivalent to work meaningfulness, or
that obsessive passion is equivalent to workaholism. Rather,
our results suggest that the measurement of harmonious and
obsessive passion via The Passion Scale is not fully theoreti-
cally aligned with the nature of these constructs. Moreover,
the results of previous studies using these scales can still be
of theoretical and practical value to the extent that the con-
structs and relationships studied are in line with the opera-
tionalized facets of The Passion Scale used.
8 The extent to which this is considered contamination could be
debated given the overlapping content in the definitions of work
meaningfulness and the value/meaning facet of work passion.

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
Table 7 Summary of scale content, relevance, deficiency, and contamination
Note: HP= harmonious passion; OP= obsessive passion. Value/Mean= valued or meaningful; Motiv= motivational; Persist= persistence; SpecAct= specific activity; Mal/Adpt= maladap-
tive/adaptative; AutoInt= autonomous internalization; SigIden= significant part of identity; PosEmos= positive emotions; ContInt= controlled internalization; ContInd= controls individual;
Conflict= conflict with other activities; NegEmos= negative emotions. Theoretical content represents what the scale is conceptually meant to measure. Actual content represents what the scale
measures according to the relevance and contamination columns. Relevance contains facets with at least 1 item in the scale receiving an htc value within 5% (.04) of moderate definitional corre-
spondence or higher (see Table3). Deficiency contains facets with no items in the scale receiving an htc value within 5% (.04) of moderate definitional correspondence (i.e., all items have weak
or lack of definitional correspondence). Contamination contains facets of orbiting constructs with at least 1 item in the Passion Scale receiving a lack of definitional distinctiveness (see Table5)
Scale Theoretical content
HP A love for one’s work that is valued and meaningful, motivational, a significant part of one’s identity yet at harmony with other life activities, requires persistence, is adaptive and
autonomously internalized, and results in positive emotions while working
OP A love for one’s work that is valued and meaningful, motivational, a disproportionate part of one’s identity that conflicts with other life activities, requires persistence, is maladap-
tive and controllingly internalized, and results in negative emotions while working or when prevented from working
Scale Actual content Relevance Deficiency Contamination
2003 HP A general love for work that is part of one’s
identity yet at harmony with other activi-
ties in life
Love, Value/Mean, Identity, SpecAct, Mal/
Adpt, Harmony
Motiv, Persist, AutoInt, SigIden, PosEmos Meaning making, positive meaning, absorp-
tion (Eng)
2003 OP An obsession with work that is controlled
by an internal compulsion, strongly tied
to one’s identity, and determines one’s
affective state
Love, Motiv, Identity, Persist, SpecAct,
Mal/Adpt, ContInd
Value/Mean, ContInt, Conflict, NegEmos Emotion (Whlsm), cognitive (Whlsm)
2010 HP Work is valuable and a significant part of
one’s identity yet at harmony with other
activities in life
Value/Mean, Identity, SpecAct, Harmony,
SigIden
Love, Motiv, Persist, Mal/Adpt, AutoInt,
PosEmos
Meaning making, positive meaning
2010 OP An obsessive love for work that is con-
trolled by an internal compulsion
Love, Motiv, Persist, SpecAct, Mal/Adpt,
ContInd
Value/Mean, Identity, ContInt, Conflict,
NegEmos
Cognitive (Whlsm), behavioral (Whlsm)
Full HP A love for and value from work that is part
of one’s identity yet at harmony with
other activities in life
Love, Value/Mean, Identity, SpecAct, Mal/
Adpt, Harmony, SigIden
Motiv, Persist, AutoInt, PosEmos Meaning making, positive meaning, absorp-
tion
Full OP An obsessive love for work that is
controlled by an internal compulsion,
strongly tied to one’s identity, and deter-
mines one’s affective state
Love, Motiv, Identity, Persist, SpecAct,
Mal/Adpt, ContInd
Value/Mean, ContInt, Conflict, NegEmos Emotion (Whlsm), cognitive (Whlsm),
behavioral (Whlsm)

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
Take, for example, a study that sought to understand dif-
ferential effects of a love for work that controls the employee
compared to a love for work that is in harmony with other
aspects of life. Examining Table7, if the researchers used
the 2010 version of The Passion Scale, the conclusions
drawn from the study would likely hold. This is because the
2010 version of The Passion Scale provides relevant items
covering a construct where work is valuable and a significant
part of one’s identity yet at harmony with other activities
in life (the HP subscale) along with relevant items cover-
ing a construct representing an obsessive love for work that
is controlled by an internal compulsion (the OP subscale).
On the other hand, if the researchers used the 2003 version
of The Passion Scale, the OP subscale would be missing
the love component and focus more strongly on a motiva-
tional and emotional (a contaminating facet) control stem-
ming from work. In this case, a closer examination should
be given to the inferences drawn regarding an obsessive love
for work. Ultimately, to advance the work passion literature,
we contend that a careful revision of The Passion Scale is
necessary.
The authors wish to take a moment to identify some
important qualifiers to the conclusions drawn above. First,
this is one study, and the results should be compared and
integrated with previous and future validation studies to
draw conclusions. We advise against using this study as an
ultimate authority on the content validity of The Passion
Scale across time and contexts. Regarding the latter, it is of
utmost importance to emphasize that this content valida-
tion was conducted with a US sample. The Passion Scale
has been translated and used in a large variety of cultural
contexts. It is very possible—likely, even—that the content
of these items would be interpreted differently depending
on both cultural context and translation. As such, caution
should be used by researchers attempting to generalize the
inferences and conclusions drawn from this study to other
cultural contexts, particularly contexts with very different
cultural profiles compared to the USA. We encourage future
research to explore the content validity of The Passion Scale
in other cultural contexts to see the extent to which the find-
ings here generalize to other settings and languages.
Our findings highlight a potentially common but rarely
discussed aspect of organizational research: what to do
when facing a lack of content validity. First, we would like
to note that this research highlights that content validity is
not reserved only for initial scale development—but also as
scales are adapted by scholars over time. Second, when a
lack of content validity is identified, we suggest that scholars
categorize items into three groups: items worth preserving
(those that showed adequate content validity), items that
could be revised (those that show potential), and items that
should be discarded (those that do not reflect the intended
construct and/or show high overlap with orbiting constructs).
Following this categorization, scholars can decide whether
certain facets of their construct (if applicable) are appropri-
ately captured by the items they are able to preserve. For
example, we found three items that exhibited both item-level
correspondence and distinctiveness for the harmony facet of
harmonious passion, suggesting that this facet is sufficiently
measured with items we are able to retain. Ultimately, when
a lack of content validity occurs, researchers will need to
revise and/or write new items to capture one or more facets
of their constructs of interest and refine the scale through
traditional scale development procedures. We discuss this
further in the following section.
Recommendations forWork Passion Measurement
First, given the multiple measures that exist to capture pas-
sion in the workplace (Cardon etal., 2013; Chen etal.,
2020a; Vallerand, 2010; Vallerand etal., 2003), future
research should explore relationships between various pas-
sion scales and orbiting constructs. In particular, a meta-
analytic approach may be beneficial. Future research is also
needed to refine The Passion Scale. Measurement develop-
ment and in particular, construct validation, is an ongoing
process (Clark & Watson, 2019; DeVellis, 2017; Guion,
2011; Zickar, 2020), as “no single study is likely to result
in a particular scale being finalized” (Zickar, 2020, p. 214).
Thus, future research should utilize the findings of the cur-
rent study to revise and refine The Passion Scale to achieve
greater evidence of content validity. Additionally, it is worth
noting that we implemented a recently developed process of
analyzing content validity (Colquitt etal., 2019) which did
not exist at the time that the first iteration of The Passion
Scale was created (Vallerand etal., 2003). We also encour-
age researchers interested in content validity to utilize newly
developed applications such as the semantic scale network
(https:// rosen busch. shiny apps. io/ seman tic_ net/_w_ 64a14
bae/# tab- 8618-1; Rosenbusch etal., 2020), which attempts
to identify redundant scales that are semantically similar.
Our results suggest that developing a scale with content
validity is essential in moving work passion research for-
ward. Though such an effort is beyond the scope of the cur-
rent study, we provide detailed steps for future scholars to
pursue in the development of a validated measure of work
passion following evidence-based best practices (e.g., Clark
& Watson, 1995; Hinkin, 1998; Zickar, 2020) and potential
sample items. Before discussing these steps, it is important
to note that any manuscript discussing the development of a
new measure (work passion or otherwise) should be incred-
ibly transparent in describing the research process, as well as
detailed rationale supporting their decisions along the way.
For recent examples within the work passion context, see a
scale development article by Chen etal. (2020a).

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
The most common validity inference researchers make (or
assume) is that the psychological measure we use adequately
reflects the construct of interest (i.e., construct validity). Thus,
a solid understanding of the focal construct is an essential first
step to scale development (Zickar, 2020). Unfortunately, this
step is often skipped, leading to consequences cascading down
through all aspects of scale development and validation (Clark
& Watson, 2019). Thus, researchers must come to a consensus
regarding the definitions of the facets of general passion, har-
monious passion, and obsessive passion, as well as identify its
relationship with orbiting constructs. We have taken a deductive
approach (e.g., literature review) to arrive at the facets and defi-
nitions of work passion examined in this paper. However, future
researchers could further refine this process by implementing
an inductive approach, such as obtaining qualitative data from
employees regarding descriptions of what work passion means
to them. Additionally, one aspect that remains unclear is whether
the facets of general passion are theoretically intended to be
measured by a work passion scale. If so, this may require the
creation of a scale tapping into this third aspect of work passion
(i.e., general passion, harmonious passion, and obsessive pas-
sion). For instance, Vallerandand Houlfort (2019) clearly delin-
eates the facets of general passion from that of harmonious and
obsessive passion in his framework, yet we lack an actual scale
tapping into the critical pieces that make up general passion.
Once the facets of work passion and its nomological net-
work are clarified, scholars should write items tapping into
each facet of the construct (Hinkin, 1998). Some items from
The Passion Scale may be retained based on the findings of the
present study. As mentioned in the previous section, we rec-
ommend sorting items into three groups. In this specific case,
we suggest the items worth preserving are those displaying
adequate item level correspondence and adequate item level
distinctiveness, which includes four items (items 4, 5, 8, and
9). The second group of items are those that could be revised.
We recommend revising items that showed significant item
level correspondence but lacked adequate item level distinc-
tiveness. This includes seven items from The Passion Scale
(items 3, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, and 21; note that all items except
14 and 20 correspond with general passion facets, which may
or may not be of interest from a measurement perspective for
passion scholars). Finally, the last group of items are those we
recommend discarding. This includes items that exhibited a
higher htc on an orbiting construct than on any of the passion
facets, or items that did not display a significant htc for any
passion facet. This group is composed of nine items from The
Passion Scale (items 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 17).
After grouping the original items per the aforementioned
categories, the next step is to identify which facets are ade-
quately captured by the items that were retained and those that
will require new or revised items. Based on our research, the
only facet of work passion that had more than one item retained
was the harmony facet of harmonious passion. Thus, all other
facets will require the revision of existing items or the writing
of new items. Best practices for item writing include keeping
items simple, short, and consistent (Clark & Watson, 1995;
Hinkin, 1998; Zickar, 2020). Additionally, it is best to avoid
double-barreled items. For instance, the item “my work is a
passion, that I still manage to control” (from the 2003 and 2010
versions of the harmonious passion measure) is considered
double-barreled as someone may agree that work is a passion
but disagree that they are able to control it. There should also
be an adequate number of items capturing each facet of work
passion (Clark & Watson, 1995). Typically, scholars should
write more items than are necessary, as the measure will be
shortened in the next step of the process.
To spur future research, we are including sample items
that scholars could use as a starting point to revise this scale
in the future. All authors wrote 2–4 items for each facet of
harmonious passion and obsessive passion except for the
harmony facet of harmonious passion, which was adequately
measured through The Passion Scale, per our analyses. We
then narrowed down our list of sample items based on appro-
priate reading level, conciseness, and balancing the content
capturing each facet. The narrowed down list of sample
items can be found in Table8. As a note of caution, the items
listed in Table8 are only potential items that could be used
to create a revised measure of work passion. These items
have not yet been validated and should not yet be used for
the measurement of work passion until an adequate content
and construct validation is conducted.
In future research, once an adequate number of items are
written to tap into each facet of work passion, a content vali-
dation is necessary. One approach would be to start with a
Q-sort task (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991) using subject mat-
ter experts wherein participants are provided with concep-
tual definitions of each facet of work passion and instructed
to match each item to the facet that best reflects it. Then,
one could calculate substantive validity statistically using
the proportion of substantive agreement (psa) and the sub-
stantive-validity coefficient (csv) (see Anderson & Gerbing,
1991, for more information). This process would be used to
begin eliminating under-performing items from the pool.
We then recommend using an ANOVA-based approach to
examine content validity, which is the method implemented
in the current study (Colquitt etal., 2019; Hinkin & Tracey,
1999). This process is used to narrow down the item pool
further to only the best-performing items. Lastly, an explora-
tory factor analysis (EFA) should be conducted to test the
factor structure of the resulting scale. Additional items may
also be removed at this stage. Notably, unique samples of
participants should be used for each of these three steps
(Q-sort, ANOVA, and EFA).
Once the scale has been finalized and substantive validity
has been established, an additional sample of data should be
collected to confirm the factor structure with a confirmatory

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
factor analysis (CFA) to establish structural validity. At this
time, the researchers should also evaluate the reliability of
the scale and each of its facets, as well as examining its
nomological network validity. For instance, researchers
could simultaneously collect data on orbiting constructs,
predictors, and outcomes to evaluate the work passion meas-
ure’s convergent and discriminant validity.
The final stage of scale development that we recom-
mend is to examine the newly developed measure’s exter-
nal validity (e.g., convergent, divergent, incremental). For
instance, in the case of incremental validity, researchers
should hypothesize what correlates their new measure would
predict above and beyond existing measures of work pas-
sion. Then, researchers would collect an additional dataset
including the finalized measure of work passion along with
existing scales of work passion (e.g., The Passion Scale;
Vallerand,2003; Vallerand,2010; The Work Passion Scale;
Chen etal., 2020a) and related constructs that were included
in one’s hypotheses. The authors could then establish incre-
mental validity by using hierarchical multiple regression and
relative weights analysis to statistically evaluate the incre-
mental validity of the newly developed measure of work
passion above and beyond existing measures.
As the development of a validated measure of the dualis-
tic model of work passion will clearly take time, researchers
may want to consider utilizing Chen etal. (2020a) meas-
ure of work passion in the interim. Chen etal.’s scale was
developed utilizing many of the best practice recommenda-
tions we outlined above, including a deductive approach to
develop their definition and subsequent facets, the authors
thoroughly discussing their item generation process, and col-
lecting multiple samples to individually conduct an EFA,
CFA, and provide evidence of convergent, discriminant, and
incremental validity. The primary downside of Chen etal.’s
measure is that it is unidimensional, meaning it does not
differentiate between harmonious passion and obsessive pas-
sion. Indeed, Chen etal. (2020a) state that their findings sug-
gest their scale “should be considered a latent construct that
is distinguishable from …harmonious passion and obsessive
passion” (pg. 152), although it is highly correlated with har-
monious passion (r = .85, p < .001).
Conclusion
This study adds to the work passion literature by conducting
the first content validation of the most commonly used work
Table 8 Sample items for future
research
Note: These are sample items written by the authors and have not yet gone through a validation process.
Sample items are listed for all facets of harmonious passion and obsessive passion with the exception of
the harmony facet of harmonious passion, as this facet had a handful of items from The Passion Scale that
exhibited adequate levels of item level correspondence and thus may not need revising
Passion facet Sample item
Harmonious passion
Autonomous internalization I work by choice rather than by need
I work because I love it
I choose to work because I enjoy it
Significant part of identity I view my work as a part of who I am
Work is an important part of who I am
My work is a significant part of my identity
Positive emotions I experience pleasant emotions when I work
I enjoy working
Working puts me in a good mood
Obsessive passion
Controlled internalization I work because it is a means to an end
I feel an internal pressure to work in order to gain recognition from others
I feel pressure to work in order to build my self-esteem
Controls individual I cannot control my obsession with work
I have inner compulsions that force me to work
I have an internal obsession with work that controls me
Conflict with other activities My work prevents me from doing other activities
My work regularly gets in the way of my other responsibilities
My identity and my work are inseparably linked
Negative emotions Working puts me in a bad mood
I feel negative emotions when I am not working
Being prevented from working puts me in a bad mood

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
passion measure in the organizational literature, The Passion
Scale (Vallerand, 2010; Vallerand etal., 2003). Our findings
highlight strengths of The Passion Scale, yet also identify
critical aspects of the scale’s content validity that should be
improved. We hope this study provides insight to researchers
regarding which version of The Passion Scale is best suited for
their research questions and inspires future research to revise
and enhance the content validity of The Passion Scale. Finally,
we hope this study encourages our field to conduct content vali-
dations of measures, as over 50% of scale development articles
in top organizational behavior journals do not include a content
validation of any kind (Colquitt etal., 2019).
Funding This research was supported by the College of Humanities
and Social Sciences at Louisiana State University.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data col-
lection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organi-
zational Behavior, 1(1), 569–595. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur
ev- orgps ych- 031413- 091231.
Allen, N. A., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and anteced-
ents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance
of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assess-
ment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 76, 732–740. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 76.5. 732.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in
organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 36–59.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amp. 2007. 24286 163.
Birkeland, I. K., & Buch, R. (2015). The dualistic model of passion for
work: Discriminate and predictive validity with work engagement
and workaholism. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 392–408. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11031- 014- 9462-x.
Bokrantz, J., Skoogh, A., Berlin, C., & Stahre, J. (2020). Smart mainte-
nance: Instrument development, content validation and an empirical
pilot. International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment, 40, 481–506. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJOPM- 11- 2019- 0746.
Burke, R. J., Astakhova, M. N., & Hang, H. (2015). Work passion through
the lens of culture: Harmonious work passion, obsessive work passion,
and work outcomes in Russia and China. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30, 457–471. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10869- 014- 9375-4.
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., Fernet, C., & Guay, F. (2008). The
role of passion for teaching in intrapersonal and interpersonal out-
comes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 977. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ a0012 545.
Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2013).
Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual foundations and
scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 373–396.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2012. 03. 003.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2011). Applied psychology in human
resource management. Pearson Education.
Chen, P., Lee, F., & Lim, S. (2020a). Loving thy work: Developing a
measure of work passion. European Journal of Work and Organi-
zational Psychology, 29(1), 140–158.
Chen, S. K., King, D. D., & Oswald, F. L. (2020b). Understanding how
resilience is measured in the organizational sciences. Human Perfor-
mance, 33, 130–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08959 285. 2020. 17441 51.
Cho, S., Carpenter, N. C., & Zhang, B. (2020). An item-level investi-
gation of conceptual and empirical distinctiveness of proactivity
constructs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28,
337–350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijsa. 12287.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. B. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic
issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment,
7, 309–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 1040- 3590.7. 3. 309.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New develop-
ments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological
Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pas00 00626.
Clark, M. A., Smith, R. W., & Haynes, N. J. (2020). The multidi-
mensional workaholism scale: Linking the conceptualization and
measurement of workaholism. Journal of Applied Psychology,
105, 1281–1307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00484.
Colquitt, J. A., Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Hill, E. T. (2019). Content
validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional corre-
spondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 104, 1243–1265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00406.
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit:
a meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492–511.
Culpepper, R. A. (2000). A test of revised scales for the Meyer and
Allen (1991) three-component commitment construct. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 60(4), 604–616.
Curran, T., Hill, A. P., Appleton, P. R., Vallerand, R. J., & Standage, M.
(2015). The psychology of passion: A meta-analytical review of a
decade of research on intrapersonal outcomes. Motivation and Emo-
tion, 39, 631–665. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11031- 015- 9503-0.
Dalla Rosa, A., & Vianello, M. (2020). Linking calling with worka-
holism: Examining obsessive and harmonious passion as media-
tors and moderators. Journal of Career Assessment, 28, 589–607.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10690 72720 909039.
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications
(4th ed.). Sage.
Forest, J., Mageau, G. A., Sarrazin, C., & Morin, E. M. (2011). “Work
is my passion”: The different affective, behavioural, and cognitive
consequences of harmonious and obsessive passion toward work.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 27–40.
Guion, R. M. (2011). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for
personnel decisions. Routledge.
Hansen, M. T. (2018). I asked 5,000 people how they stay passionate
at work – Here’s what I found. Business Insider. https:// www.
busin essin sider. com/i- asked- 5000- people- how- they- stay- passi
onate- at- work- 2018-1.
Hedges, K. (2017). Let’s get real about passion at work. Forbes. https://
www. forbes. com/ sites/ work- in- progr ess/ 2017/ 06/ 28/ lets- get- real-
about- passi on- at- work/# 50f79 f3d3c 23.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of meas-
ures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research
Methods, 1, 104–121.
Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach
to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 175–
186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28199 22004.
Ho, V. T., & Astakhova, M. N. (2018). Disentangling passion and
engagement: An examination of how and when passionate
employees become engaged ones. Human Relations, 71, 973–
1000. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26717 731505.

Journal of Business and Psychology
1 3
Ho, V. T., & Astakhova, M. N. (2020). The passion bug: How and
when do leaders inspire work passion? Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 41, 424–444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2443.
Ho, V. T., Wong, S.-S., & Lee, C. H. (2011). A tale of passion:
Linking job passion and cognitive engagement to employee
work performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 26–47.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 6486. 2009. 00878.x.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job Diagnos-
tic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72(1), 69–74.
Kong, D. T., & Ho, V. T. (2018). The performance implication of obses-
sive work passion: Unpacking the moderating and mediating
mechanisms from a conservation of resources perspective. Euro-
pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 269–279.
Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Langner, P. H. (1988). Measurement of
job characteristics: Comparison of the original and the revised Job
Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 462–466.
Lajom, J. A. L., Amarnani, R. K., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., &
Tang, R. L. (2018). Dualistic passion for work and its impact
on career outcomes: Scale validation and nomological network.
Journal of Career Assessment, 26, 631–648.
Li, J., Zhang, J., Shao, B., & Chen, C. (2019). A latent profile analysis
of work passion: Structure, antecedent, and outcomes. Personnel
Review, 49, 846–863. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ PR- 04- 2019- 0145.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Strother, A. N. (2020). Psychological measurement
and the replication crisis: Four sacred cows. Canadian Psychol-
ogy, 61, 281–288. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cap00 00236.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The definition and measurement
of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 24–33.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0021 692.
Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenière, M. A. K., Parker, P., Morin,
A. J., Carbonneau, N., etal. (2013). Passion: Does one scale fit
all? Construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psychomet-
ric invariance over different activities and languages. Psychologi-
cal Assessment, 25(3), 796–809.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualiza-
tion of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management
Review, 1, 61–89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 1053- 4822(91) 90011-Z.
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac - A subject pool for online
experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance,
17, 22–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bef. 2017. 12. 004.
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct
validation of two instruments designed to measure job involve-
ment and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2),
224–228. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 79.2. 224.
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the
Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.
Pfattheicher, S., Geiger, M., Hartung, J., Weiss, S., & Schindler, S.
(2017). Old wine in new bottles? The case of self-compassion and
neuroticism. European Journal of Personality, 31(2), 160–169.
Philippe, F., & Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Prevalence rates of gambling
problems in Montreal, Canada: A look at old adults and the role
of passion. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 275–283. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10899- 006- 9038-0.
Pollack, J. M., Ho, V. T., O’Boyle, E. H., & Kirkman, B. L.
(2020). Passion at work: A meta-analysis of individual work
outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41, 311–331.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2434.
Rosenbusch, H., Wanders, F., & Pit, I. L. (2020). The Semantic Scale
Network: An online tool to detect semantic overlap of psycho-
logical scales and prevent scale redundancies. Psychological
Methods, 25(3), 380–392.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A.
B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two
sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Schnackenberg, A. K., Tomlinson, E. C., & Coen, C. A. (in press). The
dimensional structure of transparency: A construct validation of
transparency as disclosure, clarity, and accuracy in organizations.
Human Relations. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26720 933317.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C.,
& Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in
management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for
assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil
survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2), 385–417.
Slaney, R. B., Ashby, J. S., & Trippi, J. (1995). Perfectionism: Its measure-
ment and career relevance. Journal of Career Assessment, 3, 279–297.
Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S.
(2001). The revised almost perfect scale. Measurement and Evalu-
ation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 130–145.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes,
and consequences. Sage.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaning-
ful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of
Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337.
Tóth-Király, I., Bõthe, B., Rigó, A., & Orosz, G. (2017). An illus-
tration of the exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM)
framework on the passion scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–15.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2017. 01968.
Vallerand, R. J. (2010). On passion for life activities: The dualistic
model of passion. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology, Vol. 42 (p. 97–193). Academic Press. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0065- 2601(10) 42003-1.
Vallerand, R. J., Salvy, S. J., Mageau, G. A., Elliot, A. J., Denis, P. L.,
Grouzet, F. M., & Blanchard, C. (2007). On the role of passion in
performance. Journal of Personality, 75(3), 505–534.
Vallerand, R. J., & Houlfort, N. (Eds.). (2019). Passion for work: The-
ory, research, and applications. Oxford University Press.
Vallerand, R. J., Paquet, Y., Philippe, F. L., & Charest, J. (2010). On
the role of passion for work in burnout: A process model. Journal
of Personality, 78(1), 289–312.
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle,
C., Léonard, M., Gagné, M., & Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions
de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 85, 756–767. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1037/ 0022- 3514. 85.4. 756.
Walsh, K., & Gordon, J. R. (2008). Creating an individual work iden-
tity. Human Resource Management Review, 18(1), 46–61.
Walter, S. L., Seibert, S. E., Goering, D., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2019). A tale of
two sample sources: Do results from online panel data and conventional
data converge? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 425–452.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of
mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219–235. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1037/ 0033- 2909. 98.2. 219.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and valida-
tion of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a
predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486–493.
Zickar, M. J. (2020). Measurement development and evaluation.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 7, 213–232.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.