Development and Validation of the Masteristic Work Scale

Abstract

Ku et al. (2021) operationalized masterity as individual behavioral indicators and developed a masteristic work scale. A literature review, Delphi surveys, a pilot survey, and a main survey yielded 24 items across 3 factors. This review examines how the scale was developed and considers its conceptual scope and relationships with related constructs.

Research background

The concept of masterity (匠人性) was proposed by Chang (2015) to capture the material and formative aspects of becoming a master. The concept emerged inductively from qualitative interviews with masters in various fields (Chang & Koo, 2017). It was interpreted as a lifelong learning habitus in the Bourdieusian sense. The study by Ku et al. (2021) operationalized masterity through individual-level behavioral indicators to enable empirical investigation of the concept.

Methods

The scale was restructured into three factors in the pilot survey and finalized in the main survey with 24 items: work orientation, proactive work, and work creation

The literature review established the concept of masteristic work and defined 5 subfactors. Two rounds of Delphi surveys with 24 experts in education and human resource development produced 26 preliminary items across 5 factors. The pilot survey of 219 employees in Korea indicated that a 3-factor model fit the data. The researchers reorganized the scale around work orientation, proactive work, and work creation, revising or deleting some items to produce a 25-item scale.

The main survey involved 525 employees in Korea. The researchers used reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the reliability and validity of the factors and items. They used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test model fit. They deleted 1 item that was strongly correlated with other items in the same subfactor.

The study was part of “A Study of Women Masters’ Work and Learning,” supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea’s Mid-Career Researcher Support Program. Scales for masteristic learning (Jang et al., 2021), masteristic achievement (Lee et al., 2021), and masteristic influence (Choi et al., 2021) were developed in the same research program.

Results

The final scale comprised 24 items across 3 factors—work orientation, proactive work, and work creation.

Stage	Participants	Factors and items
Literature review	—	5 subfactors defined
Delphi surveys (2 rounds)	24 experts	5 factors, 26 preliminary items
Pilot survey	219 employees	3 factors, 25 items
Main survey	525 employees	3 factors, 24 items

Discussion

The masteristic work scale was developed as part of a set of scales measuring work, learning, achievement, and influence. Choosing “work” as the focus of measurement aligns with the education of work perspective, which examines how ways of working relate to learning and growth. Masterity presupposes a long-term process of formation. The scale’s applicability across groups depends on whether its items carry the same meaning across occupations and career stages. Models using this set of scales are discussed in the reviews of Lee et al. (2024), Choi et al. (2025), Lee (2025), and Lee (2026).

The account of craftsmanship in Sennett (2008) describes an orientation toward doing work well for its own sake and the development of skill. It explores the relationship between material work and ethical values. Across the cases discussed—handicrafts, programming, medicine, and art—masterity is described as a way of working rather than an attribute of a particular occupation. The factors of work orientation, proactive work, and work creation measure how a person works.

The study by Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) reported that people assign different central meanings to work—livelihood, career advancement, and fulfillment and social usefulness. Work orientations differ even within the same occupation. The scale’s “work orientation” shares its name with the concept in that literature. It measures variation along a single continuum rather than sorting people into three types. The study by Tims et al. (2012) defined job crafting as behavior through which individuals adjust their own job demands and resources. It distinguished four dimensions: increasing structural resources, increasing social resources, increasing challenging demands, and decreasing hindering demands. Whether “proactive work” and “work creation” measure constructs distinct from these dimensions remains unconfirmed. The meaning people assign to work and the behavior involved in adjusting a job operate at different levels, and the masteristic work scale encompasses both within a single instrument.

The procedure outlined in DeVellis (2017) moves from defining the construct to building an item pool, conducting an expert review, evaluating items, and adjusting scale length. The tutorial by Hinkin (1998) covered how to examine and re-examine content adequacy, factor structure, internal consistency, and construct validity in surveys conducted in organizational settings. The Delphi surveys with 24 experts provide the content review. The pilot survey of 219 participants and the main survey of 525 participants allow researchers to evaluate items and test factor structure. The pilot survey, in which the factor structure changed, and the main survey, which established the final structure, drew on different samples.

The study by Bunderson and Thompson (2009) reported that zookeepers who felt a stronger calling identified more closely with their occupation and experienced greater meaning in their work. They also more readily accepted the work as a moral duty and sacrificed pay, personal time, and comfort. These costs fall outside the scope of the items measuring the three factors of masteristic work.

References

구유정, 장원섭, 이민영, 이진희, 황정산. (2021). 장인적 일하기 척도 개발 및 타당화 연구. 직업교육연구, 40(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.37210/JVER.2021.40.4.1
Ku, Y., Chang, W., Lee, M., Lee, J., & Hwang, J. (2021). Development and validation of masteristic work scale. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 40(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.37210/JVER.2021.40.4.1
Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162