Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants

📜
Abstract

The Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants is a newly developed psychometric instrument designed to capture the nuanced psychological processes through which public sector Employees internalize their organization's goals. Historically, researchers have relied on unidimensional tools to measure Mission Valence, often reducing this complex construct to simple metrics of job importance or emotional arousal. However, these simplified approaches fail to capture the depth of how Civil Servants—who operate in unique institutional and cultural environments—connect with their public service mandates.

To address this gap, this instrument was developed using a bottom-up, mixed-methods approach specifically situated within the Chinese public sector. By moving beyond Western-centric, unidimensional models, the scale reconstructs Mission Valence as a dynamic, multi-faceted psychological state. It captures not just whether an employee thinks their mission is important, but how they assess its value, emotionally identify with their role, and ultimately transform these perceptions into actionable behavioral intentions.

The significance of this scale lies in its ability to provide a more granular understanding of Public Sector Motivation. For organizational psychologists and public administration scholars, it offers a robust tool to explore how macro-level organizational goals translate into micro-level employee drive. This is particularly crucial in environments where traditional extrinsic rewards are limited, making intrinsic, mission-driven motivation the primary engine for administrative efficiency and public governance.

🏷
Keywords
Mission Valence
Civil Servants
Public Sector Motivation
scale development
psychometrics
organizational behavior

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
12
Structure
Multidimensional
Validation Country
📍 China

Authors

👤 Xi Liu
🏛 College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

👤 Mengchu Zhao
✉ [email protected]
🏛 School of Law and Humanities, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China

👤 Weibo Zheng
🏛 College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

Purpose

The primary purpose of this scale is to provide a comprehensive, multidimensional measurement of Mission Valence specifically tailored for Civil Servants. In the realm of public administration, Employees are often driven by a profound public service ethos rather than traditional financial incentives. Yet, existing measurement tools have largely treated Mission Valence as a flat, single-factor construct, missing the intricate ways public workers internalize organizational goals. This instrument fills a critical methodological gap by offering a nuanced lens through which researchers can evaluate the distinct psychological pathways that connect an organization's societal mission to an individual's daily work motivation. For practitioners and scholars, it serves as a vital diagnostic tool to understand how to better align institutional objectives with employee values, thereby fostering a more engaged and proactive public workforce.

Construct

Mission Valence, in the context of this scale, is conceptualized as a comprehensive psychological state rooted in person-organization value fit. It represents the degree to which Civil Servants internalize the social functions of their organization and integrate them into the intrinsic meaning of their own work. Unlike broad traits such as general public service motivation or transcendent callings, Mission Valence is specifically anchored to the explicit goals of the employing organization.

The construct is operationalized across three distinct dimensions. The first, Value Attribute Assessment, captures the cognitive evaluation of the organization's mission and its societal importance. The second, Affective Role Identity, reflects the emotional resonance and sense of belonging the employee feels toward their public service role. Finally, Behavioral Transformation Intention measures the motivational outcome—how these cognitive and emotional states translate into a readiness to exert effort and engage in proactive work behaviors. Together, these dimensions illustrate a complete psychological trajectory from objective organizational signaling to subjective individual action.

Flowchart depicting "<a href=Mission Valence" leading to three outcomes: "Value Attribute Assessment," "Affective Role Identity," and "Behavioral Transformation Intention," each connected with single arrows." class="scale-lightbox-img" onclick="arabScaleLightbox(this.src)">
Theoretical conceptualization of Mission Valence.

Validity

The validation of this instrument involved a rigorous, multi-stage process to ensure its psychometric soundness. The researchers established content validity initially through grounded theory interviews with a sample of 21 Civil Servants, ensuring the items reflected authentic, lived experiences. Construct validity was subsequently confirmed using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses across independent samples of 205 and 216 participants, respectively. The three-factor model demonstrated good fit, and the scale exhibited satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity, proving that its dimensions are distinct yet theoretically related. Furthermore, criterion-related validity was established in a larger sample of 456 individuals by demonstrating that the scale scores were significantly and positively associated with servant leadership, with this relationship being meaningfully mediated by public service motivation.

Reliability

Reliability testing for the multidimensional scale demonstrated strong psychometric properties across multiple independent samples. The researchers evaluated both internal consistency and composite reliability during the scale's development and validation phases. The authors reported that the internal consistency and composite reliability metrics were robust and met established psychometric standards for newly developed instruments. This indicates that the 12 items consistently and stably measure the underlying dimensions of Mission Valence, making the tool highly dependable for both cross-sectional and complex structural equation modeling applications in organizational research.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the scale was rigorously evaluated using a split-sample approach. Initially, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a sample of 205 Civil Servants. This inductive step successfully reduced the initial item pool to a refined 12-item set, clearly delineating three distinct latent factors: Value Attribute Assessment, Affective Role Identity, and Behavioral Transformation Intention. Following this, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was executed on a separate sample of 216 participants to verify the stability of this tripartite structure. The CFA results yielded good model fit indices, confirming that the three-dimensional model accurately represents the empirical data and provides a superior structural framework compared to traditional unidimensional models of Mission Valence.

Diagram showing a model with three boxes connected by arrows. "Servant leadership" leads to "<a href=Mission Valence" directly with arrow H1, and indirectly through "Public service motivation" with arrows H2b and H2a; feedback from "Public service motivation" to "Mission Valence" is shown by H2c." class="scale-lightbox-img" onclick="arabScaleLightbox(this.src)">
The research model of the study.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Value Attribute Assessment Captures the cognitive evaluation of the organization's mission and its societal importance.
Affective Role Identity Reflects the emotional resonance and sense of belonging the employee feels toward their public service role.
Behavioral Transformation Intention Measures the motivational outcome reflecting readiness to exert effort and engage in proactive work behaviors.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 12 items, Likert scale
Scoring Total and subscale scores based on item responses
Language Chinese
Population Employees
Age Group Adults
Administration Self-administered

Figures

Frontiers in Psychology
Winter ice diving underwater in a quarry in Canada

Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

Study 1: N=21 (grounded theory interviews). Study 2: N=205 (Exploratory Factor Analysis) and N=216 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis). Study 3: N=456 (criterion-related validity). All samples consisted of Civil Servants operating within the Chinese public sector.

📄
Cite This Paper

Xi Liu, Mengchu Zhao, Weibo Zheng (2025). Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants. Frontiers in psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1734019

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
65 references
  1. Anderson (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull., 103 411. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  2. Ashforth (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. AMR, 14 20. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
  3. Baron (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 51 1173. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  4. Bland (2023). Job-fit and high-performance versus high-empowerment HR: moderators of the PSM—organizational commitment relationship. Public Manag. Rev., 25 575. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1985317
  5. Bosak (2021). Examining the role of transformational leadership and Mission Valence on burnout among hospital staff. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform., 8 208. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2020-0151
  6. Caillier (2014). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership, public service motivation, Mission Valence, and employee performance: a preliminary study. Public Pers. Manag., 43 218. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014528478
  7. Caillier (2015). Towards a better understanding of public service motivation and Mission Valence in public agencies. Public Manag. Rev., 17 1217. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.895033
  8. Caillier (2016). Do transformational leaders affect turnover intentions and extra-role behaviors through Mission Valence?. Am. Rev. Public Adm., 46 226. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014551751
  9. Charmaz (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis.
  10. Charmaz (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qual. Res. Psychol., 18 305. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
  11. Chen (2005). Teacher’s corner: testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Struct. Equ. Model., 12 471. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_7
  12. Corbin (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol., 13 3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
  13. Coursey (2007). Public service motivation measurement: testing an abridged version of Perry’s proposed scale. Admin. Soc., 39 547. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707303634
  14. Dik (2009). Calling and vocation at work: definitions and prospects for research and practice. Counsel. Psychol., 37 424. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008316430
  15. Ehrhart (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol., 57 61. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
  16. Fokkema (2017). How performing PCA and CFA on the same data equals trouble: overfitting in the assessment of internal structure and some editorial thoughts on it. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess., 33 399. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000460
  17. Fornell (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res., 18 39. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  18. Fuller (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. J. Bus. Res., 69 3192. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
  19. Glaser (1978). Theoretical sensitivity:advances in the methodology of grounded theory.
  20. Gorbatov (2021). Personal brand equity: scale development and validation. Pers. Psychol., 74 505. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12412
  21. Greenleaf (1977). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness.
  22. Guerrero (2021). Municipal Employees’ performance and neglect: the effects of Mission Valence. Rev. Public Personnel Adm., 41 447. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19896013
  23. Hair (2009). Multivariate data analysis.
  24. Henseler (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Market Sci, 43 115. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  25. Hussain (2025). How and when paternalistic leadership influences service innovative behaviour while inhibiting counterproductive work behaviour among healthcare professionals: the roles of perceived supervisor support and public service motivation. J. Health Organ. Manag., 39 71. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-08-2024-0333
  26. Iqbal (2021). Servant leadership and organizational deviant behaviour: interpreting some contradictory results from public sector of Pakistan. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J., 42 1136. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2020-0305
  27. Kaiser (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39 31. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  28. Ke (2022). Inclusive leadership, workplace spirituality, and job performance in the public sector: a multi-level double-moderated mediation model of leader-member exchange and perceived dissimilarity. Public Perform. Manag. Rev., 45 672. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2069138
  29. Khan (2022). Servant leadership and followers prosocial rule-breaking: the mediating role of public service motivation. Front. Psychol., 13 848531. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.848531
  30. Landis (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33 363. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
  31. Lavigna (2012). Commentary on “pulling the levers: transformational leadership, public service motivation, and Mission Valence.”. Public Adm. Rev., 72 216. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02557.x
  32. Liang (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q., 31 59. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/25148781
  33. Liu (2024). The influence of Mission Valence on faculty’s voice behavior: the role of thriving at work and servant leadership. Behav. Sci., 14 1214. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121214
  34. Liu (2025). How institutional pressures influence the blame avoidance behavior of Civil Servants in China. Public Perform. Manag. Rev., 48 820. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2025.2474451
  35. Liu (2022). Servant leadership and work performance of public servants: exploring the mediating role of public service motivation and job satisfaction. J. Psychol. Afr., 32 334. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2022.2075626
  36. Moon (2025). Exploring the impact of organizational identification on innovative work behavior in the Korean public sector: the moderating role of charismatic leadership. Behav. Sci., 15 1218. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091218
  37. Najam (2022). Does proactive personality moderate the relationship between servant leadership and psychological ownership and resilience?. SAGE Open, 12 215824402210872. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221087273
  38. Nunnally (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. 97. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2490-4_4
  39. Pandey (2008). Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: testing a preliminary model. Int. Public Manag. J., 11 89. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887947
  40. Park (2022). What makes performance-related pay effective in the public sector? Target, pay design, and context. Rev. Public Pers. Adm., 42 416. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X21990722
  41. Pedersen (2024). Does transformational leadership and reputation management relate to employee Mission Valence: a two-wave study of Mission Valence in public agencies. Int. Public Manag. J., 28 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2024.2369107
  42. Perry (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. J Public Administ Res Theory, 6 5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303
  43. Perry (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Adm. Rev., 50 367. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/976618
  44. Podsakoff (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol., 88 879. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  45. Polit (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health, 29 489. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
  46. Rainey (1999). Galloping elephants: developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, 9 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024401
  47. Rindskopf (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis. Multivar. Behav. Res., 23 51. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2301_3
  48. Rosso (2010). On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav., 30 91. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
  49. Schaufeli (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud., 3 71. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
  50. Scrimpshire (2022). Investigating the effects of high-involvement climate and public service motivation on engagement, performance, and meaningfulness in the public sector. J. Manage. Psychol., 38 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2021-0158
  51. Strauss (1997). Grounded theory in practice.
  52. van der Merr (2024). The bureaucrat, the entrepreneur, and the networker: developing and validating measurement scales for Civil Servants’ role perceptions. Public Adm. Rev., 84 500. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13702
  53. Venketsamy (2022). Intrinsic and extrinsic reward synergies for innovative work behavior among south African knowledge workers. Pers. Rev., 53 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2021-0108
  54. Vogel (2023). Finding a mission in bureaucracies: how authentic leadership and red tape interact. Public Adm., 101 1503. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12895
  55. Vroom (1964). Work and motivation.
  56. Willems (2021). Reputation shocks and recovery in public-serving organizations: the moderating effect of Mission Valence. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, 31 311. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa041
  57. Wright (2007). Public service and motivation: does mission matter?. Public Adm. Rev., 67 54. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00696.x
  58. Wright (2012). Pulling the levers: transformational leadership, public service motivation, and Mission Valence. Public Adm. Rev., 72 206. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02496.x
  59. Wright (2011). Public organizations and Mission Valence: when does mission matter?. Adm. Soc., 43 22. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710386303
  60. Wu (2024). How and when servant leadership fosters employee voice behavior: evidence from Chinese local governments. Int. Public Manag. J., 27 747. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2024.2303163
  61. Xiao (2025). How and when servant leadership affect public Employees’ innovative behavior. Sci. Rep., 15 26705. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11504-x
  62. Yu (2023). Mission Valence: a review and prospects. Foreign Econ. Manag., 45 101. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20230226.202
  63. Yuan (2024). Research on the effects of mission efficacy by front-line Civil Servants on innovative behavior. China Public Adm. Rev., 6 140.
  64. Zaiţ (2011). Methods for testing discriminant validity. Manag. Mark. J., 217.
  65. Zhang (2024). The impact of servant leadership on proactive service behavior: a moderated mediation model. BMC Psychol., 12 178. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01669-x

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-mission-valence-scale-for-civil-servants/

Mohammed looti. "Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-mission-valence-scale-for-civil-servants/.

Mohammed looti. "Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-mission-valence-scale-for-civil-servants/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-mission-valence-scale-for-civil-servants/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Multidimensional Mission Valence Scale for Civil Servants. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Effort- and Valence-Based Just World Beliefs Scales
  2. Multidimensional Pain Inventory – Dutch Language Version / West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory
  3. Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale
  4. Multidimensional Peer-Victimization Scale
  5. Multidimensional Media Influence Scale (MMIS)
  6. Multidimensional sense of humor scale (MSHS)
  7. Multidimensional Students Life Satisfaction Scale
  8. Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS)
  9. Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2
  10. Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS)
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top