Goal Orientation Scales

Abstract

The Goal Orientation Scales, prominently instantiated in organizational and occupational research through Don VandeWalle’s Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument (WDGOI) (1997), represent a foundational psychometric framework designed to assess dispositional achievement motivation within occupational contexts. Grounded in achievement goal theory and Carol Dweck’s social-cognitive model of motivation, the instrument conceptualizes achievement strivings through a trichotomous framework rather than a traditional dichotomy. The scale comprises 13 self-report items partitioned across three latent dimensions: Learning Goal Orientation (5 items), capturing an individual’s proactive focus on developing competence, acquiring novel skills, and mastering challenging assignments; Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (4 items), indexing the desire to demonstrate competence, outperform colleagues, and obtain favorable judgments; and Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (4 items), measuring the tendency to avoid task engagement where failure or suboptimal performance might expose low ability. Evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type continuum, the WDGOI has undergone rigorous empirical validation across diverse employee cohorts, sales forces, and managerial personnel. Psychometric evaluations consistently demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from .74 to .89), distinctive three-factor construct validity verified through confirmatory factor analysis, and superior criterion-related validity in predicting workplace feedback-seeking behaviors, task effort, self-regulation, and objective job performance. This comprehensive review examines the theoretical heritage, psychometric architecture, structural validity, reliability parameters, and empirical applications of the instrument across contemporary industrial-organizational psychology and management scholarship.

Keywords

Goal Orientation Scales, Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument, WDGOI, Don VandeWalle, Achievement Goal Theory, Learning Goal Orientation, Performance-Prove Goal Orientation, Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation, Workplace Motivation, Feedback-Seeking Behavior, Industrial-Organizational Psychology

Authors

The Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument (WDGOI) was developed, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Don M. VandeWalle. VandeWalle conducted the primary validation during his doctoral and post-doctoral research under the mentorship of Larry L. Cummings at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, subsequently joining the faculty of the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas.

Throughout his academic tenure as an Associate Professor of Management and Organizations at the Cox School of Business, VandeWalle established an extensive research program exploring the intersection of social cognition, self-regulation, goal orientation, and performance in organizational settings. His collaborative empirical inquiries alongside prominent organizational scholars—including William L. Cron, John W. Slocum Jr., and Steven P. Brown—further established the construct validity and longitudinal predictive utility of the WDGOI across professional domains such as executive leadership, complex business-to-business sales, and academic achievement.

Purpose

Prior to the late 1990s, the predominant conceptualizations and empirical instruments operationalizing achievement goal theory were almost exclusively developed within educational psychology, focusing on primary, secondary, and undergraduate student populations completing scholastic tasks (e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). While instruments like the motivational orientation scales developed by Nicholls or the educational scales of Carol Dweck provided profound insights into classroom learning, industrial-organizational psychologists encountered severe theoretical and methodological limitations when attempting to transpose classroom-grounded instruments into complex corporate environments.

The explicit purpose of VandeWalle’s (1997) Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument was to resolve these limitations by formulating an ecologically valid, domain-specific measurement tool designed specifically for adult professionals operating in organizational environments. Work contexts fundamentally differ from educational environments: whereas academic classrooms frequently operate on standardized grading rubrics and episodic examinations, organizational settings are characterized by high task ambiguity, interdependence, social evaluative scrutiny from supervisors and peers, performance-contingent financial compensation, and long-term career risk. Consequently, an employee’s orientation toward learning new procedures versus proving preexisting competence requires tailored psychometric operationalization.

Beyond domain specificity, the primary theoretical impetus for the WDGOI was the formal operationalization of the trichotomous model of goal orientation within organizational scholarship. Earlier models treated goal orientation either as a bipolar continuum (with learning/mastery at one pole and performance at the opposite) or as a simple two-factor orthogonal framework. Drawing on contemporary theoretical advances by Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996), VandeWalle recognized that a performance orientation conflates two fundamentally distinct motivational engines: the approach-oriented striving to demonstrate superior competence (proving) and the avoidance-oriented striving to conceal potential incompetence (avoiding). The WDGOI was engineered to isolate these distinct mechanisms so researchers and human resource practitioners could systematically assess:

• Self-Regulatory Tactics and Resilience: How employees allocate cognitive and emotional resources when encountering complex, unstructured problems or initial job failure.
• Feedback-Seeking Behavior: The psychological costs and perceived diagnostic value employees associate with seeking performance and inquiry feedback from organizational supervisors (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997).
• Training and Development Efficacy: Differential readiness and performance during corporate learning programs, onboarding initiatives, and developmental assignments.
• Sales and Work Performance: Longitudinal trajectories in output, client engagement, and self-set performance goals under varying conditions of environmental reward and scrutiny (VandeWalle et al., 1999).

Psychological Construct

The construct of goal orientation refers to an individual’s underlying mental framework, schema, or motivational disposition that dictates how they interpret, experience, and respond to achievement situations and performance challenges. Goal orientation is conceptualized as a relatively stable individual-difference variable (trait-like disposition), although empirical research demonstrates that it can also be influenced or primed by strong contextual cues, psychological climates, and managerial reward architectures (state-like manifestations).

The WDGOI operationalizes goal orientation through three interrelated yet conceptually distinct dimensions:

1. Learning Goal Orientation (LGO)

Learning Goal Orientation, conceptually analogous to mastery orientation or task orientation, reflects a psychological focus on developing one’s competence, gaining new capabilities, and mastering novel or challenging tasks. Individuals exhibiting elevated LGO view ability not as a fixed, innate ceiling, but as a malleable, incremental repertoire of skills that expands through dedicated effort, deliberate practice, and experiential learning.

Within the workplace, employees characterized by high LGO perceive demanding job tasks, ambiguous projects, and unfamiliar assignments not as hazardous evaluative tests, but as stimulating opportunities for personal and professional growth. They exhibit an intrinsic task interest, display adaptive persistence in the face of setbacks, view failure as an informative diagnostic signal indicating a need to refine strategies, and proactively seek both positive and corrective feedback from mentors and peers. An employee with high LGO voluntarily volunteers for complex technological transformation projects, willing to tolerate initial missteps because developing future mastery outweighs the short-term discomfort of early errors.

2. Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (PPGO)

Performance-Prove Goal Orientation represents an approach-oriented manifestation of performance motivation, characterized by a persistent desire to demonstrate one’s competence, outshine coworkers, and garner favorable judgments of capability from organizational superiors, clients, and peers. Individuals with elevated PPGO are intensely attuned to social comparison standards and public markers of success, such as performance rankings, public accolades, formal organizational titles, and visible comparative metrics.

Unlike learning-oriented professionals who evaluate progress against intra-individual growth standards, PPGO-driven professionals gauge their self-worth against normative, inter-individual benchmarks. In favorable workplace conditions where tasks match their preexisting skillsets, high-PPGO individuals often exert substantial energy and achieve impressive performance outcomes because the context provides a visible platform to validate their competence. However, their motivational foundation remains externally contingent: if an assignment does not afford clear opportunities to outperform others or gain social recognition, their engagement may diminish.

3. Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (PAGO)

Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation represents an avoidance-oriented manifestation of performance motivation, defined by a pervasive concern with avoiding the appearance of incompetence, preventing failure, and sidestepping negative evaluative judgments from others. Individuals scoring high in PAGO perceive achievement settings through a primary lens of threat appraisal rather than challenge or opportunity.

In occupational settings, employees with elevated PAGO frequently experience high levels of performance anxiety, evaluative apprehension, and evaluation-induced stress. Because they view failure not as an informative learning opportunity but as direct, public evidence of inadequate personal ability, they engage in defensive self-protective maneuvers. Such strategies include self-handicapping, declining challenging assignments, concealing errors, avoiding feedback inquiry (out of fear that asking questions signals ignorance), and gravitating toward routine, familiar tasks where success is guaranteed. In severe manifestations, PAGO leads to behavioral paralysis, burnout, and diminished job satisfaction, particularly in organizations that lack psychological safety.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument is anchored in the convergence of two foundational theoretical traditions: Carol Dweck’s Social-Cognitive Model of Achievement Motivation (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and Approach-Avoidance Motivational Frameworks (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Nicholls, 1984).

Implicit Theories of Ability (Dweck & Leggett, 1988)

At the core of achievement goal theory lies the premise that individuals hold fundamental, often tacit epistemological beliefs regarding the nature of human capabilities, known as implicit person theories or mindsets:

• Entity Theory of Ability: The conviction that intelligence, talent, and vocational capability are fixed, immutable personal traits. Individuals operating under an entity theory believe that effort is an indicator of low innate talent (i.e., “if you were genuinely talented, you wouldn’t need to work hard”). This implicit theory serves as the primary cognitive antecedent to performance orientations, as every achievement event becomes a high-stakes referendum on one’s fixed worth.
• Incremental Theory of Ability: The conviction that ability is an acquirable, dynamic, and cultivate-able attribute that develops through focused engagement, cognitive strategy cultivation, and structured practice. This worldview naturally underpins a learning goal orientation, framing effort as the indispensable catalyst for capability development.

The Bifurcation of the Performance Dimension

Early iterations of achievement goal theory (e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986) formulated a dichotomous conceptualization contrasting learning goals with performance goals. While conceptually elegant, empirical research in educational and organizational psychology continually yielded contradictory findings regarding the consequences of performance goals: in some studies, performance goals correlated with adaptive outcomes, high GPA, and superior performance, whereas in others they triggered debilitating anxiety, task withdrawal, and cognitive impairment.

To resolve this paradox, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) reintroduced the classic motivational distinction between approach and avoidance motivation (originating in Lewin’s field theory and Atkinson’s need-achievement paradigm). They demonstrated that the historical performance goal category contained two functionally antithetical motivational vectors:

1. Approach Motivation (Proving): Behavior directed toward positive, desirable evaluative outcomes (demonstrating excellence).
2. Avoidance Motivation (Avoiding): Behavior directed away from negative, undesirable evaluative outcomes (avoiding the exposure of inadequacy).

VandeWalle synthesized these theoretical developments and applied them systematically to adult organizational life. He argued that the workplace is inherently saturated with evaluative dynamics that activate both approach and avoidance mechanisms. By formalizing this trichotomous architecture—Learning, Performance-Prove, and Performance-Avoid—VandeWalle provided the necessary conceptual resolution to untangle the disparate behavioral profiles observed among working professionals.

Validity

The Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument has been subjected to extensive psychometric evaluations, confirming its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive (criterion-related) validity across diverse occupational populations, including corporate salespeople, administrative personnel, senior managers, healthcare professionals, and executive MBA candidates.

Construct and Factorial Validity

VandeWalle’s (1997) seminal validation study established the construct validity of the 13-item instrument across both undergraduate working students ($N = 650$) and an independent cross-validation sample of full-time employed business professionals ($N = 432$). Using structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the hypothesized three-factor oblique model exhibited superior fit indices relative to competing structural models (e.g., a one-factor omnibus goal orientation model, or a two-factor model merging prove and avoid items into a single performance construct). Comparative fit indices consistently showed that combining the prove and avoid subscales resulted in a significant deterioration in model fit, confirming that the two performance dimensions represent distinct latent constructs rather than poles of a single performance continuum.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Extensive correlational investigations with established individual-difference constructs have documented robust discriminant and convergent validity patterns (VandeWalle, 1997; Payne et al., 2007):

• Implicit Theories of Ability: Incremental beliefs of ability correlate positively with Learning Goal Orientation ($r \approx .35$ to $.45$) and correlate negatively with Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation, whereas entity beliefs associate positively with both Performance-Prove and Performance-Avoid orientations.
• The Five-Factor Model of Personality (Big Five):
  • Learning Goal Orientation exhibits moderate-to-strong positive correlations with Conscientiousness ($r = .30$ to $.42$) and Openness to Experience ($r = .35$ to $.48$), and negligible or weak negative correlations with Neuroticism.
  • Performance-Prove Goal Orientation demonstrates weak-to-moderate positive correlations with Extraversion ($r = .20$ to $.30$) and Conscientiousness, reflecting ambitious, competitive strivings.
  • Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation correlates strongly and positively with Neuroticism / Trait Negative Affectivity ($r = .38$ to $.52$) and negatively with generalized self-efficacy and emotional stability.
• Generalized Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem: LGO correlates positively with generalized self-efficacy ($r = .38$ to $.45$), PPGO shows modest positive or non-significant relations, while PAGO is consistently inversely related to self-efficacy ($r = -.25$ to $-.38$).

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The practical utility of the WDGOI is supported by numerous empirical investigations predicting behavioral, cognitive, and objective performance outcomes in organizational environments:

• Feedback-Seeking Behavior: In a landmark study, VandeWalle and Cummings (1997) demonstrated that individuals with elevated LGO perceived feedback inquiry as having high informational value and low ego-threat cost, resulting in frequent proactive feedback seeking. Conversely, high-PAGO individuals perceived feedback inquiry as carrying severe psychological and reputation costs, leading to systematic feedback avoidance.
• Longitudinal Sales Performance: VandeWalle, Brown, Cron, and Slocum (1999) conducted a longitudinal field investigation tracking medical supply field sales representatives across three months. LGO directly predicted the adoption of self-regulation tactics (goal setting, effort expenditure, and planning), which subsequently drove higher objective sales volume relative to quotas. PPGO had a weak positive relation to goal difficulty, whereas PAGO directly undermined performance via reduced effort and self-handicapping.
• Response to Performance Feedback: VandeWalle, Cron, and Slocum (2001) examined professionals responding to performance discrepancies. Following negative feedback, high-LGO individuals maintained high self-efficacy, set challenging subsequent performance goals, and increased effort. Conversely, high-PAGO individuals reacted to negative feedback with demoralization, diminished goal difficulty, and performance deterioration.
• Meta-Analytic Evidence: In a comprehensive meta-analysis of the goal orientation literature spanning 118 independent samples ($N = 25,622$), Payne, Youngcourt, and Beaubien (2007) verified that VandeWalle’s specific work-domain conceptualization displayed robust predictive validity across job performance, training outcomes, and task self-efficacy, outperforming domain-general instruments when applied to organizational criteria.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument has been demonstrated repeatedly across field and laboratory studies, exhibiting high internal consistency, scale composite reliability, and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across validation studies and subsequent published literature, the three subscales routinely exceed the conventional .70 psychometric threshold recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein for behavioral research:

• Learning Goal Orientation Subscale (5 items): Coefficients for $\alpha$ consistently range from .84 to .89 across diverse organizational samples (e.g., VandeWalle, 1997: Sample 1 $\alpha = .89$, Sample 2 $\alpha = .88$; VandeWalle et al., 1999: $\alpha = .86$; Cron et al., 2005: $\alpha = .85$).
• Performance-Prove Goal Orientation Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficients typically fall between .78 and .85 (e.g., VandeWalle, 1997: Sample 1 $\alpha = .85$, Sample 2 $\alpha = .84$; VandeWalle et al., 1999: $\alpha = .82$; Payne et al., 2007 meta-analytic mean $\alpha = .80$).
• Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s $\alpha$ estimates generally span .74 to .83 (e.g., VandeWalle, 1997: Sample 1 $\alpha = .83$, Sample 2 $\alpha = .78$; VandeWalle et al., 2001: $\alpha = .80$; Cron et al., 2005: $\alpha = .77$).

Test-Retest Stability

Because VandeWalle conceptualized goal orientation as a dispositional, trait-like orientation toward work, test-retest reliability assessments over temporal lags ranging from several weeks to multiple months demonstrate strong stability. Longitudinal evaluations across three-month and six-month intervals in executive management and sales cohorts have demonstrated stability coefficients ranging from $r = .65$ to $.78$, indicating that while situational factors and organizational culture can moderate manifestation, baseline dispositional goal orientations remain substantially stable over time.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the 13-item WDGOI was developed and refined using rigorous exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) methodologies.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the scale development phase, an initial pool of potential items was administered to working adults. Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was utilized, reflecting the theoretical premise that the underlying motivational dimensions, while distinct, are naturally correlated in psychological functioning. The exploratory analyses revealed a distinct three-factor structure accounting for over 58% of the total scale variance:

• Factor 1 clearly corresponded to Learning Goal Orientation, capturing all items reflecting the pursuit of challenging tasks, skill development, and learning opportunities.
• Factor 2 cleanly extracted the Performance-Prove Goal Orientation items, characterized by themes of outperforming coworkers, proving ability, and seeking visibility for success.
• Factor 3 captured Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation, with high loadings on items tapping avoidance of failure, fear of appearing incompetent, and steering clear of difficult assignments.

Item selection was guided by strict psychometric criteria: items were retained only if they exhibited primary factor loadings exceeding .50 and cross-loadings on non-target factors below .25. This process winnowed the initial pool to the final 13 items.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses on independent holdout samples verified the superiority of the three-factor oblique structural model over alternative configurations. Goodness-of-fit parameters reported in VandeWalle (1997) and cross-validation replications (e.g., VandeWalle et al., 1999, 2001) demonstrate excellent fit to the empirical data:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Values routinely fall between 1.45 and 2.10, well below the conservative ceiling of 3.00 indicative of adequate fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Standardly exceeds .95 (often ranging from .96 to .98).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI / NNFI): Routinely exceeds .94 to .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently estimated between .038 and .056 (with 90% confidence intervals falling safely below .08).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently average .042 to .052.

Factor Loadings and Factor Intercorrelations

Across structural equation models, standardized parameter estimates (factor loadings) for individual items on their designated latent factors are robust, typically ranging from .62 to .86 ($p < .001$), with negligible uniqueness parameters. Latent factor correlations typically indicate:

• A modest, positive or orthogonal correlation between Learning and Performance-Prove ($r \approx .12$ to $.28$).
• A moderate positive correlation between Performance-Prove and Performance-Avoid ($r \approx .25$ to $.45$), reflecting their shared focus on social evaluation and normative standards.
• A modest negative or near-zero correlation between Learning and Performance-Avoid ($r \approx -.10$ to $-.32$), highlighting their opposing cognitive and affective profiles.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument (WDGOI) is a brief, highly focused psychometric survey instrument designed for rapid administration without compromising psychometric integrity. Below are the operational attributes of the instrument:

• Construct Assessed: Individual dispositional goal orientation in occupational and organizational domains.
• Measurement Paradigm: Self-report psychometric rating scale.
• Item Inventory: Exactly 13 items organized across three distinct subscales:
  • Learning Goal Orientation (LGO): 5 items (Items 1 to 5)
  • Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (PPGO): 4 items (Items 6 to 9)
  • Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (PAGO): 4 items (Items 10 to 13)
• Response Continuum: Administered on a 7-point Likert-type agreement scale ranging from:
  • 1 = Strongly Agree
  • 2 = Agree
  • 3 = Somewhat Agree
  • 4 = Neither Agree Nor Disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 6 = Disagree
  • 7 = Strongly Disagree

  (Note: In typical computational scoring, research studies frequently reverse-code or anchor 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree to ensure that higher numeric scores denote higher levels of the respective construct. Researchers must maintain consistent scoring directionality).

• Administration Duration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes for full completion.
• Scoring Protocol: No total composite score should ever be computed across all 13 items. Goal orientation is not a unitary continuum. Instead, independent mean or sum scores are generated for each of the three dimensions:
  • LGO Score: Arithmetic mean (or sum) of Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
  • PPGO Score: Arithmetic mean (or sum) of Items 6, 7, 8, and 9.
  • PAGO Score: Arithmetic mean (or sum) of Items 10, 11, 12, and 13.
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All items are positively keyed toward their respective latent construct.
• Target Populations: Employed adults, managerial and executive staff, technical specialists, sales professionals, and organizational teams. (A parallel 13-item academic adaptation exists for undergraduate and graduate student cohorts).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument was originally published in 1997 in the journal Educational and Psychological Measurement (VandeWalle, 1997). The instrument was developed within an academic research context and is widely accessible in the public domain for non-commercial, scholarly research, thesis investigations, and educational evaluation purposes, subject to standard scholarly attribution conventions.

Researchers intending to employ the WDGOI in published empirical studies are expected to cite the seminal 1997 publication and relevant subsequent validation literature. For commercial organizational consulting, proprietary pre-employment screening batteries, or monetization within commercial assessment platforms, practitioners should consult the copyright policies of SAGE Publications (the publisher of Educational and Psychological Measurement) and seek authorization from the original author, Dr. Don VandeWalle.

References

• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
• Cron, W. L., Slocum, J. W., VandeWalle, D., & Fu, Q. (2005). The role of goal orientation on negative emotions and goal setting when initial performance falls short of one’s performance goal. Human Performance, 18(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1801_3
• Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
• Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
• Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
• Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
• Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128
• Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800303
• VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057006009
• VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.249
• VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.390
• VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.629

Items of the Scale