Is short measure a big problem? A meta-analytic comparison of career adaptability measures

Purpose This study aims to examine whether there are differences in reliability and validity between the long and short measures of the career adapt-abilities scale (CAAS) and provide guidance for effective assessment of career adaptability. Design/methodology/approach A Hunter–Schmidt method random effect meta-analytic method was employed to compare the long and short CAAS measures in terms of reliability and criterion-related validity across multiple outcomes. Findings The study revealed that the short measure demonstrated slightly lower but still acceptable internal consistency estimates compared to the long measure. Regarding criterion-related validity, discrepancies in point estimates emerged between the two measures across several different outcome variables, with relatively large discrepancies found in commitment and job crafting. The short measure correlates more strongly with attitude-related variables, whereas the long measure has stronger relationships with behavior and/or outcome-related variables. Originality/value This study clarified reliability and validity differences between long and short measures of career adaptability, contributing to career adaptability literature. Moreover, it reveals potential risks of using the short measure for predicting commitment and job crafting, while also providing insights into strategically selecting measures based on outcomes of interest.