Development and initial psychometric validation of the psychological exemption zone perception scale in reverse mobility among doctoral talent

Jun Jiang, Wenfa Zhang, Peitao Du

Frontiers in Psychology, 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1923326
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Against the backdrop of market-oriented career environments and increasing performance pressure, some doctoral talent evaluate higher education institution/research work settings as comparatively stable, restorative, controllable, and meaningful career options. However, the existing research lacks a standardized instrument for measuring this subjective evaluation of work settings as psychologically protective environments. Building on prior constructivist grounded-theory findings and relevant organizational psychology literature, this study developed and initially validated the Psychological Exemption Zone Perception Scale (PEZPS) in the context of reverse mobility among doctoral talent. A multi-stage scale development procedure was adopted. Thirty candidate items were generated and reviewed by nine experts, resulting in a 25-item formal scale. Using data from 838 valid responses, the sample was randomly divided into an exploratory sample ( n = 335) and a validation sample ( n = 503). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a five-factor structure: perceived institutional shelter, perceived time sovereignty, perceived boundary controllability, perceived restorative security, and perceived meaning-belonging. The five factors explained 65.8% of the total variance, and parallel analysis supported their retention. Confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable model fit, χ 2 /df = 2.324, CFI (comparative fit index) = 0.943, TLI (Tucker–Lewis index) = 0.935, RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) = 0.051, and SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) = 0.041. PEZPS demonstrated good internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, alongside preliminary criterion-related and incremental validity evidence. Cronbach’s α was 0.902 for the total scale and ranged from 0.839 to 0.881 across dimensions; CR (composite reliability) ranged from 0.834 to 0.881, AVE (average variance extracted) from 0.502 to 0.597, and the maximum HTMT (heterotrait–monotrait) value was 0.700. PEZPS total scores were significantly associated with criterion variables in theoretically expected directions and was associated with additional explained variance in reverse mobility intention beyond demographic variables and related psychological indicators. Overall, this study advances psychological exemption zone from a qualitative concept to a measurable construct and provides a preliminary tool for studying psychologically protective work-setting evaluations among doctoral talent. Further validation across different types of HEIs and broader career contexts is needed.