Measuring Sustainable Career: Validation and Predictive Value of the Spanish Career Sustainability Scale

Abstract

Research on sustainable careers often overlooks professionals in under-represented regions. In dynamic labor markets, such as Latin America, there is limited evidence on how individuals build meaningful and healthy career paths over time. Guided by the sustainable careers model, this study addresses this gap by validating a Spanish version of the career sustainability scale and testing its predictive value in the Mexican context. Two studies were conducted, with cross-sectional survey data. Study 1 confirmed the scale’s four-factor structure and solid psychometric properties, via EFA/CFA, internal consistency, and measurement invariance by gender, and showed concurrent associations with job autonomy, work engagement, and intention to quit. Study 2 tested a moderated mediation model. Psychological capital mediated the effects of career sustainability on life satisfaction, psychological health, and task performance. Social isolation reduced the indirect effect only for psychological capital. These findings support a view of sustainable careers shaped by personal resources and social contexts and extend this research in Spanish-speaking settings, offering practical implications for well-being and performance in emerging labor markets.

Keywords

career sustainability scale validation well-being at work career development

Introduction

Maintaining healthy, motivated, and productive careers over time remains a global challenge. According to United Nations Statistics Division reports, 57.8% of the labor force was informally employed by 2024, indicating inadequate social security, legal protection, and safety measures for over half of the global workforce (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2025United Nations et al., 2025). 16% of young people are out of work in upper-middle-income countries (International Labour Organization, 2024). In the UK Working Lives survey, 36% of participants reported their job lacked good opportunities for advancement. Internal career paths are breaking with jobs replacing careers and tasks replacing jobs (The Guardian, 2024). Workers face job insecurity, limited development opportunities, and weak institutional support (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2021; Inanc & Kalleberg, 2022; Zhafira & Widodo, 2024). These conditions make it harder to stay healthy, motivated, and productive (Domenighetti, 2014; Hasin et al., 2023; Khubchandani & Price, 2017). In Latin America, demanding labor markets and inequality add complexity. Mexico ranks among top OECD countries in hours worked, reflecting conditions that may hinder sustainable careers (OECD, 2023). These patterns highlight the need to understand how individuals maintain well-being and performance in evolving work environments.

Several related terms describe how careers function over time, but they address different aspects. A meaningful career refers to a trajectory experienced as valuable and aligned with personal values (Allan et al., 2019; Rosso et al., 2010). Employability emphasizes maintaining labor-market value and opportunities (Fugate et al., 2004). Adaptability concerns the capacity to handle change and transitions (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Taken together, these notions emphasize value, marketability, and flexibility at specific points in time. By contrast, career sustainability integrates these concerns as a longitudinal standard, focusing on careers that remain healthy, motivated, and productive across contexts and life stages (De Vos et al., 2020; Van Der Heijden et al., 2020).

The concept of sustainable career has gained relevance in recent years. Career sustainability refers to the capacity to remain healthy, motivated, and productive across the working life (De Vos et al., 2020; Van Der Heijden et al., 2020). It includes adapting to change, maintaining well-being, and continuing to learn and perform over time (Akkermans & Kubasch, 2017). This concept has gained attention from researchers (Anseel, 2017; Schweitzer et al., 2023). Prior work has linked career sustainability to employability, adaptability, and psychological resources (Greenhaus et al., 2024; Magnano et al., 2019; Nakra et al., 2024). However, the concept remains in early development stages, with much to understand about its nomological network.

Three key gaps exist in career sustainability literature. First, most studies focus on theoretical discussions rather than testing the concept with validated measures. The lack of validated instruments is particularly problematic in non-English languages. Scales have mainly been developed in Western high-income labor markets (Chin et al., 2022; Russo et al., 2025). While Chin et al. (2022) developed a scale in China, it remains untested in other regions. Second, career sustainability has not been directly studied to predict employee outcomes like career growth or job satisfaction (Cheng et al., 2024; Udrea & Semenescu, 2024). Third, while some connections between career sustainability and employability have been explored, its relationship with broader well-being indicators (Müller et al., 2022) and underlying psychological mechanisms remains unclear. Together these gaps motivate a focus on measurement and prediction in Spanish-speaking settings.

In this context, Latin America offers a relevant and under-represented context for testing these questions. The region faces high levels of inequality, informal employment, and institutional instability (Maurizio et al., 2021; United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2025). These factors shape how people understand their work, growth, and progress in their careers. This complexity is not solely economic. Culture and language also influence individuals’ interpretation and experience success. Spanish is widely spoken, but its use and meaning vary across and within countries (Mar-Molinero, 2004; Núñez-Méndez, 2022). In other words, the linguistic dimension could affect how people respond to surveys and interpret items, and the career models developed elsewhere may not reflect these realities if they are not adapted. Therefore, cultural adaptation and linguistic validation are necessary to make valid inferences in Spanish-speaking settings.

To address these gaps, we present two empirical studies conducted in Mexico. Study 1 adapts and validates a Spanish version of the Career Sustainability Scale (Chin et al., 2022), establishing its psychometric adequacy and practical usefulness in Spanish-speaking settings. Thus, to ensure robust validation, Study 1 focused on the psychometric structure of the Spanish career sustainability scale, whereas Study 2 examined its predictive value using a separate sample. This two-stage design supports construct validation followed by explanatory testing and reduces bias associated with single-sample inference.

Using a separate sample, Study 2 evaluates the sustainable career model (De Vos et al., 2020) relating career sustainability with life satisfaction, psychological health, and task performance through psychological capital with social isolation moderating these links.

These two studies provide three main contributions to career sustainability literature. First, it is an adapted, valid tool to assess career sustainability in Spanish-speaking contexts, responding to the need for cross-cultural adaptation and measurement. With this contribution, we help examine career development in under-represented regions. Second, we provide insights about the psychological mechanisms and contextual conditions that shape how sustainable careers influence individual outcomes. Third, we provide practical recommendations about the promotion of a sustainable career.

Theoretical Framework

Defining Career Sustainability and its Scope

One of the most cited definitions of a sustainable career describes it as one that promotes health, happiness, and productivity over time and across different contexts (De Vos et al., 2020). Health refers to physical and mental well-being. Happiness is related to personal meanings and satisfaction. Productivity involves achieving work goals and contributing to the organization (Van Der Heijden et al., 2020). In other words, career sustainability connects work with long-term development, offering a way to understand how people remain motivated, maintain well-being, and continue performing across different stages of their careers. This perspective aligns with recent integrations that describe careers as unfolding across person, context, and time, with health, happiness, and productivity as core indicators (Donald et al., 2024).

Career sustainability belongs to a family of related ideas that we treat as complementary lenses. Employability explains how people maintain labor market value and opportunities, and adaptability explains how they navigate transitions. Career sustainability integrates these emphases across time by focusing on the sustained maintenance of health, motivation, and productive contribution across contexts and life stages (De Vos et al., 2020; Fugate et al., 2004; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Building on this complementarity, research on career sustainability also incorporates work on job quality, personal agency, and access to learning opportunities (Akkermans & Kubasch, 2017; Ge et al., 2024; Nakra et al., 2024; Russo et al., 2025). Taken together, this integration moves beyond job tenure toward the capacity to manage change, align personal and professional goals, and remain engaged in work overtime.

Building on this integration, we use the four-dimension model proposed by Chin et al. (2022) comprising the following dimensions: resourceful, flexible, renewable, and integrative. A resourceful career provides financial stability. Flexible careers allow access to new opportunities. A renewable career provides a way to update skills. An integrative career connects knowledge and experience. These dimensions draw on prior work in career adaptability, protean careers, and employability (Briscoe et al., 2006; Fugate et al., 2004; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) and reflect key characteristics of successful career development in today’s changing work environment.

Accordingly, career sustainability functions as a longitudinal standard that links everyday job perceptions with longer-horizon outcomes in health, happiness, and productivity.

Proximal Work Conditions: Job Perceptions Aligned With Career Sustainability

Consistent with the person–context–time logic of sustainable careers, day-to-day work conditions help explain whether career trajectories can endure. The quality of work environments and the availability of support systems shape how individuals stay engaged, maintain performance, and make career-related decisions over time (Cheng et al., 2024; Müller et al., 2022).

Building on this view, when people perceive their career as sustainable, the day-to-day experience of work tends to shift. They report greater discretion in how to carry out tasks, indicating higher job autonomy (Kubicek et al., 2017), and a more energetic connection to work, reflected in higher work engagement (Bakker, 2011; Eldor, 2016). When the career path fits personal goals and offers credible prospects, the pull to leave weakens, reducing intention to quit and supporting task performance (Jambrak et al., 2014; Russo et al., 2025; Wu & Lu, 2022). Taken together, these perceptions function as proximal correlates of career sustainability (Van Der Heijden et al., 2020).

Psychological Capital as a Personal Resource in Career Sustainability

Career sustainability is shaped by external work conditions and internal psychological resources (Udayar et al., 2025). One widely studied resource in organizational psychology is psychological capital (PsyCap) (Kong et al., 2018), defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of development, characterized by hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2007). Syntheses of the evidence indicate that PsyCap relates positively to well-being and performance at work (Avey et al., 2011; Newman et al., 2014). Within a sustainable-careers perspective that emphasizes person–context–time dynamics, PsyCap functions as a proximal personal resource that helps keep careers healthy, motivated, and productive across changing conditions (De Vos et al., 2020; Donald et al., 2024).

Psychological capital contributes to how individuals interpret and respond to their work environment. It supports proactive behavior, emotional regulation, and the ability to cope with uncertainty and setbacks (Rabenu et al., 2017; Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2015Youssef‐Morgan & Luthans, 2015). By stabilizing effort and affect in everyday work, PsyCap supports sustained functioning in ways that align with a sustainable career.

Although PsyCap has been studied as a personal resource in various occupational settings (Grover et al., 2018), its role in supporting sustainable career paths has received little empirical attention. Previous findings show that improvements in PsyCap are associated with higher job performance and well-being (Cenciotti et al., 2017; Greenhaus et al., 2024), and that richer career experiences relate to greater perceived control and meaning at work (Greenhaus et al., 2024). Taken together, this literature supports treating PsyCap as a near-term personal pathway through which a sustainable career orientation can be expressed in higher life satisfaction, better psychological health, and stronger task performance over time (Avey et al., 2011; Newman et al., 2014; Van Der Heijden et al., 2020; Zyberaj et al., 2022).

Social Isolation as a Contextual Constraint on Career Sustainability

The benefits of a sustainable career may not be the same for all. Social contexts may shape how people experience and use their careers (Lee & Seo, 2024). Social isolation is one factor that may influence this process. This concept refers to the feeling of being disconnected from others in the workplace or beyond (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009). This includes a lack of supportive relationships and reduced opportunities for meaningful interaction. Within a sustainable-careers perspective, social isolation operates as a contextual constraint that erodes the long-term maintenance of health, motivation, and productive contribution.

Social isolation can weaken the positive effects of career resources (Agbanyo & Shi, 2024; Schreuders et al., 2023). People who feel isolated may have fewer opportunities to share ideas, receive feedback, or ask for help (Grant et al., 2008). This could reduce their ability to apply their strengths or take advantage of their career opportunities. It may also affect well-being by increasing feelings of stress or loneliness (Campagne, 2019; Meese et al., 2024). Consistent evidence links workplace loneliness with lower job performance and reduced citizenship behaviors (Özcelik & Barsade, 2018), and meta-analytic work shows that coworker support relates to better attitudes and performance (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), underscoring how diminished social ties hinder access to information, feedback, and informal learning critical for sustainable careers.

In the context of career sustainability, social isolation may act as a barrier (Mizera-Pęczek et al., 2024). Even when people have a clear sense of purpose and direction in their careers, the absence of connection with others may limit their progress. This can reduce motivation, block access to informal learning, and affect how people feel about their work (Leite et al., 2022; Sasaki et al., 2024). Large-scale evidence on remote and hybrid work further documents reduced spontaneous interaction and weakened intra-organizational ties—conditions associated with greater isolation (Ayala et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2021), suggesting that isolation functions as a boundary condition that dampens the translation of personal and job resources into sustained well-being and performance.

Study 1 – Validation of the Career Sustainability Scale

Study 1 examines the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Career Sustainability Scale (Chin et al., 2022). To achieve this goal, we analyze its construct validity (i.e., exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and measurement invariance by gender), reliability, and concurrent validity (i.e., job autonomy, work engagement, and intention to quit). These variables were chosen due to its theoretical relationship with sustainable career through perceived control, sustained motivation, and withdrawal tendencies.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The sample included 884 employees from various organizations in Mexico. Women represented 52.7% of the participants. Their ages ranged from 16 to 73 years (M = 36.34, SD = 13.41). Most participants had a bachelor’s degree (58.6%). A smaller group reported having a master’s degree (19%).

Data were collected using two methods. First, researchers contacted organizational stakeholders, such as CEOs and human resources managers. They were informed about the study and its requirements. In organizations that agreed to participate, employees received an email invitation. The message included information regarding the study and a link to the questionnaire. Participation in the study was voluntary.

In the second method, the questionnaire was distributed online via professional social networks. Snowball sampling was used to recruit additional participants. The lottery was promoted to increase participation. Participants were eligible to enter the lottery if they completed the full questionnaire and provided both a contact email address and a personal code. Any fraudulent entries (e.g., duplicate submissions) were excluded from the study and from the lottery. After data collection was completed, participants were contacted and informed of the date and time of the online lottery. Each personal code was assigned a number, and ten winners were randomly selected using an online randomization platform. The lottery was conducted live, and the winners were subsequently contacted via email to confirm their addresses and receive a financial reward (i.e., Amazon gift card) of 450 MXN.

Measures

Career Sustainability

This construct was measured using the instrument by Chin et al. (2022), a multidimensional scale with four dimensions: resourceful, flexible, renewable, and integrative. This structure builds on career development frameworks and reflects strategies people use to sustain careers. A resourceful career supports decent living. A flexible path allows access to new paths. A renewable career helps maintain updated skills. An integrative approach connects knowledge across experience. These dimensions echo work on employability (Fugate et al., 2004), career adaptability (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), and protean career attitudes (Briscoe et al., 2006), highlighting individual agency, learning orientation, and self-directed development. They reflect that sustainable careers are shaped by personal and contextual factors, influencing how individuals grow and remain engaged in their professional paths (De Vos et al., 2020; Van Der Heijden et al., 2020). The scale by Chin et al. (2022) offers a practical tool for assessing whether people have conditions to grow, adapt, and remain engaged in their careers.

This instrument was translated into Spanish through a back-translation process (Brislin, 1970). The translations were fluent in both English and Spanish. The original scale includes 12 items. It is organized into four dimensions: resourceful (3 items; e.g., “My career enables me to have a good standard of living”), flexible (3 items; e.g., “My career allows me to seek new opportunities”), renewable (3 items; e.g., “My career provides me opportunities to update my skills”), and integrative (3 items; e.g., “My career enables me to integrate information obtained from different sources”). Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). For this scale, Cronbach alpha was .96.

Job Autonomy

It was measured with the 3 items instrument from Jackson et al. (1993). An example item is “I do my tasks as I consider most appropriate.” All items used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (every day). For this scale, Cronbach alpha was .74.

Work Engagement

We measured work engagement using the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The scale has three dimensions: Vigor (3 items; e.g., “I feel energetic and capable when I’m working”), Dedication (3 items; e.g., “I am proud of my job”), and Absorption (3 items; e.g., “I am immersed in my job”). All items used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (every day). For this scale, Cronbach alpha was .94.

Intention to Quit

We measured intention to quit using a single item adapted from the UNIPSICO Battery (Gil-Monte, 2016). The item was “What degree of certainty would you want to leave this company within one year and move to another position with the same tasks and functions?”. Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely sure to stay) to 7 (completely sure to quit). Although single-item measures may provide a more restricted content coverage than multi-item scales, the advantages of their use are well known in organizational research (Matthews et al., 2022). In fact, considering that intention to quit represents a focused and conceptually narrow construct, a single-item operationalization could be considered theoretically and empirically supported (e.g., Pelly, 2023; Treglown et al., 2018).

Data Analysis

Analyses were conducted using complete cases only. Observations with missing values were excluded prior to analysis following a listwise deletion approach, consistent with methodological recommendations for psychometric analyses when missingness is minimal (Schlomer et al., 2010). The data were analyzed in five steps using SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 21.0. In the first step, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated for all the items. The total sample (N = 884) was randomly divided into two subsamples (n₁ = 442; n₂ = 442) to perform different analyses (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). Previously to step 2 and 3, to ensure the comparability of the two subsamples used for the EFA (n₁) and CFA (n₂), an ANOVA was conducted to test for differences in demographic characteristics and main study variables.

In the second step, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on subsample 1. The maximum likelihood extraction method was used for oblimin rotation. Before the analysis, the adequacy of the data was confirmed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity.

In the third step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using subsample 2. The analysis tested the factor structure of the Career Sustainability Scale using the maximum likelihood estimation method. Four models were compared: M1 (one-factor), M2 (two-factor, based on EFA), M3 (four-factor, based on Chin et al., 2022), and M3r (four-factor revised, based on modification indices). In addition to the first-order models (i.e., M1, M2, M3, M3r), a second-order hierarchical model (M4, four-factor revised, second-order model) was tested to examine whether the four first-order dimensions of career sustainability could be explained by a higher-order general factor. This approach is commonly used when a construct is theoretically conceptualized as multidimensional while also assumed to reflect an overarching global construct (e.g., Milton-Paredes et al., 2024). According to Byrne (2010), second-order models are particularly relevant when researchers aim to justify the use of a global latent score or when the construct is subsequently employed as a general variable in structural or regression-based models. Model fit was evaluated using the chi-square statistic (χ²), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Values below .08 for RMSEA and above .95 for CFI were considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess internal consistency.

In the fourth step, measurement invariance was tested using subsample 2. The analysis examined configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance across gender groups (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Invariance was evaluated by comparing changes in χ², CFI, and RMSEA. CFI was used as the main indicator because of its stability in large samples (Milfont & Fischer, 2010; Putnick & Bornstein, 2016).

Finally, concurrent validity was tested using subsample 2. The career sustainability scale was expected to correlate positively with job autonomy and work engagement, and negatively with intention to quit, as supported by previous research (Chin et al., 2022; De Vos et al., 2020).

Results

Preliminary Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis

Skewness and kurtosis values indicated a normal distribution for all items (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2018). The bivariate correlations between the career sustainability items were positive and significant. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test showed a value of .96. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² (66) = 5108.10, p < .001). These results indicate that the data were adequate for factor analysis.

As mentioned, before conducting the EFA and CFA, we tested whether the two subsamples for these analyzes differed significantly in key demographic characteristics (gender and age) or main study variables (Career sustainability, work engagement, job autonomy, and intention to quit). Data showed that no statistically significant differences were found between the two subsamples for any of the variables: Gender (F = .016, p = .900), Age (F = 2.016, p = .156), Career sustainability (F = .374, p = .541), work engagement (F = .890, p = .346), job autonomy (F = .085, p = .770), or intention to quit (F = 2.911, p = .088). These results indicated that the subsamples were equivalent in terms of both sociodemographic and main study variables, supporting the adequacy of using them for EFA and CFA comparisons.

As previously mentioned, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using subsample 1 (n₁ = 442). The analysis revealed a two-factor solution with a good fit (χ² (43) = 218.85, p < .001). All item loadings exceeded .40 (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). The first factor accounted for 70.87% of variance, and the second factor explained 8.44%. Also, a parallel analysis was conducted using Jamovi (version 2.7.9; The jamovi project, 2025) with the software’s default settings, which involve comparing empirical eigenvalues with those obtained from randomly generated datasets. The results indicated the presence of two factors, as only the first two empirical eigenvalues (8.20 and 0.63) exceeded the corresponding simulated ones. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, internal consistency, and inter-item correlations.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Skewness, Kurtosis, Reliability, Bivariate Correlations, and EFA for Career Sustainable Scale Items

Variables	M	SD	S	K	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	α	EFA
Variables	M	SD	S	K	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	α	F1	F2
1. My career enables me to have a good standard of living [Mi carrera me permite un buen estándar de vida]	5.59	1.44	−0.98	0.40	-	.74**	.72**	.62**	.52**	.54**	.58**	.57**	.57**	.51**	.47**	.49**	.902		.812
2. My career makes me feel happy because I use my resources well [Mi carrera me hace sentir feliz por que utilizo bien mis recursos]	5.73	1.41	−1.16	0.85		-	.78**	.70**	.66**	.60**	.69**	.67**	.65**	.62**	.59**	.64**			.781
3. My career makes me feel like I have a bright future [Mi carrera me hace sentir como que tengo un futuro brillante]	5.58	1.55	−1.05	0.36			-	.77**	.68**	.60**	.69**	.66**	.66**	.61**	.57**	.61**			.963
4. My career allows me to seek new opportunities [Mi carrera me permite buscar nuevas oportunidades]	5.64	1.53	−1.10	0.51				-	.71**	.63**	.71**	.67**	.69**	.61**	.56**	.61**	.865		.696
5. My career allows me to continuously learn new things [Mi carrera me permite continuamente aprender nuevas cosas]	5.99	1.37	−1.39	1.27					-	.61**	.73**	.73**	.69**	.70**	.65**	.70**		.457	.435
6. My career gives me a lot of flexibility [Mi carrera me de mucha flexibilidad]	5.59	1.56	−1.06	0.39						-	.71**	.67**	.70**	.59**	.54**	.57**		.510
7. My career provides me opportunities to update my skills [Mi carrera me provee de oportunidades para actualizar mis habilidades]	5.84	1.41	−1.28	1.13							-	.85**	.80**	.73**	.67**	.72**	.942	.774
8. My career gives me the chance to reassess my capabilities [Mi carrera me da el chance de reevaluar mis capacidades]	5.79	1.41	−1.23	1.02								-	.83**	.76**	.69**	.76**		.858
9. My career enables me to rebrand or reposition myself [Mi carrera me permite renovarme o reposicionarme a mí mismo]	5.80	1.37	−1.15	0.83									-	.79**	.75**	.77**		.891
10. My career enables me to integrate information obtained from different sources [Mi carrera me permite integrar información obtenida de distintas fuentes]	5.91	1.34	−1.28	1.26										-	.82**	.81**	.932	.936
11. My career enables me to critically evaluate information obtained from different sources [Mi carrera me permite evaluar críticamente información obtenida de distintas fuentes]	5.90	1.35	−1.36	1.45											-	.81**		.944
12. My career builds my ability to absorb information and knowledge [Mi carrera desarrolla mi habilidad de absorber información y conocimiento]	6.04	1.27	−1.47	1.86												-		.926

Note. *p < .05,**p < .01; ***p < .001. N: mean (M), standard deviation (SD), skewness (S), kurtosis (K).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using subsample 2. Four models were tested in this study. Model 1 specified a one-factor solution. Model 2 used a two-factor structure based on the previous EFA results. Model 3 followed the original four-factor structure proposed by Chin et al. (2022). Model 3r was a revised version of Model 3, with two error terms correlated to improve fit (it7 and it8; M.I. = 18.47, Par Change = .088). This modification was theoretically justified due to the strong semantic overlap between both items, which assess closely related career self-development processes involving skill updating and self-evaluative reflection (Kline, 2016). Model 3r showed the best fit: χ² (47) = 179.04, RMSEA = .077, and CFI = .977. These results confirmed the four-factor structure with minor adjustments (see Figure 1). Finally, the hierarchical second-order model (M4) was also tested and demonstrated acceptable overall fit (e.g., Paredes-Aguirre et al., 2024; see Figure 2). However, model comparison indicated that Model 3r provided a significantly better fit than Model 4, together with small decreases in incremental and absolute fit indices. These results indicate that career sustainability is primarily characterized by related but distinct dimensions, while still allowing for an integrative higher-order representation for applied purposes. The Cronbach’s alpha values for all factors were above .90. Table 2 summarizes a comparison of the CFA model.

Figure 1.

M3r. Four-factor revised results

Figure 2.

M4. Four-factor revised results. Second-order model

Table 2.

Resume of Test for CFA (n2)

Model	X²	df	X²/df	CFI	RMSEA	Model comparison	ΔX²	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
M1. One-factor	759.41***	54	14.06	.87	.17
M2. Two-factor	491.54***	53	9.27	.92	.14	M1-M2	267.87 (1), p = .000	.05	.03
M3. Four-factor	199.83***	48	4.16	.97	.09	M2-M3	291.71 (6), p = .000	.05	.05
M3r. Four-factor revised	179.04***	47	3.62	.98	.08	M3-M3r	20.79 (1), p = .000	.01	.01
M4. Four-factor revised. Second-order model	211.37***	49	4.31	.97	.09	M3r-M4	32.33 (1), p = .000	.01	.01

Measurement Invariance

A multigroup CFA tested measurement invariance by gender using subsample 2 to ensure that the scale assessed the same latent construct in women and men and to allow valid comparisons (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Milfont & Fischer, 2010). We evaluated the configural, metric, scalar, and strict models. All models showed an acceptable fit, and changes in χ², CFI, and RMSEA were within the recommended thresholds (ΔCFI ≤.010; ΔRMSEA ≤.015). Invariance across gender was supported. Table 3 presents the fit indices and the model comparisons.

Table 3.

Resume of Test for Measurement Gender Invariance Models (n2)

Invariance test	X²	df	X²/df	CFI	RMSEA	Model comparison	ΔX²	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	Decision
M1. Configural	245.48**	88	2.79	.97	.07					Accept
M2. Metric	245.89***	96	2.65	.97	.06	M1	8.41 (8), p = .394	.00	.01	Accept
M3. Scalar	264.56***	108	2.52	.97	.06	M2	10.67 (12), p = .557	.00	.00	Accept
M4. Strict	334.72***	134	2.49	.96	.06	M3	70.16 (26), p = .000	.01	.00	Accept

Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity was tested using subsample 2. The career sustainability scale was positively correlated with job autonomy and work engagement. It was negatively correlated with intention to quit. These results are consistent with those of previous studies (Chin et al., 2022; De Vos et al., 2020). Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients.

Table 4.

Descriptive and Bivariate Correlations

Variables	M	SD	α	Range	2	3	4
1 Career sustainability	5.83	1.15	.96	0-6	.50**	.54**	−.18**
2 Job autonomy	6.21	0.91	.78	0-6	-	.53**	−.13**
3 Work engagement	5.91	1.07	.94	0-6	-	-	−.20**
4 Intention to quit	3.70	2.20	-	0-6	-	-	-

Notes: α = Cronbach’s α index; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Study 2 – Predictive Validity of Career Sustainability

Building on the theoretical framework and aligned with this study’s objectives, we assessed the predictive validity of career sustainability by testing its associations with key outcomes and by evaluating psychological capital (PsyCap) as the explanatory mechanism. We also considered social isolation as a contextual condition that can weaken the career sustainability–PsyCap mechanism, thereby conditioning the indirect relations.

Beyond daily experience, the sustainable-careers literature frames longer-horizon outcomes around health, happiness, and productivity (De Vos et al., 2020; Donald et al., 2024). Empirically, career sustainability relates positively to psychological well-being (Chin et al., 2022). In related evidence, job resources and work engagement are associated with higher task and contextual performance, and positive job attitudes align with greater life satisfaction (Bowling et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Lesener et al., 2019). Together, these findings indicate that sustained career conditions can manifest not only in daily job experiences but also in broader indicators of functioning. Therefore, in this study we examined life satisfaction, psychological health, and task performance as downstream outcomes of career sustainability. Figure 3 displays the conceptual model. We proposed the following hypotheses:

H1. Career sustainability is positively associated with life satisfaction.

H2. Career sustainability is positively associated with psychological health.

H3. Career sustainability is positively associated with task performance.

H4. Psychological capital mediates the relations between career sustainability and (a) life satisfaction, (b) psychological health, and (c) task performance.

H5. The indirect effects of career sustainability on (a) life satisfaction, (b) psychological health, and (c) task performance via psychological capital are weaker at higher levels of social isolation.

Figure 3.

Conceptual Model of the Moderated Mediation Analysis.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The sample consisted of 201 participants who reported working (as employees or self-employed) for at least six consecutive months. Most of the participants were men (75.1%). Women accounted for 24.9% of participants. Their average age was 31, 54 years (SD = 7.76; range = 22-60).

In terms of education, 84.6% had a bachelor’s degree, 14.9% held a postgraduate degree, and 0.5% reported a technical degree. The sample also spanned job categories, with most participants in professional roles (75.0%), followed by technician (12.8%), administrative (5.1%), operative (5.1%), and managerial positions (2.0%).

Data were collected through an online survey distributed via Qualtrics. The questionnaire was distributed through professional networks and personal invitations. The sampling approach was non-random (convenience). Participation in this study was voluntary. Participants provided informed consent before starting the questionnaire. No personal identifiers were collected; responses were anonymous and confidential. The estimated completion time was ∼12–15 min. Procedures complied with institutional ethical standards.

Measures

Career Sustainability

Career sustainability was measured using the 12 items from the Spanish version of the Career Sustainability Scale validated in Study 1. The scale measures perceptions of career sustainability over time (e.g., “My career allows me to continuously develop my skills”, “My career gives me opportunities to adapt to changing demands”). Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always).

Psychological Health

It was measured using a 12-item scale adapted from Goldberg and Hillier (1979) and validated in Spanish by Gracia et al. (2007). Items refer to emotional stability and mental functioning (e.g., “I feel capable of making decisions”). Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Nothing at all”) to 7 (“Very much”).

Life Satisfaction

We measured it using the satisfaction with life scale (Diener et al., 1985). The scale includes five items that assess the overall evaluation of quality of life (e.g., “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal”). Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

Task Performance

This was measured using Williams and Anderson’s (1991) self-reported performance scale. It includes three items related to work effectiveness (e.g., “I adequately complete assigned duties”). Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

Psychological Capital

This was measured using the 13-item scale developed by Luthans et al. (2007). It includes four dimensions: self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience (e.g., “I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals”). Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

Social Isolation

This construct was measured using the 11-item scale developed by Russell et al. (1980). The items assessed feelings of disconnection from others (e.g., “I feel isolated from others at work”). Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 7 (“All the time”).

The reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega. Career sustainability scale showed high reliability (α = .956, Ω = .957). Task performance (α = .935, Ω = .936), life satisfaction (α = .881, Ω = .885), and PsyCap (α = .917, Ω = .918) also showed strong consistency. Psychological health showed lower α (α = .621) but acceptable Ω (Ω = .834), which is consistent with evidence that coefficient alpha can underestimate reliability in congeneric measures (Ercan et al., 2007; Hayes & Coutts, 2020).

Data Analysis

Consistent with the analytic strategy adopted in Study 1, analyses were conducted using complete cases only, following a listwise deletion approach (Schlomer et al., 2010). In line with the measurement evidence reported in Study 1, career sustainability was operationalized as a global construct, supported by the acceptable fit of the hierarchical second-order model and its use in explanatory analyses. Based on these analytic and measurement decisions, we proceeded with regression-based conditional process analyses as follows.

We first computed the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations for all variables. To test the model, we used the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes & Little, 2022). The analysis involved four steps. First, Pearson correlations were calculated to examine associations among variables. Second, mediation models were tested to assess whether PsyCap mediated the effects of career sustainability on life satisfaction, psychological health, and task performance, following recommendations by Preacher and Hayes (2008) and using bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (5,000 resamples). Third, moderation models were estimated to determine whether social isolation moderated the direct association between career sustainability on each outcome. Interaction terms were computed using mean-centered scores. Fourth, moderated mediation models were tested specifying social isolation on the career sustainability and PsyCap path (first stage), and we report the index of moderated mediation with 95% confidence intervals. Model fit was summarized with explained variance (R²).

Results

Descriptive and Correlational Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all the study variables. Career sustainability and task performance had high mean values (M = 6.26, SD = 0.67; M = 6.29, SD = 0.66, respectively). Psychological health (M = 4.13, SD = 0.58) and life satisfaction (M = 5.32, SD = 1.02) showed greater variability among the participants. Psychological capital had a high mean score (M = 5.86, SD = 0.73), whereas social isolation had the lowest (M = 2.27, SD = 1.13).

Distribution analysis revealed acceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis. Career sustainability (skewness = −1.50; kurtosis = 4.12) and psychological health (kurtosis = 4.23) showed elevated peakedness. Social isolation (skewness = 1.46) is moderately skewed. Table 5 presents the means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for all the variables.

Table 5.

Descriptive and Internal Consistency of the Constructs

Variable	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Career sustainability	6.26	0.67	−1.49	4.13
Task performance	6.29	0.66	−0.97	1.28
Psychological health	4.13	0.58	0.82	4.23
Life satisfaction	5.32	1.02	−0.78	0.51
Psychological capital	5.86	0.73	−0.75	0.78
Social isolation	2.27	1.13	1.46	2.18

Before testing the mediation and moderation models, we examined bivariate correlations (Table 6). Career sustainability correlated positively with life satisfaction (r = .582, p < .001), PH (r = .447, p < .001), and TP (r = .526, p < .001). PsyCap also showed positive correlations with life satisfaction (r = .578, p < .001), PH (r = .723, p < .001), and task performance (r = .681, p < .001). Social isolation correlated negatively with career sustainability (r = −.311, p < .001), PsyCap (r = −.285, p < .001), and with the outcomes (life satisfaction r = −.495; psychological health r = −.393; and task performance r = −.170; all p < .001). These patterns provide initial support for H1–H3 and are consistent with the proposed mediation via PsyCap and attenuation under higher social isolation.

Table 6.

Pearson Correlations

Variable	CS	SI	PsyCap	LS	PH	TP
CS	1
SI	−0.31	1
PsyCap	0.49	−0.28	1
LS	0.58	−0.49	0.57	1
PH	0.44	−0.39	0.72	0.60	1
TP	0.52	−0.17	0.68	0.46	0.44	1

Note. CS = career sustainability; SI = social isolation; PsyCap = psychological capital; LS = life satisfaction; PH = psychological health; TP = task performance.

Mediation Analysis

Three mediation models were tested to examine the indirect effects of career sustainability on outcome variables. Psychological capital was included as a mediator in all models. The results showed that PsyCap significantly mediated the relationships between career sustainability and life satisfaction (β = .190, SE = .054, 95% CI [.104, .318]), psychological health (β = .328, SE = .057, 95% CI [.225, .450]), and task performance (β = .275, SE = .065, 95% CI [.170, .427]). These findings support H4a-H4c.

In all the cases, the direct effect of career sustainability remained significant. However, effect sizes were reduced when PsyCap was included, indicating partial mediation. Table 7 summarizes the direct, indirect, and total effects.

Table 7.

Mediation Analysis

Outcome	Direct effect	Indirect effect (PsyCap)	Total effect	BootCI (lower)	BootCI (upper)
Life satisfaction	0.39	0.19	0.58	0.10	0.31
Psychological health	0.11	0.32	0.44	0.22	0.45
Task performance	0.25	0.27	0.52	0.17	0.42

Moderation Analysis

As a preliminary step prior to the moderated mediation, we explored whether social isolation moderated the direct associations between career sustainability and the outcomes. A significant interaction effect was observed on psychological health. Social isolation moderated the relationship between career sustainability and psychological health (β = −.185, SE = .046, p < .001), suggesting that the positive impact of career sustainability on psychological health weakened as social isolation increased. A smaller, but still significant interaction was observed with task performance (β = −.095, p = .002). No moderating effect was found for life satisfaction. Table 8 presents the detailed results.

Table 8.

Moderation Analysis

Moderator	CS → LS	CS → PH	CS → TP
Social isolation	Not significant	Significant (β = −0.185, p < 0.001)	Significant (β = −0.095, p = 0.002)

Note. CS = career sustainability; LS = life satisfaction; PH = psychological health; TP = task performance.

Moderated Mediation Analysis

Moderated mediation models were tested to examine whether the indirect effects of career sustainability through PsyCap varied depending on the level of social isolation. The index of moderated mediation was significant for psychological health (β = −.101, SE = .037, p = .007), indicating smaller indirect effects at higher isolation. Indices for life satisfaction and task performance were not significant. These results support H5b, but not H5a or H5c. Table 9 summarizes the results.

Table 9.

Moderation Mediation Analysis

Moderator	CS → PsyCap → LS	CS → PsyCap → PH	CS → PsyCap → TP
Social isolation	Not significant	Significant (β = −0.101, p = 0.007)	Not significant

Note. CS = career sustainability; PsyCap = psychological capital; LS = life satisfaction; PH = psychological health; TP = task performance.

Discussion

Main Findings

This study enhances career sustainability understanding by validating a measurement tool and testing its predictive value in Mexican and Spanish contexts. We provided evidence supporting the structural integrity and relevance of the career sustainability scale, extending literature on sustainable careers and offering insights for underrepresented regions like Latin America. In relation to Chin et al. (2022), we replicated the four-factor structure with good reliability and model fit in Spanish-speaking samples, adding evidence of measurement invariance by gender. Specifically, although the EFA results suggested a two-factor structure, in line with the theoretical framework and previous validations of the original instrument, a four-factor structure was accepted in the CFA. The differences between both analyses may be explained by the high correlations among the theoretical dimensions, which could lead to the merging of factors in EFA, whereas the CFA evaluates predefined structures based on theoretical assumptions. Although the correlated four-factor model provided the best latent representation, the acceptable fit of the hierarchical second-order model also supports the use of career sustainability as a global construct in explanatory analyses. This interpretation is consistent with the original conceptualization of the scale, where the four dimensions capture complementary aspects of a broader career sustainability construct (Chin et al., 2022). The pattern of concurrent associations matched the original work: career sustainability correlated positively with job autonomy and work engagement, and negatively with intention to quit, supporting the instrument’s use for research and organizational diagnostics in Spanish-speaking contexts.

Beyond psychometrics, the scale showed predictive value. Higher career sustainability relates to greater life satisfaction, better psychological health, and higher task performance, largely through psychological capital, consistent with evidence that hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism enable translation of career conditions into well-being and performance (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2007; Zyberaj et al., 2022). These results align with process views situating career sustainability at the intersection of agency, resources, and context (De Vos et al., 2020; Van Der Heijden et al., 2020). Social isolation selectively weakened the indirect pathway to psychological health, suggesting that limited interpersonal connections can erode emotional stability and reduce the benefits of sustainable careers even when psychological capital is high (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009; Campagne, 2019; Meese et al., 2024). In contrast, life satisfaction reflects broader life evaluation, and task performance depends more on internal resources like goal clarity and efficacy, which can buffer isolation effects (Rabenu et al., 2017). These findings are consistent with the person–context–time logic of sustainable careers—organized around health, happiness, and productivity—and extend evidence in Spanish-language settings. Given the cross-sectional design of both studies, effects are interpreted as associative rather than causal.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Theoretically, our results support career sustainability as an integrative, time-spanning standard organized around health, happiness, and productivity, with psychological capital operating as a proximal pathway and social isolation as a contextual constraint. Given the cross-sectional design, we interpret these links as associative rather than causal.

For career counselors, the findings suggest using the Spanish career sustainability scale to assess baseline strengths and track change, embedding brief PsyCap-focused exercises (e.g., goal mapping, mastery experiences, adaptive reappraisal), and addressing social isolation through structured mentoring and peer-support activities. Tailoring language and examples to Mexican workplaces and social networks may enhance engagement and fidelity.

For organizations, the evidence encourages light-touch job design that supports autonomy and continuous learning, formal and informal relational supports (e.g., communities of practice, buddy systems), and periodic career sustainability monitoring to align well-being and performance initiatives. Because many participants were early-career workers, scalable interventions that build personal resources and social connection may be especially relevant at career entry.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study offers relevant insights into the measurement and implications of career sustainability, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, both studies used cross-sectional designs, which prevent the establishment of causal relationships between the variables analyzed. It is always challenging to provide strong support for complex conditional process models with cross-sectional data and/or covariates to control for potential confounds (see Rohrer et al., 2022). Although mediation and moderation were tested using robust statistical procedures, longitudinal data are necessary to clarify directionality over time, running experiments to test the mediation and moderations claims, the inclusion of other covariates, and testing alternative models might be some of the recommendations to follow (Rohrer et al., 2022).

Second, the samples were based on convenience and may not reflect the full diversity of the Mexican workforce. Most of the participants were young, urban, and highly educated professionals. Study 2 was also male-skewed, and many respondents were early-career workers, which may narrow generalizability. As shown in the discussion, career experiences and responses to isolation may differ across age groups, occupational contexts, and educational levels. Future studies should examine whether these findings hold across broader population segments.

Third, all measures were based on self-reports, which may have been influenced by perceptual bias or social desirability. The lottery incentive in Study 1 can be also a potential source of biases. Including peer evaluations, supervisor ratings, and objective indicators of performance and well-being could improve measurement accuracy and provide a more comprehensive view of sustainable careers. Relatedly, the single-item turnover intention captures a focused facet and the psychological health scale showed comparatively lower alpha; future research could incorporate multi-item turnover intention and alternate health indicators to increase reliability and content coverage.

Fourth, the model included only one contextual moderator, namely, social isolation. Although its role was significant in the case of psychological health, other workplace conditions such as organizational climate, leadership style, and psychological safety may interact with individual resources in shaping outcomes. Future work might also examine structural features of social context (e.g., mentoring ties, network density, hybrid-work patterns) to specify when personal resources translate into health and performance. Future research could explore additional boundary conditions to refine our understanding of when and how career sustainability has a positive effect.

In addition, both the studies were conducted in Mexico. While this context provides valuable evidence from a region often overlooked in career research, further studies are needed to assess whether these patterns apply to other Latin American countries with different institutional, cultural, and labor market conditions. Cross-national extensions within Spanish-speaking countries and formal tests of measurement invariance across countries, sectors, and career stages would strengthen external validity. Comparative research can offer critical insights for designing regionally adapted policies for career development and talent management.

Finally, because this validation was conducted within a Mexican, Spanish-speaking context, cultural norms may shape how workers interpret well-being, continuity, and sustainable career functioning. Values tied to family responsibility, collectivism, and cautious mental-health communication may influence how individuals understand the career sustainability construct itself, suggesting that cultural interpretation should be addressed in future comparative research. Together, these limitations open new directions for research and underscore the importance of continuing to study career sustainability in diverse and underrepresented contexts.

Conclusion

This research advances the understanding of sustainable careers by validating a robust measurement tool and testing its relevance to well-being and performance in a Latin American context. The Career Sustainability Scale demonstrated solid psychometric properties and meaningful associations with key individual outcomes, reinforcing its theoretical and applied value. Evidence for a four-factor structure and gender invariance supports its use in Spanish-speaking samples.

Beyond measurement, the findings underscore the importance of psychological capital and contextual influence of social isolation. These results support the view that sustainable careers are shaped by both internal and external conditions within a person–context–time logic centered on health, happiness, and productivity. Given the cross-sectional design, effects are interpreted as associative rather than causal. Taken together, the validated instrument and the observed patterns offer a practical basis for assessment and intervention in Spanish-speaking workplaces and inform future longitudinal, multi-source studies aimed at promoting resilient and productive career paths.

Footnotes

Milton Paredes-Aguirre

Yarid Ayala

Aysegul Karaeminogullari

Jonathan Peñalver

Ethical Considerations

This research was approved by the ethics committees of the Universities (i.e., Valencian International University; reference #CEID2021_14).

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [Miltón Paredes-Aguirre], [Yarid Ayala], [Aysegul Karaeminogullari], and [Jonathan Peñalver González]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Miltón Paredes-Aguirre] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We also declare that this research received the following funding: Valencian International University (Reference #PII2021_09).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author, [YA]. The data are not publicly available due to [restrictions e.g. their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants].*

References

Agbanyo

G. K.

Shi

(2024). The moderating effect of management polychronicity and knowledge sharing on career sustainability in the work-from-anywhere new normal—from a social exchange theory perspective. Sustainability, 16(8), 3302. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083302

Akkermans

Kubasch

(2017). #Trending topics in careers: A review and future research agenda. Career Development International, 22(6), 586–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2017-0143

Allan

B. A.

Batz-Barbarich

Sterling

H. M.

Tay

(2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12406

Anseel

(2017). Agile learning strategies for sustainable careers: A review and integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior and reflection. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.001

Avey

J. B.

Reichard

R. J.

Luthans

Mhatre

K. H.

(2011). Meta‐analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20070

Ayala

Tordera

Karaeminogullari

Bayona

J. A.

(2025). As lonely as the moon? When and how health beliefs of COVID-19 affect mental health, life satisfaction and performance. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 28(2), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-05-2024-0093

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534

Bowling

N. A.

Eschleman

K. J.

Wang

(2010). A meta‐analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well‐being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X478557

Briscoe

J. P.

Hall

D. T.

Frautschy DeMuth

R. L.

(2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.003

10.

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

11.

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.

12.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Hawkley

L. C.

(2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005

13.

Campagne

D. M.

(2019). Stress and perceived social isolation (loneliness). Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 82, 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.02.007

14.

Cenciotti

Alessandri

Borgogni

(2017). Psychological capital and career success over time: The mediating role of job crafting. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(3), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816680558

15.

Cheng

Dong

Zhong

(2024). Promoting employee career growth: The benefits of sustainable human resource management. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 62(1), Article e12371. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12371

16.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

17.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Harrison

D. A.

(2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082

18.

Chin

Jawahar

I. M.

(2022). Development and validation of a career sustainability scale. Journal of Career Development, 49(4), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845321993234

19.

Christian

M. S.

Garza

A. S.

Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

20.

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2021). Job insecurity. In: De Cuyper

De Witte

(Eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.17

21.

De Vos

Van Der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

Akkermans

(2020). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, Article 103196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011

22.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

Griffin

(1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale.

23.

Domenighetti

(2014). Impatto sulla salute dell’insicurezza quanto al mantenimento del posto di lavoro. Ricerca & Pratica, 2014 Novembre-Dicembre, 30(6), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1707/1714.18704

24.

Donald

W. E.

Van Der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

Baruch

(2024). Introducing a sustainable career ecosystem: Theoretical perspectives, conceptualization, and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 151(1), Article 103989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103989

25.

Eldor

(2016). Work engagement: Toward a general theoretical enriching model. Human Resource Development Review, 15(3), 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316655666

26.

Ercan

Yazici

Sigirli

Ediz

Kan

(2007). Examining Cronbach Alpha, Theta, Omega Reliability Coefficients According to Sample Size. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177993560

27.

Fugate

Kinicki

A. J.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005

28.

Zhang

Xiong

Liu

Song

Liu

(2024). Pursuing a sustainable career: How strengths-based leadership develops career adaptability and compensates for protean career orientation. Career Development International, 29(6), 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2024-0044

29.

Gil-Monte

P. R.

(2016). The UNIPSICO questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the scales measuring psychosocial demands. Archivos de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, 19(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.12961/aprl.2016.19.02.2

30.

Goldberg

D. P.

Hillier

V. F.

(1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 9(1), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700021644

31.

Gracia

F. J.

Silla

Peiró

J. M.

Fortes-Ferreira

(2007). The state of the psychological contract and its relation to employees’ psychological health. Psychology in Spain, 11(1), 33–41.

32.

Grant

A. M.

Dutton

J. E.

Rosso

B. D.

(2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898–918. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.34789652

33.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Callanan

G. A.

Powell

G. N.

(2024). Advancing research on career sustainability. Journal of Career Development, 51(4), 478–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453241260871

34.

Grover

S. L.

Teo

S. T. T.

Pick

Roche

Newton

C. J.

(2018). Psychological capital as a personal resource in the JD-R model. Personnel Review, 47(4), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2016-0213

35.

Guadagnoli

Velicer

W. F.

(1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265

36.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

37.

Hasin

Hussain

W. S.

Nordin

Jamil

Johari

Y. C.

(2023). The impact of workload, management factors, and job insecurity on employee well-being: A review of recent research. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(4), 1002–1011. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i4/16703

38.

Hayes

A. F.

Coutts

J. J.

(2020). Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629

39.

Hayes

A. F.

Little

T. D.

(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (Third edition). The Guilford Press.

40.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

41.

Inanc

Kalleberg

A. L.

(2022). Institutions, labor market insecurity, and well-being in Europe. Social Sciences, 11(6), 245. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11060245

42.

International Labour Organization . (2024). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2025 in figures. https://www.ilo.org/resource/other/world-employment-and-social-outlook-trends-2025-figures?utm

43.

Jackson

P. R.

Wall

T. D.

Martin

Davids

(1993). New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 753–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.753

44.

Jambrak

Deane

F. P.

Williams

(2014). Value motivations predict burnout and intentions to leave among mental health professionals. Journal of Mental Health, 23(3), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2013.869576

45.

Khubchandani

Price

J. H.

(2017). Association of job insecurity with health risk factors and poorer health in American workers. Journal of Community Health, 42(2), 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-016-0249-8

46.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

47.

Kong

Tsai

C.-H.

Tsai

F.-S.

Huang

De La Cruz

S. M.

(2018). Psychological capital research: A meta-analysis and implications for management sustainability. Sustainability, 10(10), 3457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103457

48.

Kubicek

Paškvan

Bunner

(2017). The bright and dark sides of job autonomy. In: Korunka

Kubicek

(Eds.), Job demands in a changing world of work (pp. 45–63). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54678-0_4

49.

Lee

Seo

(2024). The relationships between objective socioeconomic status, economic hardship, subjective socioeconomic status, and career outcome expectations: Examining the mediating effects of career decision-making learning experiences and career decision-making self-efficacy. The Korean Career, Entrepreneurship & Business Association, 8(5), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.48206/kceba.2024.8.5.115

50.

Leite

Morais

Calisto

Rocha

Vasques

Lagoa

Pires

Morais

Costa

Rocha

Bento

(2022). Impacto do Isolamento Social na Saúde Mental de Trabalhadores num Instituto de Oncologia durante a Pandemia COVID-19. Revista Portuguesa de Saúde Ocupacional, 14, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.31252/RPSO.17.09.2022

51.

Lesener

Gusy

Wolter

(2019). The job demands-resources model: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 33(1), 76–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065

52.

Lloret-Segura

Ferreres-Traver

Hernández-Baeza

Tomás-Marco

(2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361

53.

Luthans

Avolio

B. J.

Avey

J. B.

Norman

S. M.

(2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

54.

Magnano

Santisi

Zammitti

Zarbo

Di Nuovo

(2019). Self-perceived employability and meaningful work: The mediating role of courage on quality of life. Sustainability, 11(3), 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030764

55.

Mar-Molinero

(2004). Spanish as a world language: Language and identity in a global era. Spanish in Context, 1(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.1.1.03mar

56.

Matthews

R. A.

Pineault

Hong

Y.-H.

(2022). Normalizing the use of single-item measures: Validation of the single-item compendium for organizational psychology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(4), 639–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09813-3

57.

Maurizio

Monsalvo

A. P.

UNU-WIDER . (2021). Informality, labour transitions, and the livelihoods of workers in Latin America (19th ed., Vol. 2021). Author. https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2021/953-2

58.

Meese

K. A.

Boitet

L. M.

Sweeney

K. L.

Rogers

D. A.

(2024). Perceived stress from social isolation or loneliness among clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers during COVID-19. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 1010. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18363-7

59.

Milfont

Fischer

(2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857

60.

Mizera-Pęczek

Krasnova

Sasin

Sieczych-Kukawska

(2024). Dual careers as sustainable careers for performing artists in times of crisis. A contextual approach to the construct of a sustainable arts career. PLOS ONE, 19(12), e0314933. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314933

61.

Müller

Scheffer

Macke

Vaclavik

M. C.

(2022). Towards career sustainability: A systematic review to guide future research. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, 19(4), Article e220108. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2022220108

62.

Nakra

Kashyap

Arora

(2024). Interactive effects of sustainable HRM, career adaptability and career sustainability on employee well-being. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 46(8), 1706–1722. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2024-0021

63.

Newman

Ucbasaran

Zhu

Hirst

(2014). Psychological capital: A review and synthesis: Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S120–S138. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1916

64.

Núñez-Méndez

(2022). Variation in Spanish/s/: Overview and new perspectives. Languages, 7(2), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020077

65.

OECD . (2023). OECD employment outlook 2023: Artificial intelligence and the labour market. Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/08785bba-en

66.

Özcelik

Barsade

S. G.

(2018). No employee an Island: Workplace loneliness and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2343–2366. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1066

67.

Paredes-Aguirre

Campoverde Aguirre

Hernández-Pozas

Ayala

Barriga Medina

(2024). The digital self-efficacy scale: Adaptation and validation of its Spanish version. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3952946

68.

Pelly

(2023). Worker well-being and quit intentions: Is measuring job satisfaction enough? Social Indicators Research, 169(1-2), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03166-x

69.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

70.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

71.

Rabenu

Yaniv

Elizur

(2017). The relationship between psychological capital, coping with stress, well-being, and performance. Current Psychology, 36(4), 875–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9477-4

72.

Rohrer

J. M.

Hünermund

Arslan

R. C.

Elson

(2022). That’s a Lot to process! pitfalls of popular path models. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(2), 25152459221095827. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221095827

73.

Rosso

B. D.

Dekas

K. H.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

74.

Russell

Peplau

L. A.

Cutrona

C. E.

(1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472

75.

Russo

Zammitti

Zarbo

Magnano

Santisi

(2025). The sustainable career scale (SCS): Development, validity, reliability and invariance. Journal of Global Responsibility, 17(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-07-2024-0127

76.

Sasaki

Kuroda

Tsuno

Imamura

Eguchi

Shimazu

Kawakami

(2024). Loneliness without distress, chosen isolation (solitude) at the workplace, and mental health and job performance: A cross-sectional study of Japanese employees. Industrial Health, 62(4), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2023-0181

77.

Savickas

M. L.

Porfeli

E. J.

(2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011

78.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

79.

Schlomer

G. L.

Bauman

Card

N. A.

(2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018082

80.

Schreuders

Carita

Van Aswegen

(2023). Towards a dynamic conceptual model for understanding the impact of social isolation on SIE women’s adjustment and career development. Career Development International, 28(4), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-06-2022-0148

81.

Schweitzer

Lyons

Smith

C. J.

(2023). Career sustainability: Framing the past to adapt in the present for a sustainable future. Sustainability, 15(15), Article 11800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511800

82.

The Guardian . (2024). In the age of the broken ‘career ladder’, here’s how to zigzag towards the job you want. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/03/career-ladder-job-work-young-people-role

83.

The Jamovi Project . (2025). Jamovi. (Version 2.7.9) [Computer software]. https://www.jamovi.org

84.

Treglown

Zivkov

Zarola

Furnham

(2018). Intention to quit and the role of dark personality and perceived organizational support: A moderation and mediation model. PLoS One, 13(3), Article e0195155. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195155

85.

Udayar

Toscanelli

Massoudi

(2025). Sustainable career trajectories in Switzerland: The role of psychological resources and sociodemographic characteristics. Journal of Career Assessment, 33(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727241234929

86.

Udrea

Semenescu

(2024). Exploring the interconnections between professional engagement, job satisfaction, and research performance: Sustainable education and approaches for sustainability in academic career management. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.0041.v1

87.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division . (2025). Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. In: The sustainable development goals report 2025. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/Goal-08/

88.

United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean . (2025). Panorama Social de América Latina y el Caribe 2024: Desafíos de la protección social no contributiva para avanzar hacia el desarrollo social inclusivo. United Nations.

89.

Van Der Heijden

De Vos

Akkermans

Spurk

Semeijn

Van Der Velde

Fugate

(2020). Sustainable careers across the lifespan: Moving the field forward. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, Article 103344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103344

90.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305

91.

(2022). The dynamics of career sustainability: A latent transition analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2022(1), Article 10904. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.191

92.

Yang

Holtz

Jaffe

Suri

Sinha

Weston

Joyce

Shah

Sherman

Hecht

Teevan

(2021). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4

93.

Youssef‐Morgan

C. M.

Luthans

(2015). Psychological capital and well‐being. Stress and Health, 31(3), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2623

94.

Zhafira

Widodo

(2024). Job insecurity research trend and future research direction: A bibliometric analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on psychological studies, ICPSYCHE 2024, Semarang, Indonesia, 24–25 July 2024, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.24-7-2024.2354287

95.

Zyberaj

Seibel

Schowalter

A. F.

Pötz

Richter-Killenberg

Volmer

(2022). Developing sustainable careers during a pandemic: The role of psychological capital and career adaptability. Sustainability, 14(5), 3105. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053105