Scribd
Upload
54 views

Development of A Measure of Workplace Deviance

This study developed measures of two types of workplace deviance: organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. Through three studies, the researchers generated items, refined the measures, and validated the scales. They developed a 12-item organizational deviance scale and 7-item interpersonal deviance scale. These scales demonstrated good reliability and validity evidence including construct validity through relationships with other relevant measures. Some limitations were the response rate for one study and reliance on self-report data. The scales provide a way to measure broadly applicable forms of deviant workplace behavior.

Uploaded by

drassi
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views

Development of A Measure of Workplace Deviance

This study developed measures of two types of workplace deviance: organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. Through three studies, the researchers generated items, refined the measures, and validated the scales. They developed a 12-item organizational deviance scale and 7-item interpersonal deviance scale. These scales demonstrated good reliability and validity evidence including construct validity through relationships with other relevant measures. Some limitations were the response rate for one study and reliance on self-report data. The scales provide a way to measure broadly applicable forms of deviant workplace behavior.

Uploaded by

drassi
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance

Rebecca J. Bennett Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, Vol. 85, No. 3, 349-360

Introduction
The purpose of this research was to develop broad, theoretically derived measure(s) of deviant behavior in the workplace. Two scales were developed: 12-item ( organizational deviance ) 7-item ( interpersonal deviance) These scales were found to have internal reliabilities of 0.81 and 0.78
2

Workplace Deviance Behavior (WDB)


Robinson Bennett(1995)

Workplace deviance is a pervasive and expensive problem for organizations.

Robinson & Bennett(2000) -Organizational deviance( ex: -Interpersonal deviance( ex:

) )

(OLeary-Kelly, Griffin & Glew, 1996;Robinson & Bennett, 1995) Harper(1990) (Gruber,

1990) (Lehman, Holcom & Simpson, 1990) (Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, 1993) (Bensimon, 1994) 1200 (Buss,1993) 42

Final Interpersonal and Organizational Deviance Scale Items


Organizational Deviance
1. 2. 3. Taken property from work without permission Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business expenses Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace Come in late to work without permission Littered your work environment Neglected to follow your boss's instructions Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job Put little effort into your work Dragged out work in order to get overtime

Interpersonal Deviance
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Made fun of someone at work Said something hurtful to someone at work Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark at work Cursed at someone at work Played a mean prank on someone at work Acted rudely toward someone at work Publicly embarrassed someone at work

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Present Study
Study1:Instrument Development -Phase1:Item Generation -Phase2:Item Review Study2:Instrument Refinement -Phase1:Item Slection Process -Phase2:Preliminary Factor Analysis Study3:Instrument Validation -Phase1:Dimensionality -Phase1:Convergent and Discriminant Validity
7

Study1:Instrument Development
Phase1: Item Generation
Respondents
Soruce University office Technical staff office neighborhood MBA

10

15

15

-45 unique behaviors were generated in this manner 62 upper-level undergraduate students -45 unique behaviors were generated The researchers generated 68 items - eliminating 113 examples of deviant behaviors in organizations remained.
8

Study1:Instrument Development
Phase2:Item Review The 113 items were reviewed by nine judges with different but related areas of expertise Judges used a 7-point Likert scale to rate the behaviors on each of these criteria. Items that received a mean score of 3.0 or less on any of the rating dimensions were either rewritten or eliminated. 58 items survived
9

Study2:Instrument Refinement
Phase1: Item Selection Process Respondents (no names or code numbers )
Source Full-time employee MBA

126

100

items with variances below 1.5 were eliminated. removal of 30 items leaving us with 28 items.

10

Study2:Instrument Refinement
Phase2: Preliminary Factor Analysis
In order to ensure that each item represented the construct underlying each factor, we used a factor weight of .40 as the minimum cutoff. Second, we required each item to be clearly defined by only one factor and, thus, maintained that the difference between weights for any given item was more than .10 across factors. 24 items remained

From these results, we developed two scales:


Organizational Deviance
16items

Interpersonal Deviance
8items
11

0.11

0.05

0.02

0.09

12

13

Study3:Instrument Validation
24 7
542 surveys were returned; 190 of these were returned uncompleted by potential respondents who were not currently employed full time. In summary, 352 completed, usable surveys were obtained (a response rate of 43%).

14

Study3:Instrument Validation
Phase1: Dimensionality
(LISREL)
-normed fit index (NFI; Bentler & Bonnet,1980) -goodness of fit index (GFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986) -comparative fit index (CFI, Bentler, 1990)

15

Study3:Instrument Validation
12 7

Organizational Deviance scale

Interpersonal Deviance scale

Cronbach's

0.81

0.78

The correlation between these two scales was moderate (r2 =.46, p < .01). This suggests that the two types of workplace deviance are distinct but related.
16

Study3:Instrument Validation
The construct-validation approach used consisted of several stages: (a) demonstrating dimensionality and internal consistency (b) demonstrating convergent validity by showing high correlations with alternative measures of similar constructs (c) demonstrating discriminant validity by showing not-too-high correlations with unrelated constructs
17

18

Study3:Instrument Validation
Phase2: Convergent and Discriminant Validity
A measure has convergent validity to the extent that it covaries with other measures purported to measure the same or similar constructs . Evidence for convergent validity would be demonstrated if scores on these scales were relatively highly correlated with scores on our scales of workplace deviance. Conversely, we would expect scores on the Organizational Deviance Scale, compared with scores on the Interpersonal Deviance Scale, to be more strongly related to scores on the Production Deviance Scale Provide evidence of discriminant validity
19

Discussion
Evidence for the construct validity of our instrument was also found by assessing the relationships between our deviance scales and other measures purported to assess similar constructs. Our instrument was found to have moderate relationships with measures of theoretically relevant constructs. These scales also showed discriminant validity, as they were not highly correlated with measures of unrelated constructs such as exit, voice, and loyalty.
20

Discussion
Limitation One possible limitation of this study is that our response rate was only 43% in Study 3. A second noteworthy limitation is that our study was based entirely on self-report. A further limitation of the resulting scales is that they do not include all possible types of deviant behavior. Final limitation, because we have attempted to create a scale that is widely applicable to a range of organizational contexts and occupations, the scale produced here includes only those behaviors commonly found across such contexts.
21

The End

22

You might also like