Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public Organization

Sait Grbz* brahim Sani Mert*

Abstract: This study involves the adaptation of the Organizational Justice Scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) to Turkey, and the findings of the reliability, and validity tests. The survey was conducted with a sample of 254 employees working in various departments of a public organization in Erzurum, Turkey. The results of the reliability and validity analysis revealed that the scale was a valid and reliable device and that its factor structure generally fits the original factor structure. The overall coefficient of the instrument was found to be 0.905. The factor analysis revealed that though the factor structure was explained by three factors as in the original, six items were loaded on different components. As a result, it has been concluded that the scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) is a reliable and valid instrument that can be used in measuring the perception of organizational justice in Turkey. Key Words: Organizational justice, validity and reliability testing, scale adaptation.

Ph.D., General Staff Personnel Department

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3 September 2009, p. 117-139.

118

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

INTRODUCTION

Organizational justice first came onto the agenda with Equity Theory, which was proposed by Adams in 1960. It basically deals with the equity/justice perceived by employees in an organizational environment. The studies of organizational justice that have been conducted in organizational behavior and human resources literature for the last two decades show the relative impacts of this concept on organizational life. These studies revealed that organizational justice perception affects a number of organizational variables, such as job satisfaction (Warner et al., 2005), trust in the supervisor (Tyler - Lind, 1992), organizational citizenship behavior (Grbz, 2007), organizational commitment (Martin Bennett, 1996), absenteeism (DeBoer et al., 2002), turnover intention (Aquino Hom, 1997) and employee theft (Greenberg, 1993). However, some researchers concerns about the adequacy of the existing scales for measuring organizational justice perception (Greenberg, 1993; Cropanzano - Greenberg, 1997) lead to questioning the validity of organizational justice scales that are used after being translated from foreign literature. Therefore, the validity and reliability of the scales employed in the studies on organizational justice assume great importance. The lack of consensus on the dimensions of organizational justice among researchers in the literature caused an increase in the diversity of scales developed for measuring perceived organizational justice. There are mainly three different scales developed by three different researchers, which are widely used in the literature. The first scale was developed by Donovan et al (1998). The reliability and validity testing of the scale in Turkish context, which was developed to assess individuals perceived justice in their workplace relationships or interpersonal interactions, was conducted by Wasti (2001). Wasti (2001) conducted the reliability and validity testing of the scale over two different groups of samples, the first of which comprising only female workers and the second sample both female and male employees. At the end of both analyses, the scale was found to be satisfactory in terms of factor structure and internal consistency (Wasti, 2001: 41-47). Colquitt (2001) developed another scale for measuring organizational justice perception. Colquitts scale assesses organizational justice in four dimensions (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational). The scale employed by zmen et al. (2007) in a survey conducted in a public institution was found that it had three-factor structure (distributive, procedural and interactional). Lastly, the scale, which was developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) and whose validity and reliability testing was conducted by present study, is another scale frequently used in the study of organizational justice. In fact, this scale

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

119

was formed by adding the dimension of interaction justice to Moormans (1991) scale consisting of procedural justice and distributive justice (Niehoff - Moorman, 1993: 541). The scale was used by Grpnar and Yahyagil (2007) in a survey conducted among employees (N=65) of a business enterprise in the communications sector. This scale was also used in another survey conducted with blue- and white-collar employees (N=280) working in the textile sector (Yldrm, 2007). Polat and Celep (2008) also preferred Niehoff and Moormans (1993) scale in their survey conducted with secondary education teachers (N=721). Taking the above-mentioned views and evaluations as the starting point, this study aims to conduct validity and reliability testing of the organizational justice scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) for assessing employees o rganizational justice perceptions. The reason for choosing the scale as the subject of the study is its wide usage in both the literature and in the studies of organizational justice in countries with different work cultures (e.g. Moorman et al., 1993, ABD; Kang, 2007, Kore; Fernandes - Awamleh, 2006, United Arab Emirates; Ramamoorthy - Flood, 2004, Ireland). Hence, this study, which aims to explore to what extent the mentioned scale is applicable in Turkey, being high on power distance and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1984; Grbz - Bingl, 2007), in terms of validity and reliability, is expected to highly contribute to the literature. The survey was conducted in a public institution responsible for national security located in Erzurum. It is known that organizational justice is mostly associated with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). In a survey conducted with the employees of a public institution, it was found that the employees displayed high levels of OCB (4.19 out of 5) (Grbz, 2007: 199). On the basis of this finding, a public sample was preferred for testing the validity and reliability of the organizational justice scale. Easy access to sampling (convenience sampling) was the major factor in choosing a public organization responsible for national security.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE

In general, organizational justice can be defined as employees perception of justice concerning various practices and activities of the organization (Greenberg, 1996: 24). According to Taylor, organizational justice refers to employees perceptions of fairness of the distribution of justice and distribution of outcomes (reward, wages, etc.) by decision-makers (Masterson et al., 2000). Organizational justice appears in various processes of the work environment. Among these processes are organizational activities and programs, pay, reward or promotion opportunities, and interpersonal interaction.

120

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Though in the literature, studies on organizational justice mostly intensify on distributive, procedural and interactional justice, other different dimensions of organizational justice have been proposed too. In this context, Greenbergs classification of organizational justice is worth mentioning. Greenberg (1993) made a classification of organizational justice taking social and structural determinants of distributive and procedural justice as the starting point. According to Greenberg (1987), individuals make use of two intermediary determinants: social determinants and structural determinants. Structural determinants are based on the perceived justice of allocation of resources and procedures conducted under organizational practices, such as, performance assessment, waging and the settlement of managerial conflicts. Social determinants focus on individuals behavior. Therefore, while structural determinants are the rules and environmental context that impact decision making structural determinants, social determinants are concerned with relationships which exist between individuals. While Greenberg divided distributive justice into interpersonal and configural as to social and structural determinants, he proposed two sub-divisions for procedural justice as informational and systemic justice (Greenberg, 1987: 9-22). Colquitt (2001: 386-400) suggests four sub-dimensions for organizational justice: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice. In the literature, there is a dispute on whether interactional justice is a separate concept or, it comprises the social aspect of procedural justice. While some research (Tyler - Blader, 2000) has viewed interactional justice as a sub-component of procedural justice, others (Bies, 2001) have argued that it is a separate type of justice. As can be seen, in the literature, there is no consensus on the types of organizational justice. The studies focus on distributive and procedural dimensions of justice, whereas there is serious debate on interactional justice. Distributive Justice The studies conducted on distributive justice in organizations have focused on employees perceptions of fairness of organizational outcomes. Distributive justice refers to employees perceptions of fairness of outcome distributions (wage, reward, promotion, etc.) (Folger - Cropanzano, 1998: 25). Cohen defines distributive justice as the allocation of resources among individuals, whose proportional shares are determined as to the specific functional rules and provisions under certain standards (Cohen, 1987:20). Interpersonal acquisitions such as tasks, goods, wages, promotions, opportunities, rewards and punishment constitute the subject of distributive justice. Distributive justice, which refers to individuals perceptions of fairness of the distribution of outcomes, gives an idea about whether the individuals acquisitions are fair, appropriate and ethical (Folger - Cropanzano, 1998).

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

121

Individuals may perceive their outcomes (income, premium, promotion, social rights, etc.) as fair or unfair. They compare their outcomes with those of others. As a result of their comparison they may believe that they are treated unfairly. This belief influences their attitude that is predisposition behaviour, and then, their behavior may change towards the direction of their attitude. What is essential in distributive justice is that individuals should believe that they receive an equal share of the distributed resources. Distributive justice has three important principles (Organ, 1988: 64): equity, equality and need; The Principle of Equity: It means that one's rewards should be equal to one's contributions. In other words, if an employee works overtime and applies more effort, he/she deserves to make more money compared to part-time employees (all else equal). Hence, the supervisors equal pa yment both to the employee working overtime and the part-time employee is against the principle of equity. The Principle of Equality: Under this principle, all employees should be given equal opportunities for access to rewards, regardless of their individual characteristics (race, gender etc.). As an example, lets assume that there are two vacant positions in the foreman position of a business enterprise and the human resources (HR) supervisor responsible for personnel selection interviews two female and two male employees having equal competence ratings in order to fill these positions. At the end of the interview process, if the HR supervisor makes his choice in favor of two male employees for gender discriminative reasons, though their competence and other qualifications are the same, the two female candidates will think the supervisor has violated the principle of equal allocation. The Principle of Need: It means that resources should be allocated according to the employees need. In other words, employees, whose economic status is worse than others should be paid more salary. For instance, a female employee with two children should be paid more compared to a single female employee (all else equal). Otherwise, the employee with two children will think the organization has violated the principle of need in the distribution of justice. While initial studies of distributive justice were mostly conducted in the field of sociology and psychology on the basis of Adams (1965), Blau (1964) and Homanss (1961) approaches, subsequent studies focused on the effects of e mployees negative perceptions of distributive justice on job perfor mance and attitude toward their job (Cohen, 1987). Folger and Cropanzano (1998) found that employees perceptions of unfairness have a negative impact on their job performance and quality of the job and that their OCB is replaced by nervous behavior.

122

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Procedural Justice Organizational justice researchers have conceptualized justice perceived from procedures and policies used in decision-making in the work environment as procedural justice (Greenberg, 1990: 399-432). In other words, such perceptions are related to the fairness of methods, policies and procedures employed in decision-making rather than the fairness of outcomes. According to Greenberg (1990: 402), these are perceptions relating to methods and policies. On the other hand, Konovsky (2000: 492) stated that procedural justice refers to how decisions for the distribution of outcomes are made: It is also related to subjective and objective situations. Greenberg theorized that one of the two central factors within interactional justice is a class of procedural justice called informational justice. The other major class of procedural justice under Greenbergs framework is systemic ju stice. The said types of justice, which Greenberg suggested as sub-dimensions of procedural justice, have been analyzed as interactional justice by other researchers. Informational justice is the social side of procedural justice. Informational justice focuses on the explanations provided to people about the procedures that concern them (Greenberg, 1993). The said dimension of justice, which is called formal procedures by Thibaut and Walker (1975: 34), gives employees a voice in the decision process. Bies and Shapiro (1987) found that when a supervisor provides an explanation related to the refusal of an employee's request, the recipient feels less disapproval toward the supervisor and perceives greater fairness of the decision-making process than when no explanation is given. Therefore, the rejection of employees requests and suggestions can be perceived as a fair process, if a reasonable explanation or information is given (Shapiro - Buttner, 1988). Additionally, in another study, it was found that feedback given in the form of performance appraisal scores are perceived by employees to be fairer than non-explanation or non-submittance of performance appraisal (Greenberg, 1991: 51-60). Systemic justice refers to procedural justice by structural means (Greenberg, 1993). This dimension deals with decision-makers means of implementing policies and practices used in the decision-making process. Systemic justice refers to ensuring procedural justice using structural methods. As procedural justice refers to the employees perception of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources, this type of justice is closely related with the procedures pursued by supervisors and leaders. Accordingly, a study has clearly revealed that procedural justice is in a stronger relationship with trust in management compared to distributive justice (Ylmaz, 2004: 20; Grbz, 2007). Valuing employees opinions and suggestions during various organizational processes and decisions is an important aspect of leaders

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

123

justice. Hence, leaders not only get help from their subordinates, but they also show that they value their opinions and their voice is heard (Tyler, 1987: 333344 ). Therefore, procedural justice is rather related to perceived leadership justice. Studies reveal that if subordinates opinions and suggestions are not sought and considered, employees perceive the decision-making process as unfair (Bos et al., 1998: 1449-1458). Leventhal proposed six procedural justice rules for supervisors to ensure that procedures are perceived by employees as fair (Leventhal, 1980: 42-48): Employees should be involved in the decision-making process that will affect them. Opportunities must exist to modify or reverse decisions made throughout the allocative process. The allocative process must be based on as much good information and opinion as possible. Allocative procedures should be consistent across persons and stable over time. Self-interest and bias should be prevented throughout the allocative process. Procedures must be compatible with fundamental moral and ethical values of the individuals involved and the work environment. The existence of these rules favorably affects the individuals perceptions of justice. Leventhal (1980) argued that along with these rules, ensuring procedural justice is a prerequisite for distributive justice. Voice is one of the strongest mechanisms of procedural justice. Giving voice to those affected by decisions means their contribution to the decision-making process (Folger, 1977: 108). It is a fact that individuals perception of justice on decisions and outcomes is high, when they are given the opportunity to voice their preferences and opinions during the decision-making process. Likewise, involving employees in the procedure formation process is a sign of care and respect felt for them (Tyler - Lind 1992). Lind et al. (1990: 952-959) found that encouraging employee opinions and suggestions in the decision-making process (albeit non-instrumental), is regarded as a right to have a voice by employees (Lind et al., 1990: 952-959). Moreover, a meta analysis found that instrumental (opinions and suggestions affecting the decision) and non-instrumental (opinions and suggestions not affecting the decision) voice is a determinant of employees job satisfaction and performance (Korsgaard - Roberson, 1995).

Interactional Justice

124

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Interactional justice refers to the perception of the quality of treatment an employee receives when policies and procedures are implemented in the workplace (Bies - Moag, 1986, 43-55). Interactional justice refers to the supervisors or decision-makers means of explaining and implementing their procedures. It describes the interaction between recipients that are affected by decisions and the allocators of distribution. Bies (2001: 93) defines interactional justice as the quality of interpersonal treatment employees experience when procedures are enacted. According to Barling and Michelle (1993), interactional justice is the perceptions of justice relating to the explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion. Individuals working in organizations expect supervisors to extend equal treatment to all members. They seek fair interaction with the organization. Supervisors or allocators, who treat some with respect and other with disrespect, are not perceived as fair. Therefore, justice is built as a result of supervisors treatment towards their subordinates with respect and dignity (Folger-Bies, 1989: 79-90). Interaction justice is comprised of two sub-dimensions: interpersonal and informational justice (Greenberg, 1993). Interpersonal justice deals with the extent to which employees are treated with respect, politeness, and dignity by their supervisors (Folger - Bies, 1989). Verbal and passive forms of aggression, such as yelling, bullying, and humiliation have a negative impact on subordinates perceived justice, (Tepper, 2000). Interpersonal justice is the social side of distributive justice. The treatment of employees with dignity, respect and sincerity affects employees perceptions of interaction justice (Greenberg, 1993). Studies reveal that individuals consider the treatment they receive as an antecedent of their perceived justice (Tyler, 1988). Employees perception of supervisors behavior as fair during interpersonal interaction emerges as interactional justice. It is known that supervisors equal, polite and consistent treatment is one of the antecedents of the subordinates OCB (Moorman, 1991: 845). Outcomes of Organizational Justice Employees give various favorable or unfavorable reactions according to the outcomes of organizational justice, which they perceive in the work environment as suggested by Adamss Equity Theory. Individuals display favorable behavior (collaborative), when they receive an input (equal pay) for their benefit (Organ, 1988). Employees, who perceive fairness in the organizational environment, are not willing to display behavior outside their job description, while those perceiving tend to perform behavior like OCB (Schnake, 1991). Therefore, employees perceived organizational justice increases their job satisfaction (Folger and Konovsky, 1989), enhances their organizational commitment

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

125

(Sweeney -McFarlin, 1992) and increases their trust in their supervisors (Tyler Lind,1988). Besides, they tend to display extra-role behavior, such as OCB (Moorman, 1991; Grbz, 2007). On the other hand, perceived injustice or i nequality of employees may result in aggressive behavior and anti-citizenship behavior or organizational retaliation behavior (Scarlicki - Folger, 1997), such as resigning (Aquino - Hom, 1997), employee theft (Greenberg, 1993) and absenteeism (DeBoer et., 2002).
METHOD

Sample The randomly selected sample of the survey consisted of 270 employees (middle-level supervisors, lower-level supervisors) serving in the Erzurum region of a public institution responsible for national security. The survey was conducted in the August-September 2007 period. Questionnaire forms were distributed randomly to employees of the surveyed public institution in groups. All questionnaire forms were collected after they were completed by the chosen random sample of respondents. However, only 254 questionnaire forms (94%) were considered after incomplete forms or those flippantly filled in were eliminated. Demographic characteristics of respondents are given in Table1. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Variables (N=254)
Variable Group 27 and under 28-39 years 40 and above High school and below Associate degree Bachelors degree Masters degree Doctorate Middle-level supervisors Lower-level supervisor Clerk Number 58 160 36 70 44 96 30 14 98 116 40 Percentage (%) 22.8 63 14.2 27.6 17.3 37.8 11.8 5.5 38.6 45.7 15.7

Age

Education

Status

As can be seen in Table 1, 63% of respondents were in the middle-age group and the majority had completed higher education (only 27.6% had completed high school and primary education). The analysis for respondent status showed that the majority of respondents occupy managerial positions. In respect of their characteristics, the majority of respondents were middle-aged with higher education and, were employed in managerial positions in general.

126

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Measurement Tool and Its Adaptation to Turkish The questionnaire, which was used as a data gathering tool in the research, consisted of two sections. The first section included demographic expressions designed to collect the demographic characteristics of respondents. The second section contained an organizational justice scale comprising of the subdimensions of procedural justice, interactional justice and distributive justice. The items included in the second section were presented using a five-point Likert scale. The original form of the procedural justice sub-dimension of the original organizational justice scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993: 541) consists of six items, while the interactional justice and distributive justice dimensions are composed of nine items and five items, respectively. In the process of wording and translating the original scale into Turkish, the ranking of these dimensions and items were preserved. In the process of adapting the scale to Turkish, the Cross-Cultural Research Method based on a model described by Bristlin et al. (1973) was used, which consisted of five steps: 1) forward translation, 2) assessment of forward translation, 3) backward translation, 4) assessment of backward translation, and 5) local meeting with professionals. In the framework of this method, the process of adapting the scale consisting of a total of 20 items, whose validity and reliability would be studied was realized as follows: Initially, the scale was translated into Turkish by the authors of present article. Then, this scale was assessed by an experienced lecturer in one of the leading universities in Turkey, who conducts research on subjects such as organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment and some of the English words in the scale were rendered appropriate to the work environment. Assessment of forward translations was performed by a team consisting of two academicians with a good command of organizational culture of both the researchers of this study and the institution, where the survey was conducted. This team reviewed each item on the scale and adapted it to the relevant institution. The agreed translation was then re-translated into English without changing the original ranking of items in the scale in order to avoid any loss of meaning. Following these studies, pilot testing of the final Turkish version of the scale was applied to a group of 35 employees working in the relevant institution. In the pilot survey, whether the items were accurately perceived by the subjects were checked via interviews with the subjects under the supervision of the researchers of this study in person and minor changes were made in some of the items in view of the structure specific to the institution. At the end of the pilot survey, the internal consistency of the measurement scale was tested via Cronbachs alpha coefficient and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was obtained as 0,905.
FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

127

Reliability Analysis Reliability is one of the prerequisites for a measurement tool. Reliability refers to a condition where a measurement process yields consistent scores over repeat measurements. Different methods are employed in determining the reliability of scales. Among them, the most widely method is the alpha coefficient, which was developed by Cronbach (1951). It takes the standard deviation of a weighted average calculated by proportioning the sum of item variances to general variance, as the basis. In this respect, Cronbachs Alpha coefficient assumes importance with respect to estimating internal consistency of items included in the scale and thus determining whether the scale has a homogeneous structure or not. The reliability analyses related to the organizational justice scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) were realized in two stages. First, all items of the scale were entered into reliability analysis. Then, the reliability tests for each of three sub-dimensions comprising the organizational justice scale were conducted and the direction and degrees of the relationships between the dimensions were examined. The result of reliability analysis for the overall scale is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Reliability Analysis for Organizational Justice Scale
Items PRCDRJUST1 PRCDRJUST2 PRCDRJUST3 PRCDRJUST4 PRCDRJUST5 PRCDRJUST6 INTRCJUST1 INTRCJUST2 INTRCJUST3 INTRCJUST4 INTRCJUST5 INTRCJUST6 INTRCJUST7 INTRCJUST8 INTRCJUST9 DSTBTJUST1 DSTBTJUST2 DSTBTJUST3 Scale variance if item deleted 56.02 55.6 55.6 55.61 55.87 56,31 55.94 56.28 56.01 55.83 55,76 55.89 55.69 56.35 56.70 56.79 56.25 56.05 Corrected Item Total Correlation .604 .704 .776 .754 .723 .549 .752 .765 .775 .765 .723 .745 .,499 .619 .329 .519 .483 .571 Cronbach's Alpha if item deleted .932 .931 .929 .930 .930 .933 .930 .929 .929 .29 .930 .929 .934 .932 ..39 ..34 .934 .933

128

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

DSTBTJUST4 56.92 .464 .934 DSTBTJUST5 56.65 .579 .933 Overall reliability coefficient of the scale (Cronbach's Alpha =0,905, number of items:20)

As seen in Table 2, the significance level of the item-total correlation values and reliability coefficients of all items comprising the organizational justice scale were high. The item-total correlation coefficients of items ranging from 0.329 to 0.776 indicate a middle and high level of relationship between items. It can be said in view of the scales high level of general reliability coefficient (Cronbach's Alpha =0.905) that inter consistency of the scale is at a satisfactory level. Considering the fact that in social sciences, the reliability coefficients 0.70 and are generally deemed satisfactory, the reliability coefficient of the measurement tool was considerably high. Reliability coefficients of sub-dimensions (procedural justice, procedural justice and distributive justice) consisting organizational justice and some descriptive statistical information are provided in Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, the reliability coefficients of the sub-dimensions were above 0.70. However, though the reliability coefficient of distributive justice seems to be lower (0.748) than other sub-dimensions, Table 2 shows that even though the items related to the said sub-dimension are deleted from the scale, the general reliability coefficient of the measurement scale would not change much. Table 3. Reliability Coefficients of the Sub-Dimensions and Descriptive Statistical Information Related to the Dimensions
Sub-Dimensions Procedural justice Interactional justice Distributive justice Overall Scale Number of Items 6 9 5 20 Reliability Coefficient .851 .941 .748 .905 Mean 3.161 3.372 2.439 2.990 Standard Deviation .058 .037 .136 .156

Besides, means and standard deviation values presented in Table 3 give a general idea about the consensus on the level and averages of respondents pe rceptions of justice. Considering that in the 5-point Likert scale, scores above 3 reflect a favorable attitude, whereas scores below 3 point to an unfavorable attitude, it can be concluded that respondents perceptions of distributive justice were negative, while their level of perceived procedural justice and interactional justice was high.

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

129

Validity Analyses Though reliability is a prerequisite component for a measurement scale, it is not enough by itself. In other words, a reliable scale may not always be valid (Karasar, 2000). That is to say, high reliability does not also refer to high validity. Therefore, the validity of the measurement tool should also be determined along with its reliability. Validity refers to the degree of accuracy to which a measurement device measures a variable. As factor analysis is one of the mostpreferred methods for testing validity, this method was employed for analyzing the structural validity of the organizational justice scale. First of all, principal component analysis was conducted. However, in cases where factor loadings tended to be close to one another or items load on more than one factor, varimax rotation were employed. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartletts Test were used in order to judge the suitability of scales to factor analysis, adequacy of sample size and whether data followed a normal distribution. Lastly, correlation values among the sub-dimensions of organizational justice were employed in questioning the external criteria-based validity of the Turkish version of the scale. Factor Analysis Results for Sub-Dimensions Factor analysis was initially applied to sub-dimensions comprising the scale, then collectively to all items comprising the organizational justice scale in order to determine to what extent it met the original scale. The related analyses are presented in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 8. Factors having eigenvalues over 1 were retained. Accordingly, all three sub-dimensions were gathered in one factor within themselves.

Table 4. Factor Loadings Obtained by Principal Component Analysis and KMO Barletts Test Result for the Procedural Justice Dimension

130

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Item PRCDRJUST1 PRCDRJUST2 PRCDRJUST3 PRCDRJUST4 PRCDRJUST5 PRCDRJUST6 KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0.837 Bartletts test of significance: 0.000 Total variance explained: 61.967%

Factor Loading .711 .855 .811 .660 .877 .787

According to the results of factor analysis for the procedural justice dimension, factor loadings of items that ranged from 0.660 to 0.877, were at the satisfactory level. The principal component analysis revealed that items explained 61.967% of total variance and that all items included in the procedural justice dimension loaded on a single factor. The KMO sampling adequacy (0,837) and Bartletts test level of significance (0,000) indicated the adequacy of the sample size selected and the suitability of matrix of variables to factor analysis. In other words, data displayed a normal distribution. Table 5. Factor Loadings Obtained by Principal Component Analysis and KMO Barletts Test Result for the Interactional Justice Dimension
Factor Loadings INTRCJUST1 .813 INTRCJUST2 .741 INTRCJUST3 .844 INTRCJUST4 .849 INTRCJUST5 .872 INTRCJUST6 .879 INTRCJUST7 .818 INTRCJUST8 .588 INTRCJUST9 .597 KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0,924 Bartletts test of significance: 0,000 Total variance explained: % 64,900 Item

The findings provided in Table 5 indicate that factor analysis results for the interactional justice dimension were at the satisfactory level. Even though factor loadings and KMO-Barletts test results seemed to be lower compared to other sub-dimensions as provided in Table 6, they were still over generally accepted

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

131

values. In the reliability analysis section, the reliability values of the distributive justice dimension were lower compared to those of other sub-dimensions. Therefore, it should be underlined that the validity analysis results of this dimension were in line with the results of the reliability analysis. Table 6. Factor Loadings Obtained by Principal Component Analysis and KMO Barletts Test Result for the Distributive Justice Dimension
Item No. Factor Loadings DSTBTJUST1 .603 DSTBTJUST2 .738 DSTBTJUST3 .804 DSTBTJUST4 .658 DSTBTJUST5 .691 KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0.696 Bartletts test of significance:0.000 Total variance explained: 49.310: %

Factor Analysis Results for Overall Organizational Justice Scale For the purpose of investigating to what extent the ranking of a total of 20 items in the three sub-dimensions comprising organizational justice complied with the original scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993), the three dimensions were jointly subjected to factor analysis. The results of the factor analysis are shown in Table 7. As can be seen in Table 7, the principal component analysis generated three factors (dimensions). The ranking of items and the analysis of expressions revealed that the first factor indicated interactional justice, while the second and third factors procedural justice and distributive justice, respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that items comprising the organizational justice scale were ranked close to that of the original version in general. In the first factor, a total of 11 items were ranked. 8 out of 11 items were those that constituted the interactional justice dimension in the original version of the scale, while the remaining three took place in the procedural justice dimension. The first factor could explain 37.061% of the total variance (interactional justice).

Table 7. Factor Structure of Organizational Justice Scale (N= 254)

132

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Items

Factor 3 .075 .065 .104 .243 .236 .440 .474 .066 .374 .137 .145 .174 .215 .447 .214 .125 .085 .833 .822 .543 13.370%

1 2 INTRCJUST4 . 221 .858 INTRCJUST6 .342 .806 INTRCJUST1 .286 .750 INTRCJUST8 .279 .738 INTRCJUST3 .321 .736 PRCDRJUST3 .115 .731 PRCDRJUST4 .079 .712 PRCDRJUST1 .144 .699 INTRCJUST9 .147 .665 INTRCJUST7 .182 .662 INTRCJUST5 .436 .657 DSTBTJUST2 .080 .792 DSTBTJUST5 .191 .660 PRCDRJUST5 162 .645 PRCDRJUST2 .179 .610 INTRCJUST2 .313 .568 PRCDRJUST6 .412 ,516 DSTBTJUST1 .218 .280 DSTBTJUST3 .142 .210 DSTBTJUST4 .125 .310 Total variance explained 37.061% 13.967% Total variance explained by all factors: 64.397%

Represents the items, whose ranking were changed in the Turkish version.

In the second factor, total six items were ranked. 3 out of six items were those that also constituted the procedural justice dimension in the original version of the scale. While two items were included in the distributive justice dimension, one item referred to the interactional justice dimension. Total variance explained by second factor 13.967%. All three items ranked in the third factor that explained 13.370% of total variance, were related to distributive justice. The reason for the appearance of the six items shown in Table 7 in different dimensions other than those in the original version of the scale might be the characteristic of public institution, where the survey was conducted. Nevertheless, the results of analyses on the sub-dimensions of the scale and factor loadings of items ranked in the factors showed the measuring capability of the measurement tool adapted from the original scale.

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

133

Table 8 provides KMO and Bartleets Test results for the organizational justice scale. The KMO sampling adequacy value was calculated as 0.915. The result of the Bartlett normal distribution test was also at the significant level (p<0.001). These values denoted that the sample size was adequate and that data followed a normal distribution, thus indicating the suitability of the matrix generated for factor analysis. Table 8. KMO and Bartlett's Test Values for Overall Scale
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy Bartletts Test Chi Square Approximation df Sig. .915 3058.952 153 .000

As it is known, usually the correlation matrix is used in factor analysis conducted for testing structure validity. High value correlation coefficients among factors (dimensions) refer to the increase in total variance explained. Table 9 provides Pearson correlation coefficients showing the relationship between the sub-dimensions of the measurement device. The results given in Table 9 indicate that there was a high level of positive and a strong relationship between the dimensions. Niehoff and Moorman (1993: 545) found that correlations among factors used for measuring the dimensions ranged between 0.56 and 0.76. The consistency between correlation values among the dimensions given in Table 9 and the correlation findings obtained by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) confirms the Turkish version of the scale also had external criteria-based validity.

134

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Table 9. Correlation Coefficients Among the Dimensions of the Scale

Dimensions 1 1 1. Procedural Justice 254 .893(**) 2. Interactional Justice .000 254 .700(**) 3. Distributive Justice
** Correlation is significant at 0.01

2 .893(**) .000 254 1 254 .701(**) .000 254

2 .700(**) .000 254 .701(**) .000 254 1 254

.000 254

DISCUSSION The result of the reliability testing of the scale showed that the factor loadings of all expressions were at a satisfactory level and factor structures of the scale consisting of 20 items were significantly close to the ranking in the original version of the scale. However, some items loaded on different dimensions from the original scale. As it is known, Turkey is a country, where tendencies towards high power distance, uncertainty avoidance and collectivist feminine cultural values prevail (Hofstede, 1984). Grbz and Bingl (2007) found that except for the individualist/collectivist dimension, high power distance, uncertainty avoidance and femininity/masculinity dimensions differed at a significant level as to the form of ownership of organization (public and private) supervisors are employed and that public sector supervisors tended to display relatively higher power distance and uncertainty avoidance compared to private sector supervisors. Therefore, it can be said that the loading of some items on different dimensions than the original scale stemmed either from the organizational structure of the related institution or, from the application of a scale bearing the characteristics of a different social culture in Turkey. Test results confirmed the three-dimension scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Looking at the literature with respect to the dimensionalization of organizational justice, Greenbergs two-dimensional conception justice (informational and interpersonal justice), Colquitt et.s (2001) four-dimensional concept of justice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice), Cohen-Charash and Spectors (2001) three-dimensional concept of justice (distributive, procedural and interactional justice) are notable. In a study con-

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

135

ducted in Turkey by zmen et al. (2007), Colquitts (2001) four -dimensional justice scale was found to be a three-dimensional construct (distributive, procedural, interactional). Another study (Grpnar - Yahyagil, 2007), where Niehoff and Moormans scale (1993) scale was employed, also found that the organizational justice scale loaded on three dimensions. It was found as a result of the reliability and validity testing of the Turkish version of the scale developed by Donovan et al. (1998) and adapted to Turkish by Wasti (2001) that similar to its original version, the scale consisted of two dimensions (relations with supervisors, relations with employees). Therefore, the three-dimensional construct of justice (distributive, procedural and interactional justice) that prevails in the literature was realized in practice as well, thus pointing to a parallelity with the findings reached by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), zmen et al. (2007), and Grpnar and Yahyagil (2007). The analysis of three factors comprising the scale revealed that especially the correlation between procedural and interactional justice was significantly high (r=0.893) and the most different loading was realized between these two dimensions. This finding also indicated that the distinctive validity for procedural and interactional justice could not be achieved for the sample, which the test was applied to. Therefore, the Niehoff/Moorman (1993) scale should be used somewhat cautiously. The majority of respondents were composed of middle-aged (63%) lowerand upper-level supervisors (84.3%). As can be clearly seen, the sample was highly partial in this respect. Therefore, this partiality should be taken into consideration while interpreting the results of the survey. Particularly supervisors perceptions of organizational justice might be relatively higher than other employees of the organization. The reason is that supervisors act as the implementers of most of the organizational activities. Hence, while assessing fairness of their own practices, they might have given higher scores than they should normally be. CONCLUSION This study was conducted to judge the validity and reliability of the organizational justice scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) for the purpose of assessing employees organizational justice perceptions. It can be a sserted that the Niehoff - Moorman (1993) scale consisting of 20 items, which was translated and adapted to Turkish, was satisfactory in respect of reliability and validity in general. The results of the reliability analysis indicated that the internal consistency of the scale was considerably high. Though the reliability coefficient of the distributive justice was lower compared to other sub-dimensions, it was observed that its negative impact on the internal consistency of the scale was limited.

136

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

As the correlation between procedural and interactional justice was extremely high and the most different loading was realized between these two dimensions, the Niehoff-Moorman (1993) scale should be cautiously used for the related two factors. In conclusion, the Niehoff - Moorman (1993) scale consisting of 20 items, which was translated and adapted to Turkish for the purpose of assessing employees organizational justice perceptions, is applicable with respect to validity and reliability. Besides, it can be said that its relationship with other organizational variables may be suitable for theoretical expectations. The survey was conducted over a single sample. In future studies, the testing of the factor structure obtained in this study on a larger sample having different characteristics assumes importance with respect to the generalization of scale validity. In view of the sample limitation of this study, it will be helpful in future studies to conduct surveys in enterprises with different scales from different economic sectors. REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965), Inequity in Social Exchange, in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, p. 267-299. Aquino D. G. - Hom, P. W. (1997), Integrating Justice Constructs into the Turnover Process: A Test of a Referent Cognitions Model, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5, p. 1208-1227. Barling, J. - Michelle, P. (1993), Interactional, Formal, and Distributive Justice in the Workplace: An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 127, No. 6, p. 649-656. Bies, R. J. (2001), Interactional (in) Justice: The Sacred and the Profane, Advances in Organizational Justice iinde, J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Pres, p. 89-118. Bies, R. J. - Moag, J. S. (1986), Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria for Fai rness, Research on Negotiation in Organizations iinde, B.H. Sheppard (Ed.), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 1, p. 43-55. Bies, R. J. - Shapiro D. L. (1987), Interactional Fairness Judgments: the Influence of Causal Accounts, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, p.199-218. Bies, R. J. - Shapiro D. L - Cummings, L. L. (1988), Causal Accounts and Managing Organizational Conflict: Is It Enough to Say Its Not My Fault?, Communications Research, Vol. 15, No: 4, p. 381-399. Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bos, V. D. Wilke - H. A. M. - Lind, E. A. (1998), When Do We Need Procedural Fai rness? The Role of Trust in Authority, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 6, p. 1449-1458. Brislin, R. W. - W. J. Lonner - Thorndike, R. M. (1973), Cross-Cultural Research Methods. New York, John Wiley&Sons Pub.

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

137

akmak, A. F. - Bier, I. H., (2006), Performans Deerleme Sisteminden Duyulan Memnuniyeti Etkileyen Unsurlar, T Dergisi, Cilt 32, Say 1, s. 3-14. Cohen, R.L. (1987), Distributive Justice: Theory and Research, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 19-40 Cohen-Charash, Y. - Spector, P. E. (2001), The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta Analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, No. 2, p. 278-321. Colquitt, J. A. (2001), On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 3, p. 386400. Cronbach, L. J. (1951), Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, No. 3, p. 297-334. Cropanzano, R. - Folger, R. (1991), Procedural Justice and Worker Motivation, In R. Steers and L. Porter (Ed.), Motivation and Work Behavior, New York: McGraw Hill, p.131143. Cropanzano, R. - Folger, R. (1989), Referent Cognitions and Task Decision Autonomy: Beyond Equity Theory, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2, p. 293294. Cropanzano, R. - Greenberg, J. (1997), Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunneling Through the Maze, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, p.317-372. Deboer, E. M. - Bakker, A. B. - Syroit, J. E. - Schaufeli, W. B. (2002), Unfairness at Work As A Predictor of Absenteeism, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 181-197. Donovan, M. A. - Drasgov, F. - Munson, L. J. (1998), The Perceptions of Fair Inte rpersonal Treatment Scale: Development and Validation of A Measure of Interpersonal Treatment in the Workplace, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 5, p. 683-692. Fernandes C. ve Awamleh, R. (2006), Impact of Organizational Justice in An Exp atriate Work Environment, Management Research News, Vol. 29, No: 11, p. 701 712. Folger, R. (1977), Distributive and Procedural Justice: Combined Impact of Voice and Improvement on Experienced Inequity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, p. 108-119. Folger, R. - Bies, R. J. (1989), Managerial Responsibilities and Procedural Justice, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 79-90. Folger, R. - Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resources Management. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, London. Folger, R. - Konovsky, M. A. (1989), Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 115-130.

138

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Greenberg, J. (1987), Reactions to Proced ural Injustice in Payment Distributions: Do the Means Justify the Ends?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 1, p. 55 61. Greenberg, J. (1990), Employee Theft as a Reaction To Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cut, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 5, p. 561568. Greenberg, J. (1993), The Social Side of Fairness: Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice in R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Manage ment inde Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 79103. Greenberg, J. (1996), The Quest For Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Grbz, S. (2007), Yneticilerin rgtsel Vatandalk Davranlarnn Tatmini ve Algladklar rgtsel Adaletle likisi, Yaymlanmam Doktora Tezi, SBE, letme Anabilim Dal, nsan Kaynaklar Ynetimi Bilim Dal, stanbul. Grbz, S. - Bingl, D. (2007), eitli rgt Yneticilerinin G Mesafesi, Belirsizli kten Kanma, Eril-Diil ve Bireyci-Topluluku Kltr Boyutlarna Ynelik Eilimleri zerine Grgl Bir Aratrma, KHO Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt 6, Say 2, s. 68-87. Grpnar, G. - Yahyagil, M. (2007), rgtsel Adalet, Lider-ye Deiimi ve rgte Ballk Kavramlar Arasndaki likisi, Sakarya niversitesi, 15. Ulusal Ynetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, 25-27 Mays 2007, Sakarya. Hofstede, G. (1984), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work R elated Values. (Abridged Edition), Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Homans, G. C. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, New York: Harcourt, Brace. Kang, D. (2007), Perceived Organizational Justice as a Predictor of Employees Mot ivation to Participate in Training, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 89-107. Karasar, N. (2000), Bilimsel Aratrma Yntemi, 10. Bs., Nobel Yayn Datm, Ankara. Konovsky, M. A. (2000), Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business Organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 489-511. Korsgaard, A. M - Roberson, L. (1995), Procedural Justice in Performance Evaluation: The Role of nstrumental and Non-Instrumental Voice in Performance Appraisal Discussions, Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, p. 657-669. Lee, H. R. (2000), An Empirical Study of Organizational Justice as a Mediator of the Relationships Among Leader-Member Exchange and Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Turnover ntentions in the Lodging ndustry, Baslmam Doktora Tezi, State University At Virginia, (evrimii), Http://Scholar.Lib.Vt.Edu/Theses/Available/Etd0501200014210002/Unrestricted /Dissertationpdf, (1Ocak 2008).

Validity and Reliability Testing of Organizational Justice Scale: An Empirical Study in a Public In a Public Organization

139

Leventhal, G. S. (1980), What Should be Done With Equity Theo ry? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships, Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research inde, K. Gergen, M. Greenberg - R. Willis (Eds.), New York: Plenum Pres, p. 27-55. Lind, E. A. - Kanfer R. - Earley, P. C. (1990), Voice, Control, and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Noninstrumental Concerns in Fairness Judgments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 5, p. 952-959. Martin, C. L. - Bennett, N. (1996), The Role of Justice Judgments in Explaining the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 84-105. Masterson, S. S. - Lewis, K. - Goldman, B.M. - Taylor, M. S. (2000), Integrating Ju stice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 4, p. 738 748. Moorman, R. H. (1991), Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organiz ational Citizenshipbehaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 6, p. 845-855. Moorman, R. H. - Niehoff, B. P. - Organ, D. W. (1993), Treating Employees Fairly and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Sorting the Effects of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Procedural Justice, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 209-225. Niehoff, B. P. - Moorman, R. H. (1993), Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5, p. 527556. Organ, D. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome , Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. zmen, N. T. - Arbak, Y. - zer, P. S. (2007), Adalete Verilen Deerin Adalet Alglar zerindeki Etkisinin Sorgulanmasna likin Bir Aratrma, Ege Akademik Bak, Cilt 7, Say 1, s. 1733. Polat, S. - Celep, C. (2008), Ortaretim retmenlerinin rgtsel Adalet, rgtsel Gven, rgtsel Vatandalk Davranlarna likin Alglar, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eitim Ynetimi Dergisi, Say 54 (Bahar), s. 300-331. Price, J. L. - Mueller, C. W. (1986), Handbook of Organizational Measurement, Marshfield, MA: Pittman. Ramamoorthy, N. - Flood, P. C, (2004), Gender and Employee Attitudes: The Role of Organizational Justice Perceptions, British Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, p. 247258 Scarlicki, D. P. - Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distr ibutive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 3, p. 434-443. Schnake, M. (1991), Organizational Citizenship: A Review Proposed Model and R esearch Agenda, Human Relations, Vol. 44, No. 7, p. 735-759.

140

Review of Public Administration, Volume 42 Issue 3

Shapiro, D. L. - Buttner, E. H. (1988), Adequate Explanations: What Are They, and Do They Enhance Procedural Justice Under Severe Outcome Circumstances? Paper Presented At the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA. Sweeney P. D. - McFarlin, D. B. (1993), Workers Evaluation of the Ends and the Means:An Examination of Four Models of Distributive and Procedural Justice, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55, No. 1, p. 23-40. Tepper, B. J. (2000), Consequences of Abusive Supervision,, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, p. 178-190. Thibaut, J. - Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tyler, T. (1987), Conditions Leading to Value-Expressive Effects in Judgments of Procedural Justice: A Test of Four Models, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 2, p. 333-344. Tyler, T. - Blader, S. (2000), Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement, Psychology Pres, Philadelphia. Tyler, T. - Lind, E. A. (1992), A Relational Model of Authority in Groups, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology iinde, M. P. Zanna (Ed.), San Diego, CA:Academic Press, Vol. 25, p. 115-191 Warner, C. J. - Hegtvedt, K. - Roman, P. (2005), Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice: How Experiences With Downsizing Condition Their Impact on Organizational Commitment, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 89-102. Wasti, S. A. (2001), rgtsel Adalet Kavram ve Tercme Bir lein Trkede Gvenirlik ve Geerlik Analizi, Ynetim Aratrmalar Dergisi, Cilt 1, s. 33-50. Yldrm, F. (2007), Doyumu le rgtsel Adalet likisi, Ankara niversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakltesi Dergisi, Cilt 62, Say 1, s. 253-278. Ylmaz, G. (2004), nsan Kaynaklar Uygulamalarna likin rgtsel Adalet Algsnn alanlarn Tutum ve Davranlarna Etkileri, Yaymlanmam Doktora Tezi, SBE, letme Anabilim Dal, nsan Kaynaklar Ynetimi Bilim Dal, stanbul.