Item content versus item wording: Disentangling role conflict and role ambiguity.

Abstract

Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman's (1970) Role Ambiguity Scale and Role Conflict Scales assess ambiguity with 6 negatively worded items and conflict with 8 positively worded items, respectively. This methodological confound between item wording and content precludes unambiguous interpretation. In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis of these 2 scales and Beehr, Walsh, and Taber's 0976) Role Overload Scale (which has positively and negatively worded items) was used to disentangle this confound. Across 2 independent samples (N= 767 and N= 363), a 3-factor model consistent with conceptual definitions of role ambiguity, conflict, and overload fit the data better than models with (a) one general role-stress factor, (b) a general role-stress and a method (item wording) factor, or (c) two method (positive and negative wording) factors. These results support the construct validity of Rizzo et al.'s (1970) scales; the consistency of the results across 2 independent samples suggests their generalizability.Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman's (1970) Role Ambiguity Scale and Role Conflict Scale have been widely used in organizational psychology research. A vast amount of psychometric information is available for these scales (for a review, see Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 198 l), and at least two meta-analytic studies summarize the correlates of role conflict and role ambiguity (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983;Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Despite their widespread use, concern over the construct validity ofRizzo et al. 's (1970) scales continues unabated and has culminated recently in a call for a moratorium on their use (McGee, Ferguson, & Seers, 1989).The debate on the construct validity of Rizzo et al:s (1970) scales has been focused on the possibility that the two subscales reflect a single underlying construct, namely, role stress (Tracy & Johnson, 198 l). This possibility emerges because the six items comprising the ambiguity scale reflect the absence of ambiguity, In contrast, the eight conflict items reflect the presence of role conflict. Thus, the substantive interpretation of these two scales is perfectly confounded with the direction of item wording, rendering any interpretation open to plausible, rival hypotheses.In a recent confirmatory factor analysis of the role conflict and role ambiguity scales, McGee et al. (1989) contrasted the goodness of fit of a one-factor (role stress) model, a two-factor (role conflict and role ambiguity) model, and another two-factor model (general role stress together with a method factor on which all the negatively worded items loaded). ~ McGee et al. suggested that the last model provided the best fit to the data and concluded that the confound of item wording with item content compromises the construct validity of the scales, thereby precluding any substantive interpretations. However, McGee et al. could not provide unambiguous support for a model positing a general and a method factor because the direction of item wording (positive or negative) is perfectly confounded with item content (...

Assessing callous–unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits

“…Third, five out of the six items are worded in the same direction, making response sets more likely. Literature on scale construction recommends that questionnaire items include both negatively and positively worded items for a construct (Adkins-Wood, 1961;Anastasi, 1980, Kelloway & Barling, 1990.…”

Comparing Two Short Forms of the Hewitt–Flett Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

“…Moreover, research has shown that the use of negatively worded items can be problematic because it is unclear if such items capture the intended construct in the same way as COMPARING TWO SHORT FORMS OF THE HEWITT-FLETT MPS 5 positively worded items (DiStefano & Motl, 2006;Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000). Particularly scales that are exclusively comprised of negatively worded items are problematic (e.g., Kelloway & Barling, 1990). In extreme cases, such scales may assess a different construct than the construct they intend to capture (cf.…”

The job demands–resources model and counterproductive work behaviour: The role of job-related affect

“…. Role conflict was measured by using a widely used scale (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970; see also Kelloway & Barling, 1991) of which we included six items, such as ''I receive incompatible requests from two or more people''. Responses to items were given on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (''completely true'') to 5 (''completely false''), with items being reverse scored before computing the scale score.…”