[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-658364-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":84,"doc-detail-658364-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":77,"head_meta":79,"extra_data":81,"updated_unix":83},105,"en","on-the-dimensionality-of-organizational-justice-a-construct-validation-of-a-measure","On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice - A Construct Validation of a Measure","","Explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence for construct validity of a newly developed justice measure. Item development followed established work in the justice literature, and validation was conducted across two studies: a university sample and a field sample from an automobile parts manufacturing company. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a distinct four-factor structure—distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice—with superior fit to two- or three-factor alternatives. Structural equation modeling further showed predictive validity for key outcomes including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.",{"@graph":14,"@context":76},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/on-the-dimensionality-of-organizational-justice-a-construct-validation-of-a-measure/658364/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/on-the-dimensionality-of-organizational-justice-a-construct-validation-of-a-measure/658364.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Logic","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-26",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68,72],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the main purpose of the document?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"To examine the dimensionality of organizational justice and to provide evidence of construct validity for a newly developed justice measure.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How was the measure validated?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The measure was validated in two separate studies, one in a university setting and another in a field setting with employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What factor structure did the confirmatory factor analyses support?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"A four-factor structure was supported, distinguishing distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions.",{"name":73,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":74},"Which outcomes showed predictive validity for the justice dimensions?",{"text":75,"@type":63},"The justice dimensions predicted outcomes including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":78,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":80,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":82,"site_id":7},658364,1793064092,{"code":4,"msg":85,"data":86},"success",[87,91,95,99,104,109,114,118,123,126,130],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},8,30,"research-report",{"id":119,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":121,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":125},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":129},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":131,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":132,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":133},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":85,"data":135},{"doc_id":82,"user_id":136,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":143,"language":144,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":145,"faqs":146,"seo_title":147,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":148,"read_time":149},1099513958762,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/1000023916a998db790?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1784791008015729253","# On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice:A Construct Validation of a Measure\n\nIndividuals are the subject of decisions virtually every day oftheir organizational lives.Some of these decisions deal with thesalaries individuals make,some deal with the projects they per-form,and some deal with the social settings in which they func-tion.These decisions have both economic and socioemotionalconsequences,many of which form the foundation for why indi-viduals work in organizations in the first place(Cropanzano &Schminke,2001).The importance of those consequences causesindividuals to judge the decision making they experience with avery critical eye.Thus,one of the first questions they ask in thewake of decisions is “Was that fair?”  \nThe notion of fairness,or justice,has become an increasinglyvisible construct in the social sciences over the last 3 decades.Initially,researchers focused on the justice of decision outcomes,termed distributive justice(Adams,1965;Deutsch,1975;Homans,1961;Leventhal,1976).Distributive justice is fostered whereoutcomes are consistent with implicit norms for allocation,such asequity or equality.More recent work has focused on the justice ofthe processes that lead to decision outcomes,termed proceduraljustice (Leventhal,1980;Leventhal,Karuza,&Fry,1980;Thibaut&Walker,1975).Procedural justice is fostered through voiceduring a decision-making process or influence over the outcome(Thibaut &Walker,1975)or by adherence to fair process criteria,such as consistency,lack of bias,correctability,representation,accuracy,and ethicality(Leventhal,1980;Leventhal et al.,1980).  \nEfforts to explain the impact of justice on effective organiza-tional functioning have come under the rubric of organizationaljustice research(Greenberg,1987,1990b).Research integratingprocedural and distributive justice has found consistent support fora two-factor conceptualization of organizational justice(Green-berg,1990b).For example,Sweeney and McFarlin(1993)speci-fied a structural equation model in which distributive justice  \nJason A.Colquitt  \nUniversity of Florida  \nThis study explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence of construct validityfor a new justice measure.Items for this measure were generated by strictly following the seminal worksin the justice literature.The measure was then validated in 2 separate studies.Study I occurred in auniversity setting,and Study 2 occurred in a field setting using employees in an automobile partsmanufacturing company.Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 4-factor structure to the measure,withdistributive,procedural,interpersonal,and informational justice as distinct dimensions.This solution fitthe data significantly better than a 2-or 3-factor solution using larger interactional or proceduraldimensions.Structural equation modeling also demonstrated predictive validity for the justice dimensionson important outcomes,including leader evaluation,rule compliance,commitment,and helping behavior.  \nwas related to personal-referenced outcomes,such as pay satisfac-tion,whereas procedural justice was related to organizational-referenced outcomes,such as organizational commitment.Thismodel provided a better fit than models where the two types ofjustice overlapped in their effects.Similar findings have beenreported elsewhere (e.g.,Folger &Konovsky,1989;McFarlin &Sweeney,1992)and discussed in reviews of the literature(Green-berg,1990b;Lind &Tyler,1988).  \nThe clarity of the two-factor model of organizational justice wasclouded with the introduction of interactional justice,deined asthe interpersonal treatment people receive as procedures are en-acted(Bies &Moag,1986).Interactional justice is fostered whendecision makers treat people with respect and sensitivity andexplain the rationale for decisions thoroughly.Although someresearchers have treated interactional justice as a third type ofjustice(e.g.,Aquino,1995;Barling &Phillips,1993;Bies &Shapiro,1987;Skarlicki &Folger,1","cbCaimJ7PpWmSqeh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimJ7PpWmSqeh","pdf",1656580,15,"English","# Introduction\n# Conceptual background: distributive and procedural justice\n# Organizational justice research and two-factor model\n# Interactional justice and the two- vs three-factor debate\n# Four-factor perspective and unresolved empirical testing\n# Rationale for the present measure and validation approach\n# Method overview (Study I and Study 2)\n# Results: factor structure and model fit\n# Predictive validity for organizational outcomes","[{\"question\":\"What is the main purpose of the document?\",\"answer\":\"To examine the dimensionality of organizational justice and to provide evidence of construct validity for a newly developed justice measure.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the measure validated?\",\"answer\":\"The measure was validated in two separate studies, one in a university setting and another in a field setting with employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company.\"},{\"question\":\"What factor structure did the confirmatory factor analyses support?\",\"answer\":\"A four-factor structure was supported, distinguishing distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions.\"},{\"question\":\"Which outcomes showed predictive validity for the justice dimensions?\",\"answer\":\"The justice dimensions predicted outcomes including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.\"}]","On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice - A Construct Validation of a Measure | PDF",1793048415,38]