The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale
Psychometric Properties of a Short Instrument in Three Different Languages
Abstract
Abstract. Workplace mobbing is a serious phenomenon that is costly to organizations and has various negative consequences of those targeted. The main purpose of the present study was to develop and validate a new short scale of workplace mobbing experience in three different language versions (German, French, Luxembourgish). Data were collected via computer-assisted telephone interviews in a sample of 1,500 employees working in Luxembourg (aged 17–64 years; 52.7% male) who were representative of the commuter structure of Luxembourg’s workforce. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the newly developed five-item Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS) has good psychometric properties and partial scalar measurement invariance for the three different language versions. Internal consistency was satisfactory (α = .73). Correlations and hierarchical regression analysis with different working condition scales and psychological health scales confirm the construct validity of the new questionnaire. Although the present findings are preliminary in nature, they nevertheless support the reliability and validity of the scale and its use in psychological research.
References
(2007). Bullying at work: A discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 161–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00585.x
(2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work & Stress, 18, 336–351. doi: 10.1080/02678370412331319794
(2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
(2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23, 24–44. doi: 10.1080/02678370902815673
(2013).
Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling . In G. R. HancockR. O. MuellerEds., Structural equation modeling – a second course (2nd ed., pp. 439–492). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.(2015). Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s00420-015-1058-6
(2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
(2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24–44. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228
(2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.
Inspection générale de la sécurité social. (2014). Rapport général sur la sécurité sociale au Grand‐Duché de Luxembourg 2013
[General Report on Social Security in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg] . Working Paper. Luxembourg.(1996a). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184. doi: 10.1080/13594329608414853
(1996b) Handanleitung für den LIPT-Fragebogen,
[Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror] . Tübingen: Deutsche Gellschaft für Verhaltenstherapie Verlag.(2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
(2006). Take this job and…: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73, 406–433. doi: 10.1080/03637750601024156
(1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
(2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26, 309–332. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.734709
(2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979. doi: 10.1348/096317909X481256
(2011).
Measuring exposure to workplace bullying . In S. EinarsenH. HoelD. ZapfC. L. CooperEds., Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 149–174). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.(2010). A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 487–504. doi: 10.1080/13594320903007620
(2014). Evaluating model fit with ordered categorical data within a measurement invariance framework: A comparison of estimators. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 167–180. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.882658
(2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. doi: 10.1007/BF02296192
(2007). Defining workplace bullying behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 340–354. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.007
(2011). A new, four-item instrument to measure workplace bullying. Research in Nursing & Health, 34, 132–140. doi: 10.1002/nur.20422
(2009). Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: Differences between educational groups in human values measurement. Quality and Quantity, 43, 599–616. doi: 10.1007/s11135-007-9143-x
(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002
(2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27, 63–69. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.588
(2003). Workplace bullying – A study on the work environment, well-being and health. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
