Extended DCA-Transparency Scale (German Version)

Abstract

The Extended DCA-Transparency Scale (German Version) is a validated, five-dimensional psychological instrument designed to measure an individual’s perception of information quality shared by a sender, typically within an organizational setting. The construct of transparency is conceptualized as the perceived quality of intentionally shared information. This German adaptation extends the original DCA scale (Disclosure, Clarity, Accuracy) by incorporating two additional dimensions: Timeliness and Relevance. The resulting 20-item questionnaire (four items per dimension) demonstrates high internal consistency (McDonald’s omega > .88) and robust indicators of objectivity, reliability, and validity (content, criterion, and construct validity). Validation studies highlight that the five dimensions differentially relate to key organizational outcomes, such as trustworthiness, trust, and job satisfaction, supporting the scale’s utility for research in organizational psychology and management. Furthermore, initial investigations suggest its applicability beyond traditional organizational contexts, such as in technology acceptance studies.

Keywords

organizational transparency, information quality, disclosure, clarity, accuracy, timeliness, relevance, psychological scale, German validation, organizational behavior

Authors

C. Richard Hossiep, Julian Märtins, Gerhard Schewe

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Extended DCA-Transparency Scale is to provide a standardized, multidimensional measure of an individual’s perception of the quality of information shared by a specific sender, typically a supervisor or organizational entity. This instrument addresses inconsistencies found in earlier, predominantly unidimensional transparency scales which often focused only on the quantity of information disclosed.

By measuring five distinct facets—Disclosure, Clarity, Accuracy, Timeliness, and Relevance—the scale enables researchers and practitioners to gain a nuanced understanding of how different aspects of information sharing affect recipient perceptions. This granular analysis is crucial for deriving targeted recommendations for action aimed at strengthening the perception of transparency within organizations, thereby influencing related outcomes like trust and job satisfaction.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of organizational transparency, defined as “the perceived quality of intentionally shared information from a sender” (Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016, p.1788). This definition shifts the focus from the objective quantity of information (mere disclosure) to the subjective quality perceived by the recipient. The construct is modeled as a higher-order factor composed of five distinct, yet correlated, dimensions:

• Disclosure: The perception that a sufficient amount of information is shared by the sender.
• Clarity: The extent to which the shared information is perceived as comprehensible, representing the congruence between the intended and understood meaning.
• Accuracy: The degree to which the shared information is perceived as correct, factual, and unbiased at the moment of sharing.
• Timeliness: The perception that information is provided at the right moment; information shared too early or too late can diminish its perceived value.
• Relevance: The degree of personal importance (professional and/or private) the disclosed information holds for the recipient.

Validity

The validation process for the German Extended DCA-Transparency Scale established strong evidence for content, criterion, and construct validity across multiple samples. Content validity was rigorously assessed using a quantitative approach involving naive judges who evaluated the fit of the scale items to their respective construct definitions, as recommended by Colquitt and colleagues (2019). This process confirmed the definitional distinctiveness of the transparency dimensions, reporting a very strong distinctiveness among the five dimensions themselves, and a moderate distinctiveness compared to orbiting constructs like informational justice and communication quality.

Construct validity was supported by examining the correlation patterns with theoretically related and unrelated psychological constructs. The overall transparency score and its sub-dimensions showed strong positive correlations with related constructs such as informational justice (e.g., r = .861*** for Overall Transparency) and communication quality (r = .650***). Conversely, correlations with unrelated constructs, such as well-being and need-for-cognition, were low or non-significant, confirming the scale measures its intended construct.

Criterion validity was demonstrated through a longitudinal research design (Sample 5) that investigated the scale’s relationship with predicted outcomes like supervisor trustworthiness, trust in the supervisor, and job satisfaction. Multiple regression analysis showed that all five transparency dimensions either directly or indirectly influenced employee trust. Furthermore, Disclosure, Timeliness, and Relevance were identified as significant antecedents of job satisfaction, confirming the scale’s utility in predicting important organizational criteria.

Reliability

The Extended DCA-Transparency Scale exhibits high levels of internal consistency across its five subscales, supported by the calculation of McDonald’s Omega across three separate samples. McDonald’s Omega values consistently met or exceeded conventional cut-off criteria (>.7), indicating high reliability.

• Disclosure: McDonald’s Omega ranged from .890 to .941 across samples.
• Clarity: McDonald’s Omega ranged from .865 to .882 across samples.
• Accuracy: McDonald’s Omega ranged from .896 to .946 across samples.
• Timeliness: McDonald’s Omega ranged from .877 to .940 across samples.
• Relevance: McDonald’s Omega ranged from .870 to .919 across samples.

These consistently high values across independent samples confirm that the items within each dimension form highly cohesive and reliable measures, suitable for academic and practical applications.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the extended and translated scale was tested using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). An EFA (Maximum Likelihood extraction with oblimin rotation) performed on Sample 1 confirmed the existence of five distinct factors (dimensions), which together explained 77% of the total variance. This verified that the newly added dimensions (Timeliness and Relevance) formed separate factors and that the translated original DCA items retained their factorial structure.

A subsequent CFA was conducted using an independent sample (Sample 5) to confirm the five-factor model suitability. The model fit indicators strongly supported the five-dimensional structure: χ²/df = 2.79, CFI = .971, TLI = .967, SRMR = .041, and RMSEA = .058. These results provide robust statistical evidence for the multidimensional conceptualization of transparency captured by the scale. Factor correlations generally ranged from r = .521 to r = .758, indicating that while the dimensions are related (consistent with a higher-order construct), they maintain sufficient distinctiveness to warrant separate analysis.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological self-report scale

Format: 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”).

Language Available: German (items), English (documentation)

Population Group: Employees in non-self-employed occupations

Age Group: Adult (mean age across samples ranged from 29 to 43)

Population Details: Participants were required to be German native speakers with relevant professional experience to assess supervisor transparency. Validation included a sample (Sample 5) that was representative of German employees in terms of age, gender, and scope of employment.

Test Methodology: Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (CASI) or online questionnaire format is commonly used. The recommended scoring involves calculating unweighted means for the individual dimensions, as transparency is considered a higher-order construct where dimensions should also be analyzed separately.

Keywords

psychological measurement, scale validation, organizational behavior, information management, supervisor transparency, employee trust, job satisfaction

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: C. Richard Hossiep: [email protected]; Julian Märtins: [email protected]; Gerhard Schewe: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Center for Management, Chair of Business Administration – Organization, Human Resource Management and Innovation, University of Muenster, Universitätsstr. 14-16, 48143 Münster, Germany

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale is validated and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The primary publication for the German extension and validation is Hossiep et al. (2021). The validation studies utilized data collected between 2019 and early 2021. Further information regarding specific permissions or usage fees should be directed to the corresponding authors. The data archive URL associated with the publication is: https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000360.

Reference’s

Hossiep, C. R., Märtins, J., & Schewe, G. (2021). DCA-Transparency: Validation and Extension of a German Scale. German Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000360

Schnackenberg, A. K., Tomlinson, E., & Coen, C. (2020). The dimensional structure of transparency: a construct validation of transparency as disclosure, clarity, and accuracy in organizations. Human Relations, 74(10), 1628-1660. https://doi.in/10.1177/0018726720933317

The underlying English scale consisting of the dimensions Disclosure, Clarity, and Accuracy was developed by Schnackenberg et al. (2020).

Items of the Extended DCA-Transparency Scale (German Version)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.