PsySafety-Check (PS-C)

Abstract

The PsySafety-Check (PS-C) is a psychometric instrument designed to measure the construct of psychological safety, which is defined as the shared perception among team members that the team environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking and that speaking up will not result in negative consequences. This concept, popularized by Amy Edmondson, is a robust predictor of crucial organizational outcomes, including team learning, sense of belonging, and overall team performance. The PS-C is available in both a 7-item long version and a streamlined short version, both demonstrating high psychometric properties, including strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha ranging from .74 to .81). Substantial correlations with related team constructs provide evidence for its convergent, divergent, and criterion validity.

Keywords

Psychological safety, Team dynamics, Organizational behavior, Trust, Error culture, Team learning, Interpersonal risk-taking, Work environment.

Authors

Dr. Josef A. Fischer, Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the PsySafety-Check (PS-C) is to serve as a diagnostic tool for assessing the level of psychological safety within teams. It is suitable for a wide variety of team contexts, ranging from student work groups and public administration departments to industrial production teams. The scale is particularly recommended for teams characterized by high member interdependence and those facing significant uncertainty due to a lack of established routines, such as product development or innovation teams.

The instrument is valuable for promoting a strong organizational culture by ensuring high levels of self-reflection and a robust error culture, especially in agile or self-organized working environments. The long version is designed for highly accurate measurement of the scientific construct, while the short version is intended for quick team diagnostic screening in time-constrained settings like workshops or team meetings. The PS-C can also be adapted for organizational diagnosis by substituting “Team” with “Organization” or “Company” in the instructions and item texts.

Construct

The PS-C measures psychological safety, a concept introduced into organizational literature primarily by Amy Edmondson (1999). It describes the shared perception of team members that the environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, meaning that no one will be rejected, excluded, or sanctioned for offering constructive criticism, voicing a dissenting opinion, or initiating an interpersonal risk (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

High levels of psychological safety are associated with several positive team behaviors, including the willingness to share sensitive, mission-critical information, experiment with unconventional solutions, and engage in interpersonal risk-taking. Empirical research consistently links this construct to enhanced team learning, improved error management, better information processing within the team, proactive behavior, and team innovation.

Validity

The construct validity of the PsySafety-Check was established through both convergent and divergent correlation analyses using established team constructs.

Convergent Validity: The PS-C showed substantial positive correlations with Procedural Justice (Long version: r = .71; Short version: r = .66). This supports the notion that teams feeling psychologically safe also perceive decision-making processes as transparent and fair, aligning with theoretical expectations.

Divergent Validity: The scale demonstrated significant negative correlations with the three conflict types defined by Jehn (1995). The negative correlation was strongest for Relationship Conflict (Long version: r = -.66; Short version: r = -.58), followed by Process Conflict (r = -.51 / r = -.44) and Task Conflict (r = -.45 / r = -.40). This pattern confirms divergent validity, as psychological safety should mitigate interpersonal tension more strongly than content-focused discussion.

Criterion Validity: Criterion validity was supported by strong positive correlations with key team outcomes. Psychological safety correlated substantially with Team Information Processing (Long version: r = .71; Short version: r = .66) and moderately with Team Identification (Long version: r = .32; Short version: r = .26), suggesting the scale effectively predicts desirable team functions and member attachment.

Reliability

The internal consistency reliability was assessed using both Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and McDonald’s Omega (ω) for both the long and short versions of the PS-C.

For the 7-item long version, the reliability estimates were high: Cronbach’s α = .81 and McDonald’s ω = .81. For the 4-item short version, reliability was also deemed acceptable to good: Cronbach’s α = .74 and McDonald’s ω = .74. These values confirm that both versions of the instrument demonstrate good internal consistency and reliability.

Factor Analysis

Item analysis for the long version (7 items) began with an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using the Principal Axis Factoring method with Promax oblique rotation. This analysis extracted a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1, accounting for 47% of the total variance. Item communalities ranged between .33 and .58.

Model fit was further assessed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Maximum Likelihood estimation. The long version demonstrated acceptable model fit (CFI = .950, RMSEA = .079, SRMR = .044). The short version exhibited excellent model fit criteria (CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .01). Standardized factor loadings for both versions were strong, ranging from .50 to .73, confirming the unidimensional structure of the scale.

Instrument

Test Type: Questionnaire measuring psychological safety (Team Diagnosis).

Format: 7-item Long Version and 4-item Short Version, utilizing a 7-point Likert scale (1 = stimme ganz und gar nicht zu / strongly disagree to 7 = stimme voll und ganz zu / strongly agree). Items 3, 5, and 6 in the long version are negatively keyed and require recoding prior to index calculation.

Language Available: German (deutsch).

Population Group: Employees/Team members in organizational settings (e.g., industry, administration, development teams).

Age Group: Adults (working professionals).

Population Details: Validation sample N=325, consisting of employees working in teams across various German industries (Metal & Electrical, Technology & Telecommunications, Finance). Data collected via online survey (CSAQ). Demographic breakdown: 74% Male, 26% Female; Age distribution centered between 30 and 50 years (66%); High educational attainment (55% Fachhochschulabschluss/Hochschulabschluss or higher).

Test Methodology: Computer-Supported Anonymous Questionnaire (CSAQ), conducted via Internet survey. Processing time is approximately 3 minutes for the long version and 1 minute for the short version, indicating high test economy.

Keywords

Safety in teams, Organizational trust, Team interdependence, Error management, Team effectiveness, Psychometric scale, German language instrument.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided.

Affiliation Email addresses: Dr. Josef A. Fischer: [email protected]; Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann (University of St. Gallen, Institute for Leadership and Human Resource Management): [email protected].

Correspondence Address: Information not explicitly provided.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The PsySafety-Check was developed and validated based on data collected in the years 2011 and 2012. The instrument is based on the foundational work of Amy Edmondson (1999). Information regarding specific permissions, licensing fees, or commercial usage rights is not detailed in the source manuscript.

Reference’s

• Baer, M. & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45-68.
• Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage Publications.
• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2009). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Springer.
• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Frazier, M. L., Tupper, C., & Gooty, J. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and integration. Personnel Psychology, 70(4), 113–145.
• Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

Items of the PsySafety-Check (PS-C)

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

Instruktion

Ziel der Befragung ist es, Ihre Wahrnehmung der Zusammenarbeit in folgendem Team zu erfassen: Name des Teams.

Bitte kreuzen Sie jeweils das Antwortfeld an, das am besten beschreibt, inwieweit Sie der jeweiligen Aussage zustimmen.

Items

Tabelle 1

Items des PsySafety-Checks

Antwortvorgaben

Die Beantwortung jedes Items erfolgt auf Basis der folgenden siebenstufigen Skalenanker:

1. (1) stimme ganz und gar nicht zu
2. (2) stimme weitgehend nicht zu
3. (3) stimme eher nicht zu
4. (4) bin neutral
5. (5) stimme eher zu
6. (6) stimme weitgehend zu
7. (7) stimme voll und ganz zu