Abusive Supervision Scale

Abstract

The AIMSS Abusive Supervision (AS) Scale (Sümer et al., 2024) is an original psychological instrument developed to quantify subordinates’ perceptions of sustained hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors exhibited by their immediate supervisors, explicitly excluding physical contact. The development process was rigorous, involving focus groups, comprehensive thematic analysis, and a pilot study conducted among Turkish working adults recruited online.

The scale is available in a full 26-item version and a concise 14-item short form. Extensive psychometric assessments were performed, including Factor Analysis, reliability estimations, and validity checks. This instrument targets the broader concept of Workplace Mistreatment, providing researchers and practitioners with a validated tool for organizational psychology research.

Keywords

Abusive Supervision, Harassment, Workplace Mistreatment, Supervisor-Employee Interaction, Organizational Measures, Hostile Behavior, AIMSS AS Scale

Authors

Sümer, H. Canan, Göncü-Köse, Aslı, Toker-Gültaş, Yonca, Acar, F. Pınar, Karanfil, Derya, Ok, A. Başak

Purpose

The primary purpose of the AIMSS AS Scale is to systematically measure the extent to which subordinates perceive their supervisors as engaging in sustained hostile behaviors. This includes both verbal aggression and non-verbal antagonistic actions, while strictly differentiating from instances involving physical contact or violence.

The scale aids in identifying and quantifying levels of Abusive Supervision within organizational settings, serving as a critical tool for occupational health, management studies, and research focused on improving workplace climate and employee well-being.

Construct

The AIMSS AS Scale measures the psychological construct of Workplace Mistreatment, specifically focusing on the dimension of Abusive Supervision. This construct involves persistent behaviors by a supervisor that are perceived as hostile and detrimental to the subordinate, reflecting a pattern of non-physical aggression and psychological harm.

The behaviors measured span a range of negative interactions, such as unfair treatment, manipulation, public criticism, excessive workload, and interference with personal boundaries or professional development, all contributing to a toxic supervisor-employee relationship.

Validity

The validity of the AIMSS AS Scale was robustly assessed through multiple methodologies. Construct Validity was established through both Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), confirming that the items coherently measure a single underlying factor.

Convergent Validity: This was confirmed by demonstrating meaningful associations between the AIMSS AS Scale scores and those derived from a widely used counterpart measure of abusive supervision. Furthermore, the scale showed clear distinction from other author-created measures developed in the same study, supporting its unique contribution to the measurement of supervisory hostility.

Criterion Validity: The scale demonstrated strong criterion validity by successfully predicting relevant organizational outcomes. Specifically, higher scores on the Abusive Supervision Scale were significantly associated with increased levels of burnout and decreased organizational commitment, validating its utility in predicting negative workplace consequences.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability for the AIMSS AS Scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, yielding excellent results for both versions of the instrument, suggesting high inter-item correlation and homogeneity.

• Full Scale (26 items): The internal consistency was reported as Cronbach’s alpha = .97.

• Short Form (14 items): The internal consistency remained exceptionally high, with Cronbach’s alpha = .95.

These high reliability scores indicate that the scale consistently measures the intended construct of Abusive Supervision.

Factor Analysis

The scale structure was investigated using both Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), confirming a robust, unidimensional structure for the Abusive Supervision construct.

PCA Results: A single factor was extracted, which accounted for 61.9% of the total variance observed across the items. Factor loadings for this component ranged from .65 to .86, demonstrating strong item-to-factor relationships.

CFA Results: The Confirmatory Factor Analysis model demonstrated acceptable fit indices, supporting the proposed single-factor structure: SB χ² (299) = 869.118, p < .001; χ²/sd = 2.91, CFI = .892, TLI = .882, RMSEA = .060, 90% CI [.056, .065], p < .001, SRMR = .045. Individual factor loadings for the items ranged from .47 to .89.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Format: The AIMSS AS Scale is a self-report rating scale (Instrument Type: Rating Scale). Items are standardized, preceded by the phrase “My immediate supervisor…” Respondents rate the frequency of the behavior on a 5-point frequency scale where “1 = Never” and “5 = Almost always.”

Language Available: The scale was developed and validated using Turkish working adults, implying primary availability in Turkish.

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18+ years)

Population Details: The initial validation study was conducted in Turkey, utilizing a sample of working adults recruited online.

Test Methodology: The comprehensive methodology included: Construct Validity assessment, Convergent Validity testing, Criterion Validity assessment, Internal Consistency measurement, and Factor Analysis (both PCA and CFA).

Keywords

AIMSS, Organizational Psychology, Burnout, Organizational Commitment, Hostility, Supervisor-Employee Interaction, Rating Scale, Turkish Validation

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Toker-Gültaş, Yonca: 0000-0002-0177-0301

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Canan Sümer, Özyeğin University, Department of Psychology, İstanbul, Turkey

Affiliations: Özyeğin University, Çankaya University, Middle East Technical University, İzmir Bakırçay University, Ankara University

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2024

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding permissions and usage fees is not detailed in the source material. Researchers should contact the corresponding author, Canan Sümer, for official usage guidelines and licensing information.

Files: There are no supplementary files (e.g., PDF of the scale) available for direct download based on the source information provided.

Reference’s

Sümer, H. C., Göncü-Köse, A., Toker-Gültaş, Y., Acar, F. P., Karanfil, D., & Ok, A. B. (2024). Incivility, mobbing, and abusive supervision: A tripartite scale development study. Middle Western Psychological Research Journal, 158(6), 428–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2024.2321881.

Items of the Abusive Supervision Scale

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

Scoring Scale: Items are rated on a 5-point frequency scale:

• 1 = Never

• 2 = Rarely

• 3 = Sometimes

• 4 = Often

• 5 = Almost always

Note: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are included in the 14-item short form.

1. Allows subordinates to be victimized for his/her own interests .*

2. Crushes subordinates with workload .*

3. Lies to subordinates for his/her own personal benefit.

4. Looks for the shortcomings of subordinates .*

5. Does not treat subordinates fairly .*

6. Puts responsibility for his/her own mistakes on others .*

7. Acts ruthlessly when subordinates make mistakes.

8. Uses oppression to make subordinates work .*

9. Does not keep his/her promises to subordinates.

10. Cannot stand questioning of his/her authority .*

11. Interferes with subordinates’ right to take breaks and rest .*

12. Does not respect subordinates’ privacy .*

13. Assigns work under his/her responsibility to others .*

14. Hinders professional development or advancement of subordinates .*

15. Shouts at and scolds subordinates .*

16. Does not appreciate any work done.

17. Puts pressure on subordinates to act against work ethic (e.g., lying, spying).

18. Acts against the law in a way that victimizes employees.

19. Interferes with the personal lives of subordinates.

20. Makes subordinates’ ideas or work look as if his/her own .*

21. Forces subordinates to work in a way that jeopardizes their health and safety.

22. Prevents subordinates from accessing the resources they need for work.

23. Uses subordinates for his/her own errands .*

24. Expects subordinates to be available 24/7, even if the work does not require it.

25. Disturbs subordinates by calling them or sending messages even during non-working hours.

26. Interferes with subordinates’ preferences concerning their appearance (hair, clothing, etc.).