Industrial Relations Event Scale

Abstract

The Industrial Relations Event Scale (IRES) is a psychometric instrument developed by Kelloway, Barling, and Shah (1993) to quantify the impact of work-related stressors specifically tied to industrial relations. Drawing 25 event items from an earlier, larger measure originally developed by Bluen and Barling (1987), the scale employs a life events methodology. It generates three distinct scores: the frequency of occurrence of industrial relations events, the perceived negativity of such events (stress), and the positive perception of industrial relations outcomes. Respondents are instructed to report only on events experienced during a specified short time frame, such as a selected day or period.

Keywords

Industrial relations, Workplace stress, Organizational Behavior, Event scale, Job satisfaction, Life events, Employee relations, Stressors, Psychometric assessment.

Authors

E. Kevin Kelloway, Julian Barling, Ashima Shah

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Industrial Relations Event Scale (IRES) is to systematically measure the frequency and subjective impact—both positive and negative—of discrete events that occur within the domain of industrial relations in an organization. Unlike trait measures of stress, the IRES focuses on specific, measurable occurrences that bring about change in the work situation, often related to labor practices, conflict, or policy changes.

This approach allows researchers to assess fluctuations in stress exposure and perception over short periods, providing a dynamic view of how specific workplace interactions, conflicts, and policy changes influence employee well-being and attitudes, such as job satisfaction. The measure is designed to capture the immediacy of event appraisal.

Construct

The IRES measures the construct of Industrial Relations Stress Exposure and Appraisal. It operationalizes this construct through the lens of life events methodology, treating specific industrial relations incidents (e.g., conflict with supervisors, unfair labor practices, union interaction) as discrete stressors or positive events.

The scale captures three dimensions related to this construct: 1) the objective presence (occurrence) of the event, 2) the subjective appraisal of the event’s negativity (stress), and 3) the subjective appraisal of the event’s positivity (positive perception). These dimensions collectively provide a comprehensive assessment of the employee’s interaction with the industrial relations climate.

Validity

The validity of the IRES was supported by its demonstrated relationship with key affective and attitudinal outcomes, establishing evidence for concurrent validity as reported by Kelloway et al. (1993). This assessment focused on correlations with measures of mood and job satisfaction.

Findings indicated that the measure of Positive Industrial Relations Stress correlated positively with both positive mood and high levels of job satisfaction. Conversely, the measure of Negative Industrial Relations Stress exhibited a negative correlation with positive mood and job satisfaction, while showing a significant positive correlation with negative mood. These established patterns confirm that the scale effectively captures and differentiates between beneficial and detrimental industrial relations experiences.

Reliability

The reliability assessment for the IRES necessarily deviates from standard psychometric practices, such as calculating internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha). This deviation is a direct result of the scale’s design, which utilizes a life events methodology.

Since respondents are only instructed to score events that occurred within a specific, limited timeframe, the actual set of items scored varies significantly from individual to individual. This differential scoring means that customary measures of item homogeneity and internal consistency are statistically inappropriate for assessing the scale’s reliability. Reliability, in the context of event scales, is typically approached through test-retest methods across identical sampling periods, focusing on the stability of event reporting rather than the consistency of item responses across the entire pool.

Factor Analysis

Given the scale’s fundamental design as an index of discrete, potentially rare, events rather than a measure of stable, underlying personality traits, traditional factor analysis methods (Exploratory or Confirmatory) applied to the 25 items across the entire sample are generally unsuitable. The scale is intended to cover a wide spectrum of potential stressors within the industrial relations domain, and the items are not expected to covary uniformly among all respondents.

The scoring mechanism conceptually separates the events based on their perceived valence (positive vs. negative impact, indicated by the rating scale), implying a conceptual structure based on event appraisal (Positive vs. Negative) rather than a latent factor structure determined by item clustering.

Instrument

Test Type: Situational Stress Index / Event-Based Measure

Format: 25 items, self-report checklist with a subjective rating scale.

Language Available: English (Original publication).

Population Group: Employees/Workers engaged in organizational settings with formal industrial relations structures (e.g., unionized or formal labor environments).

Age Group: Adult working population.

Population Details: Originally used in studies involving general organizational employees across various industries in the context of organizational behavior research.

Test Methodology: Respondents identify experienced events from the list and rate the impact of each event using a 7-point scale ranging from -3 (Extremely Negative Impact) to +3 (Extremely Positive Impact), with 0 indicating that the event occurred but had no impact.

Keywords

Occupational psychology, Stress assessment, Employee well-being, Organizational research, Conflict resolution, Labor relations, Psychometrics, Work environment.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1993.

Permissions: The items were taken from the appendix of the original 1993 article in the Journal of Organizational Behavior. Copyright is held by John Wiley & Sons Limited, and items were reproduced by their permission for the source compilation.

Fee: Not specified; researchers should seek current permissions from John Wiley & Sons Limited for usage.

Reference’s

Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Shah, A. (1993). Industrial relations stress and job satisfaction: Concurrent effects and mediation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 447-457. Items were sourced from the appendix, p. 456. Copyright © 1993. Reproduced by permission of John Wiley & Sons Limited.

Bluen, S. D., & Barling, J. (1987). Industrial relations events and their effects on psychological distress. South African Journal of Psychology, 17(2), 70-76. (The original source of the larger item pool from which the 25 items were drawn).

Items of the Industrial Relations Event Scale

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

Instructions and items:

Listed below are a number of events sometimes experienced by individuals which bring about change in the work situation. Please respond to only those events which you experienced at work today. For those events that you experienced today, please indicate the extent to which you viewed the event as having either a positive or negative impact when it occurred. That is, indicate the type (positive or negative) and extent of impact that the event had. A rating of -3 would indicate an extremely negative impact. A rating of +3 would indicate an extremely positive impact. A rating of O would indicate that the event occurred to you, but that it had no impact on you.

List of events:

1. Change in work rules
2. Conflict with supervisor or subordinates
3. Unfair labor practices
4. Dealing with resistance to change
5. Being discriminated against
6. Failure to use industrial relations procedures
7. Being victimized
8. Being intimidated
9. Being disciplined
10. Shop steward or worker representative elections
11. Representing others
12. Injustice and inequality
13. Anticipating or being approached by the trade union
14. Being powerless to act in the face of corruption
15. Inter-group conflict
16. Management resistance to minority (e.g., women, black) advancement
17. Being called abusive names
18. Not knowing who to turn to
19. Problems with accommodation, transportation, schools,
20. Not being treated with human dignity
21. Lack of trust
22. Making or handling complaints
23. Job insecurity
24. Change in working conditions
25. Not being represented adequately