Procedural Fairness Scale

Abstract

The Procedural Fairness scale, developed by Scarpello and Jones (1996), is a 15-item psychometric measure designed to assess employee perceptions regarding the fairness of organizational procedures utilized in making pay-related decisions. The scale is multidimensional, capturing four specific aspects of procedural justice related to compensation: pay determination (six items), pay communication (three items), performance appraisal (four items), and the formal appeal mechanisms (two items) for resolving disagreements about pay decisions. It provides a means to quantify employee attitudes toward the impartial application of compensation policies.

Keywords

Procedural Fairness, Organizational Justice, Pay Determination, Performance Appraisal, Employee Perception, Job Evaluation, Compensation, Organizational commitment, Pay Satisfaction, Employee Relations.

Authors

Scarpello, V., Jones, F. F., Bergmann, T. J.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Procedural Fairness scale is to systematically quantify employee perceptions of the impartiality, consistency, and ethical appropriateness of the processes utilized by an organization to manage its pay structure and compensation outcomes. It focuses specifically on the procedures, not the final pay outcome itself.

This measurement tool allows researchers and human resources professionals to diagnose potential sources of dissatisfaction or perceived injustice within the compensation system, ranging from the methods used for job evaluation and setting criteria for pay raises to the transparency of communication regarding pay policies.

Construct

The scale measures Procedural Fairness, a core component of organizational justice theory. This construct refers to the degree to which employees perceive the processes, methods, and mechanisms used to arrive at decisions—specifically pay decisions—as fair. Key dimensions of the construct assessed by the instrument include:

• Pay Determination: Fairness of methods used for establishing pay levels and raises.
• Pay Communication: Fairness in how pay issues are communicated and how questions are addressed.
• Performance Appraisal: Fairness in the procedures for gathering performance information, conducting evaluations, and appealing those evaluations.
• Appeal: Fairness of the mechanisms available for resolving disagreements about pay decisions.

Validity

Evidence for the scale’s validity was established through factor analysis, which confirmed the expected four-factor structure corresponding to the defined subscales (Scarpello & Jones, 1996). The items demonstrated strong loadings onto their respective factors with no significant cross-loadings, supporting the distinction between the four procedural dimensions.

Furthermore, all four procedural fairness subscales showed positive intercorrelations, indicating that while distinct, they measure related aspects of organizational justice. Construct validity was supported by positive correlations observed between the subscales and established outcome variables, including pay outcome fairness, pay satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Conversely, perceptions of the fairness of performance appraisal procedures were found to correlate negatively with job tenure (Jones et al., 1999).

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Procedural Fairness scale is high, as demonstrated by strong Coefficient alpha values reported for both the subscales and the composite measure (Jones, Scarpello, & Bergmann, 1999).

• Pay Determination: 0.88
• Pay Communication: 0.92
• Performance Appraisal: 0.87
• Appeal: 0.83

The overall composite measure, obtained by summing the scores of the subscales, exhibited excellent reliability with a Coefficient alpha of 0.93, suggesting that the scale provides a highly reliable assessment of overall perceived procedural fairness in compensation matters.

Factor Analysis

The foundational study by Scarpello and Jones (1996) utilized Factor analysis to test the dimensionality of the scale. The results robustly supported a four-factor model, confirming that the 15 items naturally group into the hypothesized subscales: pay determination, pay communication, performance appraisal, and appeal mechanisms. The clear factor loadings without significant cross-loadings solidify the theoretical distinction between the procedural fairness components related to compensation decisions.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory

Format: 15 items utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employees and working adults

Age Group: Adult (typically 18 years and older)

Population Details: Individuals employed in organizational settings where formal procedures govern compensation, performance management, and pay adjustments.

Test Methodology: Quantitative assessment of subjective perceptions regarding the fairness of organizational processes related to pay.

Keywords

Psychological scale, Organizational Behavior, Compensation Management, Job Satisfaction, Internal Consistency, Factor analysis, Employee Attitudes, Procedural Justice.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source materials.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source materials.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source materials.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The items were originally published in 1996 in the Journal of Organizational Behavior. Reproduction of the items is granted by permission of John Wiley & Sons Limited. Users intending to utilize the scale should seek updated permissions from the publisher or the authors, as applicable. The test year of development is 1996.

Reference’s

Scarpello, V., & Jones, F. F. (1996). Why justice matters in compensation decision making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 285-299.

Jones, F. F., Scarpello, V., & Bergmann, T. J. (1999). Composite measure analysis and procedural fairness in pay-related decisions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 395-408. (Reference added based on reliability data).

Items of the Procedural Fairness scale

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

Responses are obtained using a 5-point Likert-type scale where I = very unfair and 5 = very fair.

All items are introduced with “This is how I feel about the fairness of the procedures for … “

Pay determination items:

1. Determining the pay for my job
2. Determining pay raises
3. How my pay raises are determined
4. Determining the pay for my job relative to higher and lower level jobs than mine
5. The way performance is reflected in my pay
6. The frequency of pay raises

Pay communication items:

7. Communicating pay policies and procedures
8. Communicating pay issues of concern to me
9. Answering questions about how my pay is determined

Performance appraisal items:

10. Gathering information used to evaluate my performance
11. Evaluating my performance
12. Appealing performance evaluations
13. Monitoring my supervisor’s pay decisions

Appeal items:

14. Appealing pay decisions
15. Resolving disagreements about my pay