The measurement properties of the role conflict and role ambiguity scales: A review and extension of the empirical research

Abstract

The measurement properties of the Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970) role conflict and role ambiguity scales have been debated in the research literature for several years. The criticisms are that the scales do not measure separate constructs and are contaminated by method variance. However, some researchers have presented evidence supporting the scales' continued use as independent measures. We attempted to clarify the running debate by re-examining these issues and presenting additional data, which focused on the item level of analysis. Using confirmatory factor analyses and item statistics, we show discriminant validity for the role conflict and ambiguity scales across three diverse samples of workers. We also contend that the evidence for method bias is not as strong as previously argued. also found; one consisted of a mixture of conflict and ambiguity items, Although the criticisms were not totally resolved, House et al. (1983) recommended that researchers continue to use the original scales because the correlations between the new factors and the original scale items were extremely high (0.88 for ambiguity and 0.94 for conflict).The debate over these scales was recently rekindled by McGee et al. (1989). McGee et al. (1989) attempted to establish the dimensionality of the role conflict and role ambiguity scales by using confirmatory factor analysis to compare competing factor models across three independent samples. They tested a null model, a two-factor, oblique solution, a one-factor solution, and a solution that contained one general factor and a negative wordinghole ambiguity factor. The two-factor, oblique solution was included because it represented the traditional conceptualization of role ambiguity and role conflict as two related, although separate, constructs. The one-factor solution was derived from conceptualizing role ambiguity and conflict as a global or unitary measure of role stress (cf. McKelvy and Sekaran, 1977;Tracy and Johnson, 1981). The authors conceived of the general factor and wording factor as a test of Tracy and Johnson's ( I98 1) hypothesis that the two scales primarily reflect wording differences rather than construct differences.The two-factor, oblique solution was created to reflect role ambiguity and conflict as two correlated but separate constructs. Although they allowed the factors to correlate, McGee et al. did n d allow the items to load on both factors. In essence, McGee et al. accomplished partial cross-loading when they tested the general factor and wording factor model. Although the factors were orthogonal in this factor solution, the ambiguity items were specified on both factors to test the wording hypothesis. McGee et d ' s purpose in specifying this type of factor model was to tease out any variance not captured by the single construct (role stress) factor. However, because the constructs (role conflict and role ambiguity) were totally confounded with the wording bias (stress and comfort), the variance due to the wording bias could not be partialled from the const...

An examination of the multidimensionality of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader‐member exchange

“…This method has been used in several other studies which have demonstrated that survey data collected via trained undergraduates (the approach used in this study) are of comparable quality to more traditional data collection procedures such as collecting data via researchers within an organization (e.g. Hazer & Highhouse, 1997; Smith & Sulsky, 1995; Smith, Tisak, Hahn, & Schmieder, 1997; Smith, Tisak, & Schmieder, 1993).…”

Harmony, Justice, Confusion, and Conflict in Family Firms: Implications for Ethical Climate and the “Fredo Effect”

“…Perceptions of distributive fairness were assessed by three items adapted from a five-item distributive justice measure developed by Price and Mueller (1986) to suit the focus on family members' perceptions (a = 0.96). Finally, for role ambiguity we utilized a shortened three-item measure adapted from Smith et al (1993) that measures the degree of a respondent's role clarity; the construct exhibited a satisfactory alpha (a = 0.84). Responses were reverse scored so that lower scores on the measure indicate higher levels of the respondent's role ambiguity.…”

Understanding and Reducing Work-Family Conflict in the Hospitality Industry

“…While the scale is nearly four decades old, House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983) conducted a replication study and found that the original scale has sufficient reliability and validity. In fact, Rizzo et al's (1970) scale is considered by many researchers to be an acceptable measure of role ambiguity (i.e., Boles & Babin, 1994;Harris & Bladen, 1994;Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990;Smith, Tisak, & Schmeider, 1993).…”