The Dynamics of Incivility in the Workplace: Development and Construction of the WIS-ID (Workplace Incivility Scale for Indonesia)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30872/sahwn739Keywords:
Workplace Incivility, Scale DevelopmentAbstract
Several studies have found that workplace incivility contributes to descreased employee well-being and organizational productivity, making it important to measure accurately. However, existing measurement tools tend to docus specific organizations and rely on the perspective of targets of perpetrators, which may lead to social desirability bias. This study aimed to develop the Workplace Incivility Scale for Indonesia (WIS-ID) using an observer’s perspective to be applicable across various sectors.The WIS-ID consists of 30 items using a 7-point Likert response scale, was tested on 307 employees from both private and government sectors. The result of Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that this measurement model demostrated a good model fit (CFI ≥.90, TLI ≥.90, RSMEA <.08, SRMR <.08). All WIS-ID items showed adequate to high factor loadings (.485–.944) and excellent reliability (≥ .90), providing evidence that the WIS-ID is a valid and reliable instrument for use in the Indonesian context.
Sejumlah penelitian menemukan bahwa perilaku ketidaksopanan di tempat kerja kontribusi terhadap menurunnya kesejahteraan karyawan dan produktivitas organisasi, sehingga penting untuk diukur secara akurat. Akan tetapi, alat ukur yang ada saat ini hanya berfokus pada organisasi tertentu dan bergantung pada perspektif target atau pelaku, yang dapat memicu bias keinginan sosial (social desirability bias). Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengembangkan Workplace Incivility Scale for Indonesia (WIS-ID) menggunakan perspektif pengamat agar dapat diterapkan di berbagai sektor organisasi. Skala WIS-ID terdiri dari 30 butir pernyataan menggunakan skala likert dengan 7 pilihan respons, yang diujikan kepada 307 karyawan dari perusahaan swasta maupun instansi pemerintah. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa model pengukuran ini memiliki kesesuaian data yang baik (CFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90, RMSEA < .08, SRMR < .08). Seluruh item WIS-ID menunjukkan factor loading yang memadai hingga sangat tinggi (.485–.944) serta reliabilitas yang sangat baik (≥ .90), yang mengonfirmasi bahwa WIS-ID merupakan alat ukur yang valid dan reliabel untuk digunakan dalam konteks Indonesia.
References
Agarwal, S., Pandey, R., Kumar, S., Marc Lim, W., Agarwal, P. K., & Malik, A. (2023). Workplace incivility: A retrospective review and future research agenda. Safety Science, 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105990
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of management review, 24(3), 452-471.
Cleary, M., West, S., & Hungerford, C. (2023). Toxic Leadership: Lessons for Mental Health Nurses. Issues in mental health nursing, 44(10), 1059–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2023.2193629
Cohen, R.J., Schneider, W.J., & Tobin, R. M. (2022). Psychological Testing and Assessment An Introduction to Tests and Measurement (10th ed.). McGraw Hill LLC.
Cortina, Lilia M., Magley, Vicki J., Williams, Jill Hunter, D. L. R. (2001). Cortina et al 2001 JOHP.pdf. In Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 64–80). http://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/lilia-cortina-lab/Cortina et al 2001 JOHP.pdf
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations: Evidence and Impact. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835
Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414854
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2003). Research methods. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Handoyo, S., Samian, Syarifah, D., & Suhariadi, F. (2018). The measurement of workplace incivility in indonesia: Evidence and construct validity. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 11, 217–226. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S163509
Hasson, D., & Villaume, K. (2024). Incivility is systematically associated with indicators of health, stress, well-being, and the psychosocial work environment. Journal of Public Health, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-024-02277-0
Holm, K., Torkelson, E. & Bäckström, M. (2022). Workplace incivility as a risk factor for workplace bullying and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study of targets and bystanders in a sample of swedish engineers. BMC Psychology, 10, 299. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00996-1
International Labour Organization. (2022). Semua Bisa Kena! Laporan Hasil Survei Kekerasan dan Pelecehan di Dunia Kerja Indonesia. Jakarta: ILO.
Jiménez, P., Bregenzer, A., Leiter, M., & Magley, V. (2018). Psychometric properties of the German version of the workplace incivility scale and the instigated workplace incivility scale. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 77(4), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421- 0185/a000213
Kane, K., & Montgomery, K. (1998). A framework for understanding dysempowerment in organizations. Human Resource Management, 37(3‐4), 263-275.
Kaplan, R.M. & Saccuzzo, D.P. (2005). Psychological Testing: Principles, Application, and Issues. (7th Ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
Kaplan, R. M. ., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2018). Psychological testing : principles, applications, & issues (9th Ed). Cengage Learning
Khan, M. S., Elahi, N. S., & Abid, G. (2021). Workplace Incivility and Job Satisfaction: Mediation of Subjective Well-Being and Moderation of Forgiveness Climate in Health Care Sector. European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 11(4), 1107–1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11040082
Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2013). Respondent rationale for neither agreeing nor disagreeing: Person and item contributors to middle category endorsement intent on Likert personality indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.014
Lewis C. (2023). The impact of interprofessional incivility on medical performance, service and patient care: a systematic review. Future healthcare journal, 10(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2022-0092
Martin, R. J., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the uncivil workplace behavior questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.477
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2014). Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications. (6th ed). Pearson
Nadilla, M. P., Afifah, S. F., Putri, S. K. D., Mukminin, G. U., & Wyandini, D. Z. (2023). Adaptasi Alat Ukur Workplace Incivility Scale. Jurnal Psikologi Insight, 5(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.17509/insight.v5i2.62705
Nadler, J. T., Weston, R., & Voyles, E. C. (2015). Stuck in the Middle: The Use and Interpretation of Mid-Points in Items on Questionnaires. The Journal of General Psychology, 142(2), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2014.994590
Neuman, J. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3), 391–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(99)80066-x
Paulin, D., & Griffin, B. (2017). Team Incivility Climate Scale: Development and Validation of the Team-Level Incivility Climate Construct. Group and Organization Management, 42(3), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115622100
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human relations, 54(11), 1387-1419.
Piedmont, R. L. (2014). Looking back and finding our way forward: An editorial call to action. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. American Psychological Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000014
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024). Common method bias: It's bad, it's complex, it's widespread, and it's not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 17-61.
Reich, T. C., Hershcovis, M. S., Lyubykh, Z., Niven, K., Parker, S. K., & Stride, C. B. (2021). Observer reactions to workplace mistreatment: It’sa matter of perspective. Journal of occupational health psychology, 26(5), 374.
Rosen, C. C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A. S., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1620–1634. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000140
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(February), S57–S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Turek, D. (2023). How and When Workplace Incivility Decrease Employee Work Outcomes. A Moderated-Mediated Model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 45(4), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2023.2224479
Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of Psychological Testing (2nd ed.). Wiley
Wilson, S. T., Urban, R. W., & Smith, J. G. (2023). Online prelicensure nursing students' experiences of academic incivility during COVID-19: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of advanced nursing, 79(9), 3370–3381. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15656
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 About the Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
