CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.4 Design and Compilation of Scale
This research questionnaire is mainly composed of four parts: personal basic information, psychological contract violation scale, organizational commitment scale, and employee counterproductive work behavior scale. By consulting a large number of relevant literature and sorting out related scales, the most highly recognized Psychological Contract Violation Scale was developed by Turnley and Feldman (1999) while the most widely used Organizational Commitment Scale was developed by Allen and Meyer (1990), and the most recognized counterproductive work behavior Scale was developed by S. Robinson and Bennett (1995). Devellis (2010)
suggested that pre-existing scales of maturity should be preferentially used in research, trying not to self design, therefore, to ensure the quality of the research, the scales used in this study were all of maturity. Given that the scope of this study was distributed across China and Thailand, to ensure consistent expression between China and Thailand, this study invited a professional translator to translate the Chinese questionnaire into a Thai questionnaire, which was then back translated into Chinese by Chinese teachers at Sparta University, Thailand, and finally shaped the cost study questionnaire for Thai employees.
3.4.1 Psychological Contract Violation Scale
This study draws on Y. Li and Guo (2002); Turnley and Feldman (1999); S.
Yu and Chen (2008) scale, which classifies psychological contract violations into three dimensions: development dimension (DE), relationship dimension (RE), transaction dimension (TR), in which eight items on the development dimension (DE), including options DE1-DE8, four items on the relationship dimension (RE), including options RE1-RE4, and four items on the transaction dimension (TR), including options TR1-TR4. There are 15 items in total, using Likert five points scoring, 1 represents complete non-conformance, 2 represents relatively non- conformance, 3 represents general conformity, 4 represents relatively conformity, and 5 represents complete conformity. The higher the score, the higher the degree of psychological contract violation. The psychological contract violation Scale is shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Psychological Contract Violation Scale
Dimension Item Source
DE DE1. The company does not have clear job responsibilities.
(Y. Li & Guo, 2002; Turnley &
Feldman, 1999; S.
Yu & Chen, 2008) DE2. The company does not provide career
development plans.
DE3. My work is not challenging.
DE4. I have no creative freedom in my work.
DE5. I do not have the right to participate in decision-making.
DE6. The company does not offer learning and training opportunities.
DE7. Company does not offer promotion opportunities.
DE8. The company does not have a reasonable workload.
RE RE1. The company cannot provide a stable job.
RE2. The company does not provide a relaxing and friendly working atmosphere.
RE3. My colleagues do not respect me very much.
RE4. My supervisor disapproves of my work.
TR TR1. The company does not offer competitive remuneration compared to its peers.
TR2. The company does not provide good benefits (such as holidays, insurance, etc.).
TR3. The company does not provide the funds and facilities required for the job.
TR4. The company did not offer a salary commensurate with what I paid.
3.4.2 Organizational Commitment Scale
Drawing on Allen and Meyer (1990) organizational commitment scale as well as Haque et al. (2020) organizational commitment scale, this study divided organizational commitment into 3 dimensions: affective commitment (AC), continuity commitment (CC), and normative commitment (NC), with 12 items. Among them, there are four items of affective commitment, including AC1-AC4, four items of continuous commitment, including CC1-CC4, and four items of normative commitment, including NC1-NC4. Organizational commitment to use Likert five- point scoring, 1 for complete non-compliance, 2 for more non-compliance, 3 for general compliance, 4 for more compliance, and 5 for complete compliance. The higher the score, the higher the organizational commitment. Table 3.3 of the Organizational Commitment Scale.
Table 3.3 Organizational Commitment Scale
Dimension Item Source
AC AC1. I would like to talk to others about my organization (e.g. recommending a friend for a job).
(Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Haque et al., 2020)
AC2. I think I'm part of this business.
AC3. I have a deep feeling for this business.
AC4. I very much agree with the corporate culture.
CC CC1. I don't have many choices after leaving this business.
CC2. I need and would like to work in this enterprise until I retire.
CC3. The longer you work in the company, the greater your chances of promotion.
CC4. Leaving my job now will cause me a lot of damage.
NC NC1. I should respect my colleagues.
NC2. I should do my job well.
Dimension Item Source NC3. I should abide by professional ethics.
NC4. I should obey my superior.
3.4.3 Employee Counterproductive Work Behavior Scale
This study refers to the scale of counterproductive work behaviors of Ma et al.
(2019); S. Robinson and Bennett (1995) and contains two dimensions: organizational- oriented counterproductive work behaviors and interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behaviors. Among them, 6 items are organizational-oriented counterproductive work behaviors, including OR1-OR6 and interpersonal-oriented counterproductive work behaviors, including IN1-IN6. Using Likert five-point scoring, 1 represents complete non-conformance, 2 represents comparatively non- conformance, 3 represents general conformity, 4 represents comparatively conformity, and 5 represents complete conformity. The higher the score, the higher the frequency of counterproductive work behavior on behalf of employees.
Since counterproductive work behavior is a measure of employees' negative behavior in the workplace, respondents may be afraid or unwilling to report their counterproductive work behavior truthfully, which results in untruthful measurement results. Therefore, self-report may result in distorted measurement results.
Considering the infectivity of counterproductive work behavior, colleagues' counterproductive work behavior can influence the respondents' counterproductive work behavior to a certain extent (Fox et al., 2001), this study uses the method of transferring reference points to ask respondents to answer their colleagues' counterproductive work behavior situation in order to obtain the data of respondents' counterproductive work behavior indirectly, which can avoid common approach bias to some extent (Stewart, Bing, & Davison, 2009). The Employee Counterproductive Work Behavior Scale is shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Employee Counterproductive Work Behavior Scale
Dimension Item Source
OCWB CR1. Being late for work or leaving early. (Ma et al., 2019; S.
Robinson & Bennett, 1995)
CR2. Taking property from the workplace without permission.
CR3. Absence without reason or leave without permission from superiors).
CR4. Delay in doing things and deliberately delay work.
CR5. Talk to unauthorized people about confidential company information.
CR6. Unfair Income by Illegal Means.
ICWB PE1. Deliberately delaying important work assigned by colleagues.
PE2. Make fun of or abuse others at work.
PE3. Decepting colleagues and superiors at work.
PE4. Arousing disputes with others.
PE5. Be rude at work.
PE6. Tell gossip and spread gossip.