Development and validation of the Polish version of Colquitt’s Organizational Justice Measure
Łukasz Baka 1  
More details
Hide details
Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB), Warszawa, Poland (Department of Social Psychology)
Łukasz Baka   

Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB), Department of Social Psychology, Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warszawa, Poland
Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2018;31(4):415–427
Objectives: Organizational justice is an important predictor of employees’ well-being and job performance. Colquitt’s Organizational Justice Measure (OJM) was designed to assess four aspects of justice – distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational. The lack of a Polish version of the tool, however, has precluded its application in Poland. The objective of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the OJM in a Polish sample. Material and methods: The validating study was conducted on 2 participant samples (N = 209 and N = 659), employed in public and private companies. Both the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA) as well as the estimation of internal consistency with Cronbach’s α method were conducted. Predictive validity was assessed by correlating organizational justice with job-related factors and outcomes, including job resources and counterproductive work behavior. Results: The EFA and CFA supported a 4-dimension model of the OJM Polish version. This model indicated a better fit to data than the alternatively tested 1-factor, 2-factor and 3-factor models. The internal consistency of the scales was satisfactory, ranging 0.81–0.93 for various subscales. As expected, the overall organizational justice and the four subscales correlated positively with job resources and negatively with counterproductive work behavior. Conclusions: The Polish version of OJM has satisfactory psychometric properties and may be useful in assessing organizational justice in a Polish setting. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2018;31(4):415–427