Hesham F. Gadelrab Othman Alkhadher To Translate or To develop a measure? The case of a new Arabic Measure of Organizational Justice Hesham F. Gadelrab Othman Alkhadher the 23rd International Congress of The International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology IACCP 2016 - Nagoya, Japan (July 30 – August 3, 2016)

Introduction Researchers often attempt to study populations of more than one cultural or ethnic group to understand and describe cultural differences and to compare psychological properties. Appropriate psychological measures serve as essential tools for achieving this goal.

Cross-cultural researchers without a proper measure in their own language are presented with two options: To adapt a measure previously validated in another language with limited capacities to change it. Unlikely to be successful when direct and simple translation is used without consideration for language and cultural differences. To develop a new measure using the same theories that govern the original measure and to respond to cultural issues of the new group. Its time-consuming process, whereby much of the effort is devoted to the conceptualization, selection and reduction of items.

Introduction Cross-cultural researchers strive to achieve equivalence between the source version of a measure and the translated version, a critical process that involves lingual and cultural considerations. Until equivalence has been established, the validity of cross-cultural comparisons is threatened. Five problems affect the equivalence of a translation: vocabulary, idiomatic, grammatical–syntactical, experiential and conceptual equivalences (Sechrest & Fay, 1972).

Introduction In cases of organizational justice (OJ), the issue can be more complex. Justice by definition is a perceptual concept that is affected by culture. We do not know whether individual justice elements are equal across or work differently across cultures (Fisher et al., 2011; Fischer, 2008; Leung & Tong, 2004). Hence, measures of OJ that have been developed in western countries may function differently in non-western countries.

Current Arabic organizational justice measure For these reasons, we adapted the four factor organizational justice framework developed by Colquitt (2001) rather than directly translating his instrument. Colquitt (2001) developed a four sub-scale measure of OJ and provides evidence of its construct and predictive validity. The confirmatory factor analyses he conducted supported the measure’s 4-factor structure, with distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice used as distinct dimensions.

The new Arabic measure of organizational justice Alkhadher and Gadelrab (under review) examined the dimensions of OJ and its construct and concurrent validity using a Kuwaiti sample. Items included in this measure were generated in Arabic following a careful review of the OJ literature to ensure the measures’ relevance to the culture. In their first study, 1,184 Kuwaiti participants were divided into two groups: employees and teachers working in the public sector.

The new Arabic measure of organizational justice In the current study, confirmatory factor analyses revealed 4-factor structures similar to those presented in Colquitt (2001) and Fischer, et al. (2011) with high levels of concurrent validity. although both measures produce similar four-factor structures of organizational, distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice, not all of the presumed sub-dimensions are replicated in the Kuwaiti sample.

Chi-square Difference (df, sig.) Comparison of the Four Organizational Justice Factor Structure Structure χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA 90% C.I. Chi-square Difference (df, sig.) 1-factor 6167.08 304 20.29 0.819 0.797 0.180 (0.177,0.184) --- 2-factor 2954.75 300 9.85 0.917 0.908 0.122 (0.118,0.126) 740.62 (4, P<0.001) 3-factor 2007.87 294 6.83 0.945 0.941 0.099 (0.095,0.103) 422.02 (6, P<0.001) 4-factor 1112.68 286 3.89 0.965 0.966 0.065 (0.061,0.069) 306.28 (8, P<0.001) - This Table compares the factorial structure of A&GAMOJ using a sample of 1184 Kuwaiti participants (source Alkhadher and Gadelrab, under review) - Results shown in the table support the superiority of the 4-factor model would provide the best fit.

What is the difference? Distributive Equity rule CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Comparison between AVCMOJ and AMOJ dimensions   CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Distributive Equity rule 1. Does your (outcome) reflect the efforts you have put into your work? 2. Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed? 3. Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the organization? 4. Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance? 1. My salary reflects my efforts. 2. The compensation I receive is an appropriate match to my responsibilities. 3. The compensation I receive is appropriate for the number of hours I work. 4. The compensation I receive is appropriate for the difficulties and risks that I face at work. 5. The compensation I receive is appropriate for the level of job stress I face.

What is the difference? CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Comparison between AVCMOJ and AMOJ dimensions   CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Procedural Process Control 1. Have you been able to express your views and feelings during the procedures? Decision control 2. Have you been able to influence the (outcomes) arrived at by the procedures? 2. I am given the chance to influence any decision related to me before it is made. Consistency 3. Have the procedures been applied consistently? No match Bias suppression 4. Have the procedures been free of bias? 4. Decisions and procedures are applied without bias.  Accuracy of information 5. Have the procedures been based on accurate information? 3. Decisions and procedures are made based on accurate information. Correctability 6. Have you been able to appeal the (outcomes) arrived at by the procedures? 1. I have the right to appeal any decision affecting me negatively. Ethicality 7. Have the procedures upheld ethical and moral standards?

What is the difference? Interpersonal Respect Propriety CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Comparison between AVCMOJ and AMOJ dimensions   CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Interpersonal Respect 1. Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner? 2. Has (he/she) treated you with dignity? 3. Has (he/she) treated you with respect? 1. My boss respects my employment and human rights. 2. My boss treats me in a polite and kind manner. 3. My boss treats me with honesty. 4. My boss does not favour one person over another. Propriety 4. Has (he/she) refrained from inappropriate remarks or comments? No match

What is the difference? Informational CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Truthfulness Comparison between AVCMOJ and AMOJ dimensions   CAMOJ A&GAMOJ Informational Truthfulness 1. Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communications with you? See Respect no.3 Justification 2. Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly? 3. Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable? 4. Has (he/she) delivered information in a timely manner? 5. Has (he/she) appeared to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals' specific needs? 4. My boss justifies decisions that are related to my work. 2. Any employee can access information related to his work easily. 1. Explanations regarding procedures are received in a timely manner. 3. Work-related information is available to all employees.

Purpose of the current study The purpose of this study is to compare the translated version of Colquitt’s Arabic measure of organizational justice (CAMOJ) (Fischer, et al., 2011) with the Arabic measure of organizational justice (A&GAMOJ, Alkhadher and Gadelrab, under review) in terms of predictive power using various outcome measures used by Colquitt (2001). We believe that the A&GAMOJ responds to Arab culture (Kuwaiti sample) more than the CAMOJ. Therefore, we hypothesize that the A&GAMOJ is better able to predict outcomes than the CMOJ.

Sample The sample consisted of 781 Kuwaiti participants (47.6% males) employed in the public sector. The final participants who completed the outcome measures were (698, 44.7% males). The average age of the participants was 32.1 years (sd=7.4). Participants were recruited through the workplace and were invited to complete a voluntary questionnaire.

Analysis A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to confirm the four dimensions of both the new adapted version (A&GAMOJ) and the translated measures of OJ (CAMOJ) and the unidimensionality of each outcome measure. A stepwise multiple linear regression was conducted to compare the predictive power of both measures.

Dimensionality of Organizational Justice Measures Table 1 Assessment of model data fit for the CAMOJ and A&GAMOJ. Measure χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA 90% C.I. A&GAMOJ 401.28 113 3.55 0.914 0.915 0.071 (0.063,0.078) CAMOJ 615.03 164 3.75 0.919 0.073 (0.068,0.079) Both measures similar adequate fit to the 4-factor structure.

Comparing the two measures of organizational justice Table 2 The adjusted R2, the F value and its significance, and the t value and its significance for each OJ dimension Justice Dimension Predicted Outcome Variables Entered (in order) Adjusted R2 F F sig. t value t Sig. Distributional Instrumentality A&GAMOJ 0.061 27.03 > 0.001 5.20 Procedural Organizational Commitment 0.026 11.72 3.42 Informational Collective Esteem A&GAMOJ+ CAMOJ 0.079 27.44 18.48 5.24 3.21, 2.99 >0.01 Interpersonal Organizational Citizenship Behaviours CAMOJ 0.009 4.54 >0.05 2.13

Comparing the two measures of organizational justice For distributional and procedural justice, only the A&GAMOJ sub-measure entered the regression model (CAMOJ is excluded). For interpersonal justice, only the CAMOJ entered the model. (A&GAMOJ was excluded). For Informational justice, both A&GAMOJ and CAMOJ entered the model. The order of entrance is used as a criterion for favouring one measure over another. The A&GAMOJ sub-measure entered the model first, where R2 was 6.1%. The R2 change after the addition of the CAMOJ was only 1.8%.

Conclusion The results shows that OJ measures developed specially for Arabic culture perform better than their counterparts translated from English. Results of the current study raise issues regarding the development of scales versus the translation of well-developed scales.

Thank You