Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

Abstract

The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), developed by Lyman W. Porter, Richard M. Steers, Richard T. Mowday, and Paul V. Boulian (1974) and further psychometrically standardized by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979), is an empirical psychometric instrument designed to assess an employee’s attitudinal attachment to a work organization. The instrument defines organizational commitment as the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and active involvement in a specific organization. The conceptual framework articulates commitment through three interrelated behavioral-evaluative dimensions: an unreserved belief in and acceptance of the organization’s overarching goals and core values; an active willingness to exert considerable effort beyond routine performance expectations on behalf of the enterprise; and a pronounced desire to maintain enduring organizational membership. The classical instrument comprises 15 self-report items scored along an asymmetric-balanced 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), alongside an alternative psychometrically validated 9-item abbreviated version composed exclusively of positively worded indicators.

Across extensive validation samples comprising 2,563 diverse working adults spanning nine disparate occupational cohorts—including public administrative employees, classified university personnel, healthcare professionals, retail management trainees, commercial bank tellers, aerospace scientists and engineers, and psychiatric technicians—the OCQ demonstrated strong internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranged from .82 to .93, with an overall cross-sample median alpha of .90. Test-retest reliability across multiple temporal intervals demonstrated moderate to high stability coefficients ranging from .53 to .75 over two- to four-month periods. Factor analytic studies initially supported a robust unidimensional global commitment construct, accounting for the predominant proportion of common variance, though subsequent structural equation modeling investigations identified method variance artifacts associated with the instrument’s six negatively worded, reverse-scored items. The OCQ maintains documented convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, correlating significantly with turnover behavior, absenteeism, employee retention, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Consequently, the OCQ remains one of the most widely cited foundational metrics in industrial and organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management.

Keywords

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, OCQ, attitudinal commitment, employee engagement, organizational identification, job performance, employee retention, turnover intention, psychometrics, Mowday, Porter, Steers

Authors

The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was formulated, refined, and validated through collaborative empirical programs conducted by leading organizational psychologists and management scholars associated with the Graduate School of Administration at the University of California, Irvine, and the University of Oregon:

• Lyman W. Porter, Ph.D. (1930–2015): Renowned organizational psychologist, Professor of Administration at the University of California, Irvine, and former President of the Academy of Management. Dr. Porter made pioneering contributions to expectancy theory, managerial attitudes, leadership dynamics, and voluntary employee turnover.
• Richard T. Mowday, Ph.D.: Gerald B. Bashaw Professor of Management Emeritus at the Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon. Dr. Mowday served as Editor of the Academy of Management Journal and has published extensively on employee-organization relationships, workplace motivation, and systemic turnover mechanisms.
• Richard M. Steers, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Organization and Management at the Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon. Dr. Steers is an internationally recognized authority on cross-cultural management, employee motivation, organizational effectiveness, and goal-directed behavior.
• Paul V. Boulian, Ph.D.: Behavioral researcher and organizational consultant who collaborated with Porter and colleagues during the mid-1970s longitudinal investigations examining employee socialization and turnover among healthcare staff and psychiatric technicians.

Purpose

The principal objective underlying the construction of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was to furnish organizational behavioral researchers, human resource strategists, and industrial psychologists with a reliable, standardized, and theoretically grounded instrument capable of operationalizing attitudinal organizational commitment. Prior to the seminal publications of Porter et al. (1974) and Mowday et al. (1979), scholarly literature lacked a unified conceptualization and psychometric standard for organizational attachment. Earlier investigations had conflated commitment with localized constructs such as job satisfaction, job involvement, career salience, or utilitarian compliance rooted solely in Becker’s (1960) side-bet calculus. The OCQ was specifically formulated to decouple generalized organizational identification from specific, transient emotional evaluations of immediate task attributes or supervisory conditions.

From an applied organizational standpoint, the OCQ serves as an early-stage diagnostic instrument for identifying systemic organizational health, turnover vulnerabilities, and employee disengagement. In human resource analytics and organizational development, the measure is frequently deployed within organizational climate assessments, post-merger integration audits, and longitudinal evaluations of onboarding or socialization programs. Because organizational commitment operates as a primary psychological precursor to cognitive withdrawal, search behavior, and voluntary organizational departure, the OCQ provides executive leadership with empirically verifiable predictive intelligence concerning retention risks. Tracking aggregate OCQ trajectories allows enterprises to assess whether cultural initiatives, leadership development interventions, or structural reorganizations cultivate deep organizational attachment or inadvertently foster psychological detachment.

In academic research, the OCQ functions as a pivotal antecedent, mediator, and moderator in comprehensive models of occupational performance, extra-role behaviors, absenteeism, psychological contracts, and organizational justice. The instrument is applied to delineate the boundary conditions under which affective attachment offsets workplace stressors, buffers against occupational burnout, and fosters organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). By quantifying the degree to which employees internalize core organizational missions, researchers can model the macro-level systemic consequences of organizational culture and strategic change.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire is attitudinal organizational commitment. Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) defined this construct as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization.” Unlike transient affective reactions directed toward specific facets of one’s employment (e.g., pay equity, physical working conditions, immediate supervisory interactions)—which define traditional constructs like job satisfaction—organizational commitment reflects an overarching, stable affective-cognitive orientation toward the collective employing entity as a unified social system.

The construct encompasses three distinct, mutually reinforcing behavioral and attitudinal dimensions:

1. Belief in and Acceptance of Organizational Goals and Values (Identification)

This cognitive-evaluative component reflects the degree of congruence between an employee’s personal value architecture and the stated mission, ethical standards, and operational philosophies of the employing enterprise. Employees scoring high on this dimension do not merely view the organization instrumentally as an economic transactional vehicle; rather, they incorporate the organization’s collective identity into their personal self-concept. Exemplified by items such as “I find that my values and the organization’s values are very similar” and “I really care about the fate of this organization,” this dimension represents deep psychological assimilation, value congruence, and genuine pride in institutional affiliation.

2. Willingness to Exert Considerable Effort on Behalf of the Organization (Involvement)

This motivational component captures an individual’s active disposition toward exceeding standard task descriptions and contractual role obligations to facilitate organizational flourishing. Committed workers voluntarily allocate cognitive, emotional, and physical resources toward the achievement of systemic objectives, demonstrating what modern researchers term extra-role performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Represented by statements such as “I am willing to put a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful” and “This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance,” this dimension operationalizes an active, agentic engagement with institutional excellence.

3. Strong Desire to Maintain Organizational Membership (Continuance / Loyalty)

This conative-behavioral dimension captures an employee’s deliberate intention to preserve ongoing structural affiliation with the organization, even when faced with countervailing opportunities or external market incentives. It embodies sustained institutional loyalty and a high psychological threshold for leaving. Items such as “I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization” and reverse-scored indicators like “It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization” reflect the persistence of membership intentions and resistance to occupational turnover.

Importantly, Mowday et al. emphasized that attitudinal commitment differs qualitatively from behavioral commitment. Behavioral commitment describes a condition wherein an individual becomes bound to a specific course of action due to past behavioral investments, sunk costs, or public declarations. In contrast, attitudinal commitment represents an ongoing, dynamic mindset through which individuals actively reflect upon and renew their emotional and philosophical bonds with the organization.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire synthesizes classic sociological perspectives, cognitive consistency models, and modern organizational systems theory:

1. The Inducements-Contributions Equilibrium

The conceptual foundation of the OCQ is deeply informed by the organizational equilibrium framework formulated by Chester Barnard (1938) and formalized by James G. March and Herbert A. Simon (1958). March and Simon posited that an employee’s decision to participate in an organization depends upon the balance between perceived inducements (material, social, and psychological rewards provided by the system) and required contributions (the individual’s physical, cognitive, and emotional labor). When an organization succeeds in providing inducements that resonate with higher-order psychological needs, individuals reciprocate by shifting their cognitive orientation from transactional compliance to profound identification, generating surplus contributions that manifest as attitudinal commitment.

2. Social Exchange Theory and Norm of Reciprocity

The OCQ heavily intersects with Social Exchange Theory as articulated by George Homans (1958) and Peter Blau (1964), alongside Alvin Gouldner’s (1960) norm of reciprocity. In contrast to explicit economic exchanges characterized by immediate, negotiated, and legally enforceable contractual stipulations, social exchange involves unspecified obligations, long-term trust, and shared values. When employees perceive that an organization treats them with dignity, invests in their development, and maintains procedural justice, they develop felt obligations to support organizational goals. This psychological dynamic transforms extrinsic work compliance into intrinsic affective attachment.

3. The Side-Bet Theory vs. Affective Identification Dialectic

The formulation of the OCQ represented a direct scholarly evolution beyond Howard S. Becker’s (1960) structural “side-bet” paradigm. Becker argued that commitment arose primarily when an individual accrued external side-bets (e.g., non-transferable pension investments, localized seniority privileges, community roots) that made leaving prohibitively expensive. Porter, Mowday, and Steers contended that Becker’s transactional view was overly mechanistic, failing to account for the genuine psychological, ideological, and emotional alignment that often emerges between employees and their organizations. While acknowledging that structural costs influence retention, Porter and colleagues positioned attitudinal identification as an independent and often more potent explanatory construct for organizational performance and voluntary turnover.

4. Integration with Modern Multidimensional Commitment Models

The conceptual formulation of the OCQ laid the foundational groundwork for later theoretical expansions, most notably the Three-Component Model of commitment developed by Natalie J. Allen and John P. Meyer (1990, 1996). In Meyer and Allen’s framework, commitment is segmented into:

• Affective Commitment: Emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (“wanting to stay”).
• Continuance Commitment: Awareness of the economic and social costs associated with organizational departure (“needing to stay”).
• Normative Commitment: A perceived moral obligation to maintain employment (“ought to stay”).

Contemporary psychometric consensus indicates that the OCQ primarily operationalizes affective commitment, with minor secondary elements tapping behavioral intent to remain (which bridges into normative and continuance domains). As such, the OCQ remains the definitive historical benchmark against which subsequent affective commitment scales are validated.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was documented through an extensive series of empirical investigations across nine distinct occupational cohorts totaling 2,563 participants (Mowday et al., 1979; Porter et al., 1974):

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was established by examining bivariate correlations between the OCQ and alternative measures designed to capture parallel constructs of workplace attachment. Specifically, Mowday et al. (1979) correlated the OCQ with the Sources of Organizational Attachment Questionnaire (a 16-item inventory assessing an individual’s perceived motivation to remain based on specific organizational characteristics). Across diverse occupational samples, convergent validities consistently ranged from r = .63 to r = .74 (p < .001). Furthermore, the scale correlated strongly with independently assessed behavioral indicators of organizational attachment, including supervisor ratings of employee loyalty and peer assessments of organizational commitment.

Discriminant Validity

To establish that the OCQ measures a psychological construct distinct from adjacent occupational constructs, Mowday et al. (1979) conducted extensive discriminant validation analyses comparing the OCQ against:

• Job Satisfaction: Measured via the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Across samples, correlations between the OCQ and overall job satisfaction ranged from .39 to .68. While shared variance existed (attributable to general positive affectivity and work valence), confirmatory analyses demonstrated that organizational commitment and job satisfaction load onto distinct latent dimensions. While satisfaction represents an immediate affective reaction to tangible task elements, commitment reflects an enduring identification with the broader system.
• Job Involvement: Measured via Lodahl and Kejner’s (1965) scale. Correlations between the OCQ and job involvement ranged from .30 to .56, indicating that an employee can be deeply dedicated to specific occupational tasks while remaining unattached to the employing organization (and vice versa).
• Career Satisfaction / Salience: Correlations between career commitment measures and the OCQ rarely exceeded .40, verifying that institutional attachment is psychometrically distinct from professional or occupational attachment.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The predictive validity of the OCQ is supported by longitudinal research. In their prospective investigation of psychiatric technicians, Porter et al. (1974) administered the OCQ at multiple time points across training and subsequent employment. Scores on the OCQ systematically differentiated employees who subsequently remained with the institution from those who voluntarily resigned. Highly committed employees exhibited significantly lower voluntary turnover rates over 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up windows. Subsequent meta-analyses (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000) have reaffirmed that the OCQ predicts:

• Voluntary turnover (average corrected correlations ranging from r = -.28 to -.35);
• Turnover intentions (correlations consistently between r = -.50 and -.65);
• Absenteeism and voluntary withdrawal behaviors (modest negative correlations ranging from r = -.15 to -.25);
• Organizational citizenship behaviors and in-role job performance (positive correlations typically ranging from r = .15 to .30).

Reliability

The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire exhibits strong internal consistency and stability across occupational sectors, organizational hierarchies, and geographic boundaries:

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across the nine primary validation samples analyzed by Mowday et al. (1979), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated high reliability, with values substantially surpassing standard psychometric thresholds (median alpha = .90):

• Psychiatric Technicians (N = 60): Alpha coefficients ranged from .82 to .93 across longitudinal measurement waves.
• Scientists and Engineers (Aerospace) (N = 119): α = .84
• Hospital Employees (N = 382): α = .88 (using the 9-item abbreviated form)
• Commercial Bank Employees (N = 411): α = .88
• Classified University Personnel (N = 243): α = .90 (short form)
• Public Sector Employees (N = 569): α = .90
• Telecommunication Company Employees (N = 605): α = .90
• Automotive Company Managers (N = 115): α = .90
• Retail Management Trainees (N = 212): α = .88

Item-total correlations across these datasets consistently ranged from .36 to .72, with the majority falling between .50 and .65, confirming that individual items share substantial common variance with the overarching composite score.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability was evaluated prospectively across multiple intervals within stable employee cohorts. Among psychiatric technicians assessed during longitudinal career milestones:

• Two-month test-retest reliability coefficient: r = .53
• Three-month test-retest reliability coefficient: r = .63
• Four-month test-retest reliability coefficient: r = .75

These moderate to high coefficients demonstrate both longitudinal reliability and expected responsiveness to changing environmental conditions: attitudinal commitment remains relatively stable over medium horizons while responding systematically to significant organizational interventions, leadership shifts, or critical incidents.

Factor Analysis

In the original developmental analyses conducted by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979), exploratory factor analyses using principal component extraction followed by varimax orthogonal rotation were conducted independently across six diverse occupational samples. In each sample, the analyses yielded a single primary factor accounting for the predominant proportion of common variance (typically ranging from 83.2% to 92.4% of explained variance across samples). Eigenvalues for the initial factor consistently exceeded 5.0, while secondary factors yielded eigenvalues hovering near or below unity. All 15 items demonstrated substantial primary factor loadings, generally ranging from .45 to .82. On the basis of these initial findings, the authors concluded that the OCQ is structurally unidimensional, representing a unitary construct of attitudinal commitment.

The Method Factor Debate and Structural Critiques

Subsequent psychometric investigations employing advanced confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)—most notably studies by Angle and Perry (1981), Tetrick and Farkas (1988), and Lance, Dawson, Birkelbach, and Hoffman (2010)—re-evaluated the factor structure of the 15-item OCQ. These structural analyses demonstrated that two underlying factors frequently emerge in empirical data:

• Factor 1 (Value Commitment): Comprising the nine positively phrased items (Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14), tapping pride in affiliation, extra-role effort, and alignment with institutional goals.
• Factor 2 (Commitment to Stay / Intent to Remain): Comprising the six negatively phrased, reverse-scored items (Items 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15), reflecting low loyalty, willingness to leave, and dissatisfaction with core policies.

Methodological research demonstrated that this bifurcated structure represents an artifact of item phrasing rather than substantive substantive multidimensionality—a classical method effect associated with reverse-worded items. When statistical models incorporate a latent method factor for negatively keyed items or utilize the 9-item short form (which eliminates the six negatively phrased items entirely), fit indices improve substantially (e.g., CFI > .95, TLI > .94, RMSEA < .05). Consequently, many contemporary researchers utilize the 9-item positively worded version to avoid artifactual method variance while preserving the core affective commitment construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ)
• Alternative Forms: 15-item Classical Instrument; 9-item Positively Phrased Short Form (retaining items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 14)
• Authors: Lyman W. Porter, Richard T. Mowday, Richard M. Steers, and Paul V. Boulian (1974, 1979)
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychological scale; psychometric survey
• Target Population: Working adults across industrial, public, commercial, non-profit, and academic organizations
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 7 minutes for the 15-item version; 3 minutes for the 9-item version
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Moderately Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
  • 5 = Slightly Agree
  • 6 = Moderately Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Item Composition: 15 total declarative statements;
  • 9 positively phrased items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14
  • 6 negatively phrased items: 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15
• Scoring Procedure:
  1. Reverse Scoring: Invert the numeric values for the six negatively worded items (Items 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15) using the formula: Reversed Score = 8 – Raw Score (i.e., a score of 1 becomes 7, 2 becomes 6, 3 becomes 5, 4 remains 4, 5 becomes 3, 6 becomes 2, and 7 becomes 1).
  2. Composite Score Calculation: Sum the scores across all 15 items (following reverse scoring) and divide by 15. This produces a continuous individual mean commitment score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00. (For the 9-item short form, sum the 9 positive items and divide by 9).
• Interpretation:
  • 1.00 – 3.49: Low Organizational Commitment (marked psychological detachment, high turnover vulnerability, transactional orientation)
  • 3.50 – 4.50: Neutral / Moderate Commitment (ambivalent identification, basic compliance without deep psychological engagement)
  • 4.51 – 7.00: High Organizational Commitment (strong organizational identification, willingness to exert extra effort, high institutional loyalty)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was developed between 1970 and 1974, with foundational empirical validation published in 1974 (Porter et al.) and definitive standardization published in 1979 (Mowday et al., Journal of Vocational Behavior). The instrument was placed into the scholarly public domain for empirical, academic, and non-commercial educational research purposes by its authors. In their 1979 publication, Mowday, Steers, and Porter explicitly provided the complete item inventory, response anchors, and scoring algorithms to facilitate widespread scientific replication and field deployment.

Consequently, academic investigators and non-commercial researchers may utilize, reproduce, and administer the OCQ without paying royalty or licensing fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic attribution is accorded to Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) and Porter et al. (1974). For commercial applications, executive consulting packages, or integration within proprietary diagnostic platforms, commercial entities must verify fair-use boundaries or seek permissions through the copyright holders of the original publications (e.g., Elsevier / Academic Press for the Journal of Vocational Behavior, or the American Psychological Association).

References

• Abd-Alazim, M., Looti, M., & Mubdir, M. Q. (2024). Psychometric Properties of the Arabic version of Organizational Commitment Questionnaire-Revised (OCQ-R) in Educational Settings. Academic International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2), 01–10. https://doi.org/10.59675/S221
• Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
• Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392596
• Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.
• Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/222820
• Berck, C. J. (2010). The relationship between perceived leadership practices and employee commitment in one Michigan public school district (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Douglas, S. M. (2010). Organizational climate and teacher commitment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Durbin, K. M. (2011). Mentoring to reduce employee turnover among mental health practitioners: A descriptive study (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
• Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and clinical implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600305
• Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 435–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109352528
• Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021692
• March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
• Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
• Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
• Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. (1976). Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90030-1
• Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335
• Stevenson, L. J. (2004). An empirical study comparing the psychological factors that describe agency and stewardship theories in principal-steward relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Tetrick, L. E., & Farkas, A. J. (1988). A longitudinal examination of the dimensionality and stability of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(3), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488483018

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)