Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale

1. Abstract

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS) is one of the most extensively utilized psychometric instruments in industrial and organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and management science. Originally developed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) and subsequently refined and cross-validated into its definitive 15-item version by Kacmar and Carlson (1997), the scale operationalizes organizational politics not as an objective structural feature, but as a subjective cognitive appraisal of self-serving, non-sanctioned employee behaviors. The refined 15-item instrument captures three distinct yet intercorrelated latent dimensions: General Political Behavior (2 items), Go Along to Get Ahead (7 items), and Pay and Promotion Policies (6 items). Administered via a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), POPS provides researchers and diagnosticians with a rigorous tool to assess the degree to which workplace environments are perceived as self-interested, opaque, and divisive versus merit-based, collaborative, and fair.

Psychometrically, the 15-item POPS demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability across varied occupational and organizational sectors, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .85 and subscale reliabilities typically spanning from .73 to .91. Extensive confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across diverse multi-sample investigations—including public sector personnel, corporate engineers, human resource managers, and healthcare employees—consistently corroborate the superior fit of the hypothesized three-factor oblique model over alternative unidimensional or orthogonal configurations. Validity studies provide compelling evidence of convergent validity with constructs such as perceived organizational injustice, role ambiguity, and work strain, alongside clear discriminant validity from job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and leader-member exchange (LMX). Decades of meta-analytic inquiries position POPS as a potent predictor of critical workplace outcomes, including heightened turnover intentions, psychological withdrawal, professional burnout, and diminished organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).

2. Keywords

Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale, POPS, organizational politics, Kacmar and Carlson, workplace politics, psychological climate, organizational justice, job stress, turnover intention, psychometrics, factor analysis, job satisfaction

3. Authors

The modern, standard 15-item version of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale was developed and validated by K. Michele Kacmar and Dawn S. Carlson in their landmark 1997 publication in the Journal of Management. The conceptual foundation and the original precursor 12-item instrument were formulated by K. Michele Kacmar and Gerald R. Ferris (1991).

• K. Michele Kacmar, Ph.D.: A distinguished scholar in management and organizational behavior, Dr. Kacmar earned her doctorate in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior from Texas A&M University. She has held prominent endowed professorships at institutions including Florida State University, the University of Alabama, and Texas State University. Her extensive scholarship centers on organizational politics, ethical leadership, impression management, and abusive supervision, establishing her as one of the leading global authorities on toxic and political workplace dynamics.
• Dawn S. Carlson, Ph.D.: Professor of Management and the H. R. Gibson Chair of Organizational Development at the Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University. Dr. Carlson earned her doctorate in Management from Florida State University. Her research portfolio spans work-family conflict, organizational politics, occupational stress, and behavioral ethics. Her collaboration with Kacmar provided rigorous empirical refinement and multi-sample construct validation for the POPS framework.
• Gerald R. Ferris, Ph.D. (Original Conceptual Contributor): Professor Emeritus of Management and Psychology at Florida State University, Dr. Ferris is a seminal figure in the development of modern political theory in organizations, political skill theory, and social influence processes within human resource systems.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale is to systematically quantify an employee’s subjective evaluation of self-serving, non-sanctioned influence tactics and opportunistic behaviors within their proximal and distal work environments. For decades, management theorists struggled to measure workplace politics due to the clandestine, socially undesirable nature of political activity. Because employees and leaders rarely admit to engaging in self-interested maneuvering, measuring objective political behaviors directly presents near-insurmountable methodological hurdles. Kacmar and colleagues resolved this challenge by anchoring measurement in cognitive appraisal theory: what dictates an employee’s attitudes, strain, and behavioral reactions is not necessarily an objective tally of political maneuvers, but their subjective perception that politics permeate their organization.

In academic research, the POPS fulfills several vital functions:

• Explanatory Framework for Workplace Stress: The scale enables researchers to model political climates as chronic hindrance stressors that deplete cognitive and psychological resources, precipitating emotional exhaustion, psychological withdrawal, and job anxiety.
• Testing Organizational Justice Frameworks: POPS allows investigators to test the boundary conditions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, delineating how political maneuvers undermine transparent meritocracies.
• Mediator and Moderator in Leadership Studies: The instrument acts as a critical mechanism explaining how destructive leadership (e.g., authoritarian or abusive supervision) fosters toxic climates, or conversely, how servant or transformational leadership can mitigate political toxicity.

In applied organizational development and consulting contexts, POPS serves as a vital climate audit diagnostic. High baseline scores on the POPS frequently function as leading indicators of dysfunctional organizational cultures characterized by low psychological safety, high turnover of high-performing talent, suppressed innovation, and widespread cynicism. Human resource executives and organizational psychologists employ the tool during cultural transformation initiatives, mergers and acquisitions, and compensation system redesigns to evaluate whether published policies are perceived as authentic merit-based criteria or mere bureaucratic facades concealing favoritism.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the POPS—Perceptions of Organizational Politics (POP)—is conceptually defined as the degree to which an individual views their work environment as characterized by self-serving behaviors, factional maneuvering, subversion of formal policies, and non-sanctioned reward allocation strategies executed at the expense of organizational goals or other individuals. Rather than assessing political skill (the capacity to navigate politics effectively), POPS captures the perceived political climate of the organization. The 15-item revision established by Kacmar and Carlson (1997) establishes that POP is a multidimensional construct comprising three foundational sub-dimensions:

1. General Political Behavior (GPB)

The General Political Behavior dimension measures the perception that individuals or influential coalitions within the organization actively engage in self-aggrandizing, unprincipled, and predatory tactics to build their own power base at the direct expense of others. This facet reflects overt, interpersonally aggressive political maneuvers. It encapsulates an organizational ethos where personal advancement is achieved through sabotage, tearing colleagues down, and the entrenchment of untouchable cliques or cabals that operate above standard accountability mechanisms. Employees who score high on this dimension perceive that self-serving actors dominate the social landscape and that organizational success is fundamentally decoupled from collaborative integrity.

2. Go Along to Get Ahead (GATA)

The Go Along to Get Ahead dimension reflects tactical passivity, enforced conformism, and the systematic suppression of dissenting voices. It operationalizes a psychological climate where silence, compliance, and sycophancy are perceived as the only viable strategies for professional survival and advancement. Within this subscale, political behavior manifests not as aggressive posturing, but as defensive maneuvering: employees perceive that challenging the status quo, telling uncomfortable truths to superiors, or failing to agree with powerful stakeholders results in marginalization, reprisal, or career stagnation. This dimension directly links to the psychological safety construct, capturing an environment where ‘yes-men’ thrive while critical thinking and authentic expression are actively penalized.

3. Pay and Promotion Policies (PPP)

The Pay and Promotion Policies dimension measures the degree to which organizational reward allocation systems—specifically salary increases, bonuses, and upward mobility—are perceived as politically manipulated rather than governed by transparent, objective, and published merit-based standards. When this dimension is elevated, employees view formal performance management frameworks as hollow rituals. Promotions and raises are seen as trophies distributed through nepotism, personal favoritism, backroom lobbying, and allegiance to powerful figures, rendering formal human resource policies functionally irrelevant. This subscale directly touches upon perceived violations of distributive and procedural justice.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale is predominantly rooted in the comprehensive framework of organizational politics advanced by Ferris, Russ, and Fandt (1989), along with subsequent expansions by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) and Ferris et al. (2002). This framework integrates cognitive appraisal theory, social exchange theory, expectancy theory, and stressor-strain perspectives into a cohesive conceptual model.

Cognitive Appraisal and Lewin’s Field Theory

At the core of the POPS framework is Kurt Lewin’s classical field theory axiom that behavior is a function of the person and their environment, mediated through psychological perception: $B = f(P, E)$. Kacmar and colleagues posited that human beings do not react to raw, unmediated organizational reality; rather, they construct cognitive maps of their environment based on social cues, observed interactions, and systemic outcomes. Organizational politics operates largely in the shadows; hence, individual interpretations of ambiguity dictate affective and behavioral responses. Drawing on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional theory of stress, a political workplace is cognitively appraised as a threatening, hindrance-laden environment wherein the rules of engagement are unstable, unpredictable, and unfair.

Social Exchange Theory and the Psychological Contract

The theoretical model heavily incorporates Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964). In a normative, healthy workplace, employees enter into a socio-emotional contract with the organization: high effort, loyalty, and competence are exchanged for equitable pay, promotion, psychological recognition, and job security. When employees perceive an environment saturated with politics (elevated POPS scores), this fundamental social exchange is ruptured. High political perceptions signal that the psychological contract has been breached; effort and merit no longer yield expected outcomes, because rewards are hijacked by political actors. Consequently, in accordance with social exchange reciprocity, employees withhold discretionary effort, reduce organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and manifest cognitive and behavioral withdrawal.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

Modern conceptualizations of POPS frequently rely on Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 1989). Navigating a political environment requires continuous expenditure of vital energetic, emotional, and cognitive resources. Employees must perpetually monitor social dynamics, protect their reputations, engage in defensive impression management, and guard against political maneuvering by peers. Because resources are finite, the chronic drain imposed by a political climate depletes the employee’s resource reservoir without providing resource replenishment, leading inevitably to job burnout, strain, depersonalization, and eventual turnover.

7. Validity

The Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale has been subjected to rigorous empirical evaluation across dozens of independent investigations, establishing extensive construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Content Validity

During the 1997 revision by Kacmar and Carlson, content adequacy was formally evaluated using Schriesheim and colleagues’ rigorous quantitative sorting methodology across subject matter experts and independent panels. This process ensured that items distinctly mapped onto the theoretical definitions of General Political Behavior, Go Along to Get Ahead, and Pay and Promotion Policies, eliminating ambiguous or double-barreled statements that had weakened earlier iterations of the scale.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly demonstrated through statistically significant, theoretically consistent correlations with conceptually related constructs:

• Procedural and Distributive Injustice: POPS demonstrates strong negative correlations with procedural justice ($r = -.50$ to $-.65$) and distributive justice ($r = -.45$ to $-.58$), confirming that political environments are perceived as fundamentally inequitable.
• Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict: Positive associations ($r = .35$ to $.52$) confirm that political climates foster ambiguous expectations and conflicting directives.
• Workplace Strain and Burnout: Consistent positive correlations are observed with emotional exhaustion ($r = .40$ to $.55$) and somatic health complaints.

Discriminant Validity

Confirmatory factor analyses testing multi-trait multi-method matrices and nested latent variable models have confirmed that POPS is empirically distinguishable from related workplace attitudes:

• Job Satisfaction: While negatively correlated ($r = -.40$ to $-.60$), nested CFA models demonstrate that combining POPS items with job satisfaction items results in a severe degradation of model fit ($\Delta\chi^2, p < .001$).
• Organizational Commitment: Distinct from affective commitment ($r = -.38$ to $-.52$), showing that one’s emotional attachment to an organization is distinct from one’s cognitive appraisal of political maneuvering.
• Organizational Cynicism and Impression Management: Factor analytic investigations demonstrate that POPS measures perceived external environmental attributes rather than an internal cynical personality trait or an individual’s personal propensity to engage in upward influence.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Extensive meta-analyses—such as those conducted by Miller, Rutherford, and Kolodinsky (2008) ($k = 79$ studies, $N = 25,059$) and Chang, Rosen, and Levy (2009) ($k = 118$ studies, $N = 44,560$)—provide overwhelming evidence for the predictive utility of the POPS. Across these large-scale quantitative syntheses, POPS significantly and consistently predicted:

• Turnover Intentions: Corrected mean correlation $
  ho = .43$ to $.45$.
• Job Stress and Burnout: Corrected mean correlation $
  ho = .45$ to $.48$.
• Job Satisfaction: Corrected mean correlation $
  ho = -.54$ to $-.57$.
• Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB): Corrected mean correlation $
  ho = -.20$ to $-.25$.
• Task Performance: Corrected mean correlation $
  ho = -.15$ to $-.22$.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the POPS has been established across numerous samples encompassing diverse professional sectors, organizational hierarchies, and demographic cohorts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the seminal 1997 multi-sample investigation by Kacmar and Carlson, internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were documented across several distinct cohorts:

• Study 1 (State Agency Sample, $N = 749$): The overall scale yielded an internal consistency reliability of $lpha = .87$.
• Study 2 (Four Independent Samples, Combined $N = 1,587$):
  • Sample A (Electric Utility Cooperative, $N = 466$): Total scale $lpha = .87$.
  • Sample B (Human Resource Professionals, $N = 581$): Total scale $lpha = .89$.
  • Sample C (Non-faculty University Employees, $N = 220$): Total scale $lpha = .86$.
  • Sample D (Private Sector Employees, $N = 320$): Total scale $lpha = .88$.
• Study 3 (Item Refinement Samples): Sample of 123 SHRM members and 182 business students yielded aggregate reliabilities of $lpha = .81$ to $.87$.

Subscale reliability metrics across subsequent decades of organizational scholarship consistently align with the following parameters:

• General Political Behavior (2 items): Cronbach’s $lpha$ typically ranges between .73 and .78 (acceptable given that the subscale comprises only two indicators, where Spearman-Brown constraints depress alpha).
• Go Along to Get Ahead (7 items): Cronbach’s $lpha$ consistently ranges from .76 to .84.
• Pay and Promotion Policies (6 items): Cronbach’s $lpha$ consistently demonstrates superior internal consistency, ranging from .84 to .91.
• Composite 15-Item Scale: Overall reliability routinely falls between .87 and .92.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal studies examining the temporal stability of POPS have demonstrated test-retest correlations ranging from $r = .65$ to $.74$ over 3-to-6-month intervals in stable work environments. Notably, when substantive structural changes occur (such as a change in executive leadership, organizational restructuring, or the introduction of objective performance auditing), POPS scores shift predictably, confirming both temporal stability in the absence of interventions and sensitivity to genuine organizational environmental modifications.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the POPS has been the subject of extensive psychometric evaluation, transitioning from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in early development to advanced multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and measurement invariance testing.

Historical Evolution of the Factor Model

The original 12-item instrument published by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) initially proposed a five-factor model that was subsequently reduced to three factors. However, subsequent independent research by Nye and Witt (1993) raised critical concerns regarding unstable item loadings, low squared multiple correlations, and overlapping variance. To address these psychometric vulnerabilities, Kacmar and Carlson (1997) embarked on a three-study overhaul. In Study 1, CFA conducted on 749 state agency employees demonstrated that the original 12 items exhibited suboptimal fit, with several items failing to load cleanly on their intended dimensions.

Exploratory Factor Analyses in Scale Revision

In Study 2 and Study 3 of the 1997 paper, Kacmar and Carlson executed Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Common Factor Analysis with Oblimin oblique rotation across multiple independent datasets. Oblique rotation was theoretically and mathematically required due to the expected conceptual correlation among political dimensions. In Study 2, across four separate occupational groups, the analyses confirmed that while a three-factor solution was consistently extracted (eigenvalues > 1.0), only a subset of the original items demonstrated primary loadings $ge .50$ with cross-loadings $le .30$. Consequently, 14 new candidate items were generated and evaluated in Study 3. Iterative factor analyses retained 15 optimal items demonstrating sharp simple structure:

• Factor 1: General Political Behavior (Items 1 and 2) exhibited high, clean factor loadings ($> .68$) on overt maneuvering.
• Factor 2: Go Along to Get Ahead (Items 3 through 9) loaded cleanly ($> .52$ to $.79$) on passivity and conformity.
• Factor 3: Pay and Promotion Policies (Items 10 through 15) loaded strongly ($> .61$ to $.84$) on human resource politicization.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Fit Indices

Structural equation modeling has repeatedly validated the superior fit of the oblique three-factor model over alternative nested models (e.g., a one-factor general model or an orthogonal three-factor model). Across the validation cohorts in Kacmar and Carlson (1997) and modern replications, the three-factor model yields robust goodness-of-fit indices:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Typically falls between 1.85 and 2.60, well below the conservative threshold of 3.0.
• Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI): Exceeds .92 across occupational samples.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely exceeds .94 to .97, indicating excellent fit against the baseline null model.
• Normed Fit Index (NFI): Consistently documented above .91.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Ranges between .038 and .055 (with 90% confidence intervals rarely crossing .06), demonstrating minimal residual approximation error.
• Parsimonious Fit Indices (PNFI, PGFI): Consistently superior in the three-factor oblique configuration compared to more constrained specifications.

Measurement invariance analyses across gender, job levels (managerial vs. non-managerial), and organizational sectors (public vs. private) have established metric and scalar invariance, confirming that the 15-item POPS measures identical latent constructs with equivalent measurement weightings across diverse demographic groups.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale; organizational climate inventory.
• Target Population: Adult employees, supervisors, and executives across all industries, sectors, and organizational sizes.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration via paper-and-pencil questionnaire, enterprise intranet surveys, or secure web-based survey platforms.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete the full 15 items.
• Number of Items: 15 declarative statements.
• Subscales / Factor Structure:
  • General Political Behavior (GPB): Items 1 and 2 (2 items).
  • Go Along to Get Ahead (GATA): Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (7 items).
  • Pay and Promotion Policies (PPP): Items 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 (6 items).
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Reverse Keying Guidelines:
  • Reverse-Scored Items: Four items are framed positively (depicting an apolitical, fair, or open environment) and must be reverse-coded prior to calculating subscale or composite scores: Item 3, Item 4, Item 10, and Item 11.
  • Reverse Coding Transformation Formula: $\text{New Score} = 6 – \text{Original Score}$ (i.e., $1 \rightarrow 5, 2 \rightarrow 4, 3 \rightarrow 3, 4 \rightarrow 2, 5 \rightarrow 1$).
  • General Political Behavior Score: Calculate the mean of Items 1 and 2. Range: 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Go Along to Get Ahead Score: Calculate the mean of Items 3(R), 4(R), 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Range: 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Pay and Promotion Policies Score: Calculate the mean of Items 10(R), 11(R), 12, 13, 14, and 15. Range: 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Overall POPS Composite Score: Calculate the arithmetic mean of all 15 items (incorporating the four reverse-coded values). Range: 1.00 to 5.00.
• Normative Interpretation:
  • Mean Scores 1.00 – 2.49 (Low Perceived Politics): Indicates a healthy organizational climate characterized by high perceived procedural justice, psychological safety, transparent promotion protocols, and open communication.
  • Mean Scores 2.50 – 3.49 (Moderate Perceived Politics): Reflects a typical corporate environment with localized pockets of political maneuvering, mild conformist pressures, and occasional perceived opacity in reward distribution.
  • Mean Scores 3.50 – 5.00 (High / Toxic Perceived Politics): Diagnostic of a politically dysfunctional culture. Signals elevated employee strain, profound cynicism, risk of voluntary attrition among top performers, and substantial barriers to honest upward communication.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The revised 15-item Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale was published in 1997 in the Journal of Management (Volume 23, Issue 5, pages 627–658), building upon the original conceptual instrument published in 1991 in Educational and Psychological Measurement (Volume 51, Issue 1, pages 193–205). The instrument is copyrighted by the original authors and the respective journal publishers (Sage Publications / Southern Management Association).

For non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and doctoral dissertations, the scale is widely recognized as accessible in the public academic domain and may be utilized without financial fee, contingent upon full and accurate bibliographic citation of Kacmar and Carlson (1997). Researchers are not formally required to purchase individual test forms. However, for commercial consulting, corporate assessments, enterprise climate audits, or inclusion within fee-generating diagnostic platforms, practitioners must secure formal contractual permission and licensing authorization from Sage Publications or the copyright holders.

12. References

• Bedi, A., & Schat, A. C. (2013). Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of its attitudinal, health, and behavioural consequences. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 54(4), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034549
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and work behaviors: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670894
• Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (Research in Multi-Level Issues, Vol. 1, pp. 179–254). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01034-2
• Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23(5), 627–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300502
• Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511019
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20(2), 439–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000207
• Miller, B. K., Rutherford, M. A., & Kolodinsky, R. W. (2008). Perceptions of organizational politics: A meta-analysis of outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9061-5
• Nye, L. G., & Witt, L. A. (1993). Dimensionality and construct validity of the Perceptions of Politics Scale (POPS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 821–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003023
• Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Talmud, I. (2010). Organizational politics and job outcomes: The moderating effect of work social support. The Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2829–2861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00683.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)