Role Conflict / Role Ambiguity Questionnaire

Abstract

The Role Conflict / Role Ambiguity Questionnaire, originally formulated by John R. Rizzo, Robert J. House, and Sidney I. Lirtzman in their seminal 1970 publication in Administrative Science Quarterly, represents the foundational psychometric benchmark for assessing occupational stressors rooted in organizational role dynamics. Developed out of classical role theory, the instrument operationalizes the twin organizational pathologies of role ambiguity—the lack of requisite, transparent information concerning behavioral expectations, jurisdictional parameters, and task obligations—and role conflict—the structural incongruity or direct incompatibility among competing organizational imperatives, personal ethics, interpersonal directives, or finite temporal and material resources. Spanning 14 definitive items derived from an initial 30-item developmental pool, the measure incorporates an 8-item Role Conflict (RC) subscale and a 6-item Role Ambiguity (RA) subscale, administered via a 7-point Likert-type response scale anchored from 1 (“Definitely not true of my job”) to 7 (“Extremely true of my job”).

Psychometrically, the questionnaire has demonstrated enduring utility across more than five decades of industrial and organizational psychology, human factors engineering, occupational health, and organizational behavior research. Initial validation yielded internal consistency reliabilities of α = .73 for the 6-item role ambiguity dimension and α = .88 for the 8-item role conflict dimension, findings that have been corroborated and reinforced across thousands of empirical investigations, cross-cultural translations, and comprehensive psychometric meta-analyses. Subsequent factor analytic investigations—while inciting substantial academic debate regarding method effects and the positive wording of ambiguity items versus the negative wording of conflict items—have persistently sustained the construct validity, discriminant validity, and predictive efficacy of the dual-construct framework. Elevated scores across both dimensions systematically forecast deleterious individual and institutional outcomes, including occupational burnout (manifested in emotional exhaustion and depersonalization), heightened somatic distress, degraded job satisfaction, diminished organizational citizenship behaviors, weakened affective commitment, and accelerated voluntary turnover intentions. This comprehensive treatise delineates the scale’s historical origins, psychological construct operationalization, structural equations, factor analytic lineage, psychometric parameters, administrative protocols, and complete authentic item inventory.

Keywords

role conflict, role ambiguity, occupational stress, Rizzo House and Lirtzman, role theory, organizational behavior, job demands, workplace strain, psychometrics, factor analysis, structural equation modeling, construct validity, occupational health psychology

Authors

The instrument was conceptualized, constructed, and psychometrically validated through the academic collaboration of three distinguished organizational scholars:

• John R. Rizzo, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Management at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States. Dr. Rizzo’s scholarly agenda focused extensively on management processes, organizational behavior, leadership dynamics, and structural interventions designed to optimize managerial health and systemic efficiency.
• Robert J. House, Ph.D. (1932–2011): Renowned organizational theorist and management scholar who held distinguished professorships including the Joseph Frank Bernstein Professorship of Organization Studies at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and professorial appointments at the University of Toronto, City University of New York (Bernard M. Baruch College), and Ohio State University. Globally celebrated as the originator of the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership and the founder of the cross-cultural Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program, Dr. House contributed profound conceptual framing to the organizational etiology of role strain.
• Sidney I. Lirtzman, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Management and former Dean of the Zicklin School of Business at the Bernard M. Baruch College of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, United States. Dr. Lirtzman specialized in quantitative methodologies, decision science, social-industrial psychology, and psychometric measurement within complex institutional frameworks.

Purpose

The primary clinical, diagnostic, and research purpose of the Role Conflict / Role Ambiguity Questionnaire is to furnish an empirically rigorous, standardized self-report metric capable of isolating and quantifying the presence and intensity of role stressors among personnel operating across diverse organizational strata. By isolating role ambiguity and role conflict as distinct yet interacting environmental stressors, the instrument enables organizational psychologists, occupational health professionals, and management scientists to investigate the etiology of workplace strain and diagnose structural dysfunctions within complex human systems.

From an applied diagnostic standpoint, human resources practitioners and organizational development consultants deploy the instrument during macro-level organizational restructuring, post-merger integrations, workflow reengineering, and job redesign initiatives. When organizations introduce matrix management structures, agile multi-team systems, or cross-functional reporting lines, employees are routinely exposed to jurisdictional ambiguity and competing directives from multiple authority figures. Deploying this scale permits leadership to identify specific departments or organizational tiers exhibiting pathological levels of role ambiguity (e.g., indistinct performance expectations, unarticulated authority limits) or role conflict (e.g., mutually incompatible job assignments, clashes between personal values and institutional mandates). Identifying these fault lines enables targeted interventions, such as renegotiating job descriptions, streamlining chains of command, harmonizing performance metrics, and establishing transparent resource allocation algorithms.

In academic and clinical research contexts, the scale functions as an indispensable independent, mediating, or moderating variable within macro-models of occupational epidemiology and organizational behavior. Within the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, role ambiguity and role conflict are operationalized as quintessential “hindrance stressors”—workplace demands that thwart personal growth, goal attainment, and psychological flourishing. Researchers employ the scale to quantify the deleterious impact of these hindrances on employee cognitive well-being, psychological safety, and organizational commitment. Moreover, the scale serves as an invaluable diagnostic asset in organizational psychology research investigating the neuroendocrine and physiological correlates of chronic structural stress, tracking how sustained exposure to high-conflict and high-ambiguity work environments correlates with sustained hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activation, cardiovascular strain, and elevated absenteeism.

Psychological Construct

The psychological constructs operationalized by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman are anchored in the systematic study of social positions, functional boundaries, and normative expectations that govern individual behavior within formal collective structures. The overarching framework posited that organizational effectiveness and psychological homeostasis require an individual to possess unambiguous comprehension of their operational domain and to experience coherence among the disparate expectations exerted by organizational constituents.

Role Ambiguity (RA)

Role ambiguity reflects an individual’s cognitive state of uncertainty concerning the expectations, responsibilities, behavioral norms, and performance parameters associated with their organizational position. Psychologically, it represents an epistemic deficit wherein the focal person lacks essential information required for competent task execution, self-regulation, and behavioral anticipation. Rizzo and colleagues operationalized role ambiguity along two primary sub-facets:

1. Clarity of Behavioral Requirements and Objectives: The extent to which an individual comprehends precisely what tasks are expected of them, the explicit criteria by which their performance will be evaluated, and the strategic roadmaps or planned goals assigned to their role. An employee suffering from severe role ambiguity operates in a constant fog of uncertainty, expending excessive cognitive bandwidth attempting to deduce what management expects them to accomplish.
2. Predictability of Behavioral Outcomes and Authority Jurisdictions: The degree to which an employee can anticipate the organizational sanctions, rewards, or consequences contingent upon their performance, paired with absolute clarity concerning their administrative authority and decision-making latitude. When authority limits are opaque, individuals experience paralysis or chronic apprehension regarding whether making a decision oversteps an invisible jurisdictional boundary.

Crucially, in the Rizzo et al. formulation, the 6 items designated to measure role ambiguity are framed in terms of “role clarity” or feelings of “comfort” (e.g., “I know what my responsibilities are,” “I feel certain about how much authority I have”). Consequently, higher raw scores indicate greater role clarity, requiring psychometricians to reverse-score these items so that higher derived values signify elevated levels of role ambiguity and psychological disorientation.

Role Conflict (RC)

Role conflict is operationalized as the simultaneous occurrence of two or more sets of organizational pressures or behavioral expectations such that compliance with one systematically precludes, impedes, or contradicts compliance with another. Unlike role ambiguity, where information is missing, role conflict involves an excess of incongruent information and conflicting demands. Classical psychological taxonomy distinguishes between several distinct variants of role conflict captured within the 8-item scale:

1. Intrasender Conflict: Occurs when a single authority figure or role sender transmits mutually incompatible instructions, tasks, or behavioral demands (e.g., demanding unprecedented speed in task completion while simultaneously insisting upon flawless adherence to exhaustive quality-control protocols).
2. Intersender Conflict: Manifests when pressures from one supervisor, client, or organizational unit collide directly with the contradictory expectations, philosophies, or orders issued by another supervisor, client, or peer group (captured explicitly by items such as “I receive incompatible requests from two or more people” and “I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently”).
3. Person-Role Conflict: Represents an ontological tension between internal personal values, ethical convictions, or professional standards and the mandated behavioral requirements of the organizational role (reflected in items such as “I have to do things that should be done differently” and “I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment”).
4. Role Overload / Resource Allocation Incongruity: Arises when an individual is assigned comprehensive organizational obligations without being provided the requisite temporal capital, physical resources, material collateral, or structural support systems essential for task completion (captured by items such as “I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to complete it” and “I work on unnecessary things”).

Theoretical Framework

The intellectual infrastructure of the Role Conflict / Role Ambiguity Questionnaire is anchored primarily in the Classical Organization Theory of Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and Luther Gulick, synthesized with the dynamic Role Episode Model pioneered by Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, J. Diedrick Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal (1964) at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR), as well as the open-systems organizational psychology articulated by Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn (1966).

Classical Organizational Principles

Classical management theory posits that organizational stability and employee psychological equilibrium rest upon several axiomatic structural imperatives:

• The Principle of Chain of Command: The organizational topology must maintain a continuous, unbroken line of authority linking every position to an ultimate governing executive, ensuring that directives flow downward predictably.
• The Principle of Unity of Command: A foundational axiom stating that an organizational member should receive orders from, and be directly accountable to, only one single superior. Classical theorists asserted that violating this principle produces immediate role conflict, cognitive paralysis, structural inefficiency, and operational instability.
• The Principle of Span of Control and Functional Definition: Explicit, unambiguous demarcation of responsibilities, duties, and authority spheres must be institutionalized, preventing role ambiguity.

Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) sought to develop an empirical measurement instrument capable of testing whether violations of these classical tenets systematically correlated with individual strain, organizational dissatisfaction, and dysfunctional coping behaviors across complex bureaucratic environments.

Kahn et al.’s (1964) Role Episode Model

While classical theory provided the structural baseline, Kahn et al.’s (1964) social-psychological model supplied the dynamic behavioral architecture. The Role Episode Model conceptualizes the organization as a sprawling lattice of interlocking roles. A focal person occupies a specific office, surrounded by a “role set” consisting of role senders (supervisors, subordinates, peers, external clients) who harbor specific normative expectations regarding how the focal person ought to behave. The role episode operates as a cyclical, four-stage feedback loop:

1. Role Expectations: Role senders generate prescriptive and proscriptive mental representations regarding the appropriate conduct, output, and demeanor of the focal person.
2. Sent Role: Role senders communicate these expectations through explicit directives, nonverbal cues, formal job descriptions, and informal socialization pressures.
3. Received Role: The focal person perceives, decodes, and interprets the sent signals through their subjective cognitive filter. If the incoming signals are fragmented, absent, or contradictory, the subjective states of role ambiguity or role conflict are induced.
4. Role Behavior and Strain: The focal person responds through compliance, resistance, psychological distress, performance degradation, or somatic symptomatology. This behavior is continuously observed by the role set, generating an iterative cycle of subsequent sent expectations.

Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman recognized that while Kahn et al. utilized complex, highly labor-intensive, multi-informant interview methods to assess the role episode, industrial research required an economical, psychometrically sound, self-administered questionnaire capable of capturing the subjective phenomenological experience of the “Received Role” within large-scale organizational surveys.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Rizzo et al. (1970) scales has been investigated across hundreds of empirical studies and consolidated through multiple seminal meta-analyses (e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Abramis, 1994; Tubre & Collins, 2000; Gilboa et al., 2008).

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established through demonstrating that role conflict and role ambiguity correlated in predicted theoretical directions with core structural properties of organizations. Rizzo et al. (1970) demonstrated that formal organizational practices emphasizing clear goal orientation, objective performance metrics, adequate formalization, and horizontal coordination correlated negatively with both role ambiguity (r = -.30 to -.55) and role conflict (r = -.25 to -.45). Conversely, organizations marked by excessive centralization of authority without horizontal information-sharing exhibited significantly elevated levels of both stressors.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Extensive multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) and structural equation modeling evaluations have substantiated the discriminant validity between role conflict and role ambiguity. Although the two constructs frequently exhibit moderate positive intercorrelations ranging from r = .25 to r = .55, confirmatory factor analyses consistently confirm that a two-factor latent model yields markedly superior fit compared to a unidimensional “general role strain” model. Discriminant validity has also been verified against conceptually adjacent constructs such as work overload, job insecurity, interpersonal conflict, and emotional dissonance.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Decades of empirical literature confirm that the 14-item scale robustly forecasts an array of crucial individual and organizational criteria:

• Job Satisfaction: Jackson and Schuler’s (1985) meta-analysis of over 200 studies revealed substantial, statistically homogeneous mean corrected correlations between role ambiguity and overall job satisfaction (ρ = -.46) and between role conflict and overall job satisfaction (ρ = -.48). The negative impact is particularly pronounced regarding satisfaction with supervision and satisfaction with the work itself.
• Organizational Commitment: Both role ambiguity (ρ = -.44) and role conflict (ρ = -.36) demonstrate robust negative relationships with affective organizational commitment, indicating that systemic role stress erodes an employee’s emotional attachment to the enterprise.
• Burnout and Somatic Health: Role conflict exhibits an especially virulent relationship with the emotional exhaustion component of burnout (corrected correlations routinely exceeding ρ = .50 to .60), acting as a primary catalyst for psychological depersonalization. Meta-analytic findings link both constructs to elevated physiological complaints, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and clinical depression.
• Job Performance: Tubre and Collins (2000) and Gilboa et al. (2008) confirmed that role ambiguity is a robust, significant negative predictor of objective and supervisor-rated job performance (ρ = -.26), whereas role conflict displays a somewhat weaker yet persistent negative correlation with performance (ρ = -.15 to -.20), operating primarily by depleting attentional resources and causing task prioritization paralysis.
• Turnover Intentions: Both dimensions consistently exhibit strong positive correlations with voluntary turnover intentions (ρ = .35 to .45), rendering the instrument a premier prognostic indicator for voluntary personnel attrition.

Reliability

The reliability profile of the Role Conflict / Role Ambiguity Questionnaire has been exhaustively documented across diverse sectors, including manufacturing, healthcare, public education, military units, research laboratories, and corporate multi-nationals.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970), conducted across two distinct samples within a heavy equipment manufacturing enterprise (Sample 1: N = 199; Sample 2: N = 99), internal consistency was estimated using the Spearman-Brown formula applied to split-half correlations:

• Role Ambiguity Subscale (6 items): Yielded internal consistency coefficients of r = .73 in Sample 1 and r = .80 in Sample 2 (with Cronbach’s alpha equivalents routinely documented between α = .78 and .85 in subsequent research).
• Role Conflict Subscale (8 items): Yielded internal consistency coefficients of r = .88 in Sample 1 and r = .82 in Sample 2 (with Cronbach’s alpha values typically stabilizing across the empirical literature between α = .82 and .89).

Jackson and Schuler’s (1985) meta-analytic synthesis reported mean internal consistency reliabilities across dozens of independent empirical investigations of α = .78 for the role ambiguity scale and α = .82 for the role conflict scale. Reliabilities rarely drop below the accepted psychometric benchmark of α = .70, demonstrating that the structural cohesion of the items remains exceptionally robust across diverse demographic cohorts, professional specializations, and geographic contexts.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal investigations assessing test-retest reliability across intervals ranging from two weeks to twelve months have reported stability coefficients between r = .55 and r = .75. Because role conflict and role ambiguity represent dynamic social-psychological states responsive to changing organizational environments, management practices, and workload fluctuations, moderate test-retest stability is theoretically congruent with the nature of the construct: the metric captures genuine systemic fluctuations in the organizational environment while maintaining high baseline measurement stability.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the instrument has occupied a celebrated position in the annals of psychometric discourse, catalyzing profound methodological discussions regarding exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the psychometric ramifications of item wording directionality.

Original Exploratory Factor Analysis (Rizzo et al., 1970)

The instrument began as an initial developmental battery of 30 items: 15 items designed to capture role ambiguity (6 stress-worded and 9 comfort-worded) and 15 items designed to capture role conflict (10 stress-worded and 5 comfort-worded). These 30 items were subjected to an Image Covariance Factor Analysis followed by an orthogonal Varimax rotation. The factor analysis revealed that the majority of the original items failed to meet rigorous psychometric retention thresholds due to complex multi-factor loadings, cross-loadings greater than .30, or unacceptably weak primary factor saturations.

Ultimately, only 14 items were retained, loading cleanly across two orthogonal factors that accounted for 56% of the common variance:

• Factor I: Role Conflict: 8 items loaded definitively onto this factor, with factor loadings ranging from .45 to .75. Every retained item on this factor was stress-worded, reflecting structural friction, interpersonal incongruity, resource deficits, or personal-role ethical clashes.
• Factor II: Role Ambiguity: 6 items loaded cleanly onto this factor, with factor loadings ranging from .48 to .82. Crucially, all 6 retained items on this factor were comfort-worded (measuring clarity of authority, objectives, responsibilities, and time management), displaying negligible secondary loadings on Factor I.

The Wording Directionality Debate and Subsequent CFAs

The clean structural bifurcation observed by Rizzo et al. sparked intensive methodological scrutiny in the 1980s and 1990s. Methodologists such as Tracy and Johnson (1981) and McGee, Goodson, and Cashman (1989) argued that the observed two-factor structure might be an artifact of item wording method variance rather than authentic psychological taxonomy: all 6 ambiguity items were framed positively (comfort/clarity), whereas all 8 conflict items were framed negatively (stress/dysfunction). Tracy and Johnson asserted that factoring the scale might merely separate positively worded items from negatively worded items.

To resolve this controversy, several rigorous confirmatory factor analytic studies were undertaken (e.g., King & King, 1990; Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Kelloway & Barling, 1990). Netemeyer et al. (1990) tested competing structural models using LISREL, comparing unidimensional models, two-factor models, and models with method factors accounting for item polarity. The empirical findings decisively vindicated the instrument: while method variance was detectable, the substantive two-factor model (Role Conflict vs. Role Ambiguity) provided a vastly superior fit to the empirical data across multiple independent samples (χ²/df ratios < 2.5, Goodness-of-Fit Index [GFI] > .92, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .93, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06). King and King (1990) corroborated that Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity represent theoretically and empirically distinct constructs, concluding that while researchers must exercise care when reverse-scoring the clarity items, the 14-item Rizzo et al. measure possesses robust psychometric integrity.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Role Conflict / Role Ambiguity Questionnaire (often cited as the Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman Role Stress Scales)
• Original Authors: John R. Rizzo, Robert J. House, and Sidney I. Lirtzman (1970)
• Constructs Measured:
  • Role Ambiguity (RA): 6 items (Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 13)
  • Role Conflict (RC): 8 items (Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14)
• Total Item Count: 14 items
• Target Population: Professional, managerial, technical, and operational personnel across all formal organizational structures, private corporations, public institutions, and healthcare/educational systems.
• Administration Format: Self-report inventory; paper-and-pencil or digital/online survey administration.
• Estimated Completion Time: 3 to 5 minutes.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type agreement scale:
  • 1 = Definitely not true of my job
  • 2 = Extremely untrue of my job
  • 3 = Untrue of my job
  • 4 = Undecided / Neutral
  • 5 = True of my job
  • 6 = Extremely true of my job
  • 7 = Extremely true of my job

  (Note: In standard administration protocols, anchors are typically displayed as a 7-point continuum ranging from 1 = “Definitely not true of my job” to 7 = “Extremely true of my job”).

• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Role Ambiguity (RA): Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 13 are framed in the positive direction (reflecting role clarity). To compute an index of Role Ambiguity (where higher scores indicate greater stress/uncertainty), these items must be reverse-scored:
    Item_Reversed = 8 - Original_Score
    Sum or average the reverse-scored values for items 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, and 13. Alternatively, researchers examining Role Clarity can sum or average the items directly without reverse-scoring. Mean composite scores range from 1.00 to 7.00.
  • Role Conflict (RC): Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are framed in the stress-worded direction. No reverse-scoring is required. Sum or average the direct scores across all 8 items. Mean composite scores range from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher scores reflecting elevated role conflict.
  • Global Role Stress: Combining both subscales into an aggregate score is generally discouraged due to their distinct theoretical etiologies and differential outcome profiles, though composite indices are occasionally utilized in broad structural models.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Role Conflict / Role Ambiguity Questionnaire was published in 1970 in the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Administrative Science Quarterly (Volume 15, Issue 2, pages 150–163). In accordance with standard academic publishing conventions and fair-use doctrines governing historical measurement scales published openly in academic journals during that era, the 14-item instrument resides substantially in the scholarly public domain for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research applications.

Scholars and researchers conducting non-funded or academic investigations may utilize, administer, and reproduce the 14 items without payment of licensing royalties or formal permission fees, provided that comprehensive bibliographic attribution is rendered to the original authors (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). For commercial diagnostic deployments, proprietary corporate testing platforms, or integration into fee-charging software applications, consulting firms and organizations should verify permissions and rights with the original publisher, SAGE Publications, which currently administers the intellectual property and copyright licenses for Administrative Science Quarterly.

References

• Abramis, D. J. (1994). Work role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and job performance: Meta-analyses and review. Psychological Reports, 75(3), 1411–1433. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.75.3.1411
• Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.320
• Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining role ambiguity, role conflict, job insecurity, and work overload. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 227–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.483
• House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3), 467–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90030-X
• Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2
• Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley & Sons.
• Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (1990). Item content versus item wording: Disentangling role conflict and role ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 738–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.738
• King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.48
• Lane, T., & Johnson, T. W. (1981). What do role conflict and role ambiguity scales measure? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.4.464
• McGee, G. W., Goodson, J. R., & Cashman, J. F. (1989). A topological analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity: Resolving the wording-direction debate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.356
• Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.148
• Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
• Tracy, E. L., & Johnson, T. W. (1981). What do the role conflict and role ambiguity scales measure? An inquiry into the lack of construct validity of the Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman scales. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(2), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(81)90025-9
• Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600104
• Violanti, L. M. (2003). The relationship of job satisfaction to role ambiguity and role conflict among school counselors (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1475.
• Wilson, S. M. (1979). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and job satisfaction among fulltime principals and teaching principals in Maine (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)