Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Number of items
20
Response format
5-point scale (1 = To a small extent, 5 = To a large extent), with an indirect item stem referencing procedures, outcomes or the authority figure
Dimensions & subscales
Procedural justice (7 items) — fairness of decision-making procedures
Distributive justice (4 items) — fairness of outcomes
Interpersonal justice (4 items) — dignity and respect from authorities
Informational justice (5 items) — adequacy and honesty of explanations
Reliability (commonly reported)
Subscale alphas are commonly reported in the .78–.93 range.
Validity evidence
Items were written to track the seminal justice literature criterion by criterion (Leventhal, Thibaut & Walker, Bies & Moag), giving strong content validity; CFA across a student and a field sample supported the four-factor model over one-, two- and three-factor rivals, with predictive validity for outcomes such as rule compliance, commitment and helping.
Populations & contexts
Employees and students in the original validation; since used across industries and dozens of countries.
Origin, translations & adaptations
United States. Many validated translations; measurement equivalence evidence is generally supportive.
Licensing & permission
Free for academic research (cite the source) The items are printed in the published article and are routinely used in academic research with citation. Contact the author for commercial survey use.
How to cite (APA 7)
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Short versions & notable variants
Overall-justice measures (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2009) are used when a global fairness judgment suffices