Psychometric Properties of the German Version of the Workplace Incivility Scale and the Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The quality of workplace social environments has been widely recognized as having an important role in employees’ experience of their workplace, which is confirmed by recent research. The greater frequency of incivility, in contrast to the more intense forms of negative workplace interactions, expands opportunities for understanding the social dynamics of workplaces. Important aspects of this research are potential cultural variations in workplace social behavior. Valid translations of measures for the core constructs are part of the essential infrastructure to support such research endeavors. To assess uncivil behavior at the workplace, we prepared a German translation of the Workplace Incivility Scale and the Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale. Our analysis of the responses from 2,168 Austrian workers indicated that the translation of both scales into German was successful, and that the concept of incivility can indeed be transferred to the German-speaking population. The factor solution was comparable to the original version of the scales. Criterion validity coefficients lay in a similar range as the coefficients found in previous studies with Canadian samples. The availability of the scales should stimulate research on incivility among the German-speaking population and can help in organization-diagnostic processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".