Construct: Mentoring

Source 1: Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339. Mentor role instrument is included in this paper.


DOI: 10.1016/0001-8791(90)90048-7


Source 2: Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550. Divides mentoring into a number of functions, under the superordinate dimensions of career oriented and psychosocial mentoring. Has been widely used in the mentoring literature.


DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529

Source 3: Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509. Measure describes several potential positive outcomes of mentoring relationships for mentors, including improved job performance and whether being a mentor has been a rewarding experience.


DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<493::AID-JOB894>3.0.CO;2-T


Construct: Trust

Source 1: Adams, J.E., Highhouse, S., & Zickar, M.J. (2010). Understanding general distrust of corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 38-51.

Source 2:  Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

Source 3:  Lau, Dora C.; Liden, Robert C. 2008. Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders’ blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5):1130-1138. Use single item network measures of trust to determine level. Looked at leader trust in subordinate and subordinate trust in leader.

Rationale for measures used

Source 4:  Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., & Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 870–883.

Source 5:  Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (2005). Two routes to influence: Integrating leader–member exchange and network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 505–535.

Assumptions developed based on prior research by:

Source 6:  Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1996). Trust and third-party gossip. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organization: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 68–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Source 7:  Gillespie, N. (2003, August). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust inventory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Seattle, WA.

Source 8:  Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.

Source 9:  Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205–215. 3 items to measure employee in trust in their managers.

Source 10:  Used in Choi, Jaepil. 2008. Event justice perceptions and employees’ reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3):513-528. Cronbach’s alpha=.78.

Novel measure to determine extent to which employees feel they are trusted by management

Source 11:  Used in Salamon, Sabrina Deutsch; Robinson, Sandra L. 2008. Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3):593-601. Pre-aggregation Cronbach’s alpha=.88.

Source 12:  De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How Does Trust Affect the Performance of Ongoing Teams? The Mediating Role of Reflexivity, Monitoring and Effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549. 5-item Likert-type scale for measuring intrateam trust.

Turnover Intention

Construct: Turnover Intention

Source 1: Cook, T. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York: Academic.

The three item measure of turnover intention has been used very frequently.

Source 2: Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York: Wiley.

Another frequently used three item measure of turnover intention.

Source 3: Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121.

Contains a three item scale purely focused on thoughts about leaving (no job search items).

Source 4: Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319-337.

Contains a three item scale indexing thoughts about quitting a job and job search.

Source 5: Larwood, L., Wright, T. A., Desrochers, S., & Dahir, V. (1998). Extending latent role and psychological theories to predict intent to turnover and politics in business organizations. Group & Organization Management, 23(2), 100–123. 2 items to determine turnover intention

Source 6: Used in Orvis, Karin A.; Dudley, Nicole M.; Cortina, Jose M. (2008). Conscientiousness and reactions to psychological contract breach: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:5, 1183-1193. Cronbach’s alpha=.97.

This is one researcher’s subjective opinion, but it seems that most turnover intention scales are very similar to one another (most contain items like “do you want to leave in the next year,” or “how likely do you think it is that you’ll be leaving this job in a year”).

Perceived alternatives

Construct: Perceived alternatives

Source: Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543-565. This contains a widely used scale of perceived alternatives. More information on the measurement of perceived employment alternatives can be found in Steel, R. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (1989). The elusive relationship between perceived employment opportunity and turnover behavior: A methodological or conceptual artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 846-854.


DOI: 10.2307/255574

Job Embeddedness

Construct: Job embeddedness

Source:  Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121.

Scales describing fit with one’s community, organization, community, and organization were developed.

Additional scales related to the process of turnover and work withdrawal can be found at the Performance: Counterproductive and work withdrawal page.


DOI: 10.2307/3069391

Job Autonomy

Construct: Job Autonomy

Source 1: Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Four items to determine participants work authority.

Used in Ng, Kok-Yee; Ang, Soon; Chan, Kim-Yin. 2008. Personality and Leader Effectiveness. A Moderated Mediation Model of Leadership Self Efficacy, Job Demands and Job Autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4):733-743; Cronbach’s alpha reliability=.90.

Source2: Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2003). Reducing subjectivity in the assessment of the job environment: Development of the factual autonomy scale, FAS. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 417-432.

DOI: 10.1002/job.199