ADAPTATION AND VALIDATION OF THE WORKPLACE CIVILITY

SCALE FOR EUROPEAN PORTUGUESE SAMPLES

Tito Laneiro

, Luisa Ribeiro

, Martina Nitzsche

, Tânia Ferraro

, Genta Kulari

PSIQUE • EISSN 21834806 • VOLUME XX • ISSUE FASCÍCULO 1

JANUARY JANEIRO  30

JUNE JUNHO 2024 • PP. 4059

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26619/2183-4806.XX.1.3

Submitted on 20/01/2023 Submetido a 20/01/2023

Accepted on 22/07/2023 Aceite a 22/07/2023

Abstract

This study presents the validation of the Workplace Civility Scale (WCS; Osatuke, Moore,

Ward, Dyrenforth, & Belton, 2009) for European Portuguese samples. It was applied to a sample

of 1375 Portuguese workers. The current study gives empirical support to the research of work-

place civility. The 8-item pool was proposed to measure the workplace civility, the concept and

practice of courtesy, respect and consideration expressed between people at work (coworkers

and supervisors; Osatuke et al., 2009). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed to evalu-

ate the factor structure and model fit, in terms of construct validity. WCS presents good reliabil-

ity and convergent validity and can contribute to enhance empirical research of civil behaviour

at work. Finally, implications of workplace civility are discussed.

Keywords: Workplace civility; Measurement validation; Confirmatory factor analysis; Portuguese

workers; psychometrics; burnout; work engagement; community.

The concept of civility can be applied to various fields of research such as in History or Pol-

itics, Sociology or Behavioural Sciences (Ferriss, 2002). The present study focuses on its applica-

tion to professional environments. Workplace civility (WC) can be defined as a set of behaviours

characterized by: courtesy, politeness, respectful communication, consideration, compassion,

kindness and care expressed between coworkers (Clark & Carnosso, 2008; Osatuke et al., 2009;

Porath, 2011). Civility is associated with appreciation, recognition and being valued (Porath,

2011). Recently, Porath (2018) stated that civil behaviour at work is related to how well employees

1 Centro de Investigação em Psicologia, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa, Portugal.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Luisa Ribeiro. Email: mribeiro@autonoma.pt

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

treat each other. According to Osatuke et al. (2009), the concept presents four main characteris-

tics: respect, acceptance, cooperation and fair conflict resolution.

A specific behavior might be considered acceptable in one context, and disrespectful in

another, so there is little value in discriminating some behaviours when considering different

contexts or cultures. It is preferable to assess the individual’s perception of civility, since it is

their perception which will shape their feelings and the consequent response to their environ-

ment.

Workers tend to follow cultural rules, which shape the attitude at work and what is con-

sidered appropriate or otherwise unfair. Hosftede (2011) defines power distance as the extent

to which inequality is accepted and even expected. Portugal is a high power distance country,

which extends to the inequality of treatment between people with different hierarchical levels,

and autocracy. It follows that it is tolerated that superiors show a lower level of respect towards

their subordinates, when compared to the level they expect. Despite a traditional wider accept-

ance of these sort of inequalities, disrespectful or minimizing behaviors affect workers’ produc-

tivity (Day & Leiter, 2014) and well-being (Luparell, 2004, 2011), and the negative effect might be

amplified with culturally diverse workforces, as is increasingly the case in Portugal (Oliveira,

2023).

At work, individuals who show civil behaviour tend to be seen as potential leaders and their

advice is well received by colleagues (Porath & Gerbasi, 2015; Porath, Gerbasi, & Schorch, 2015b).

On an individual level, a civil employee tends to be viewed as warm and competent, being more

accessible, inspiring, and most likely to be recommended (e.g. for a promotion or a new job; Porath

et al., 2015a, 2015b). Civility uplifts people and promotes positive feelings at work and promoted

or recommended for a new post (Porath & Gerbasi, 2015; Porath, Gerbasi, & Schorch, 2015) for

the teamwork (Porath, Gerbasi, & Schorch, 2015), as well as job satisfaction (Leiter, Laschinger,

Day, & Oore, 2011). At the organizational level, WC interventions can improve organizational

commitment and decrease turnover intention (Osatuke et al., 2009). Culture is a central part of

civility (Clark & Carnosso, 2008), because it shapes our way of perceiving the world and how we

interact with others. Cultural awareness is an important issue in workplace relationships and

may be relevant to the promotion of workplace civility. Additionally, power differences within

organizations, be they real or perceived, as well as the way of dealing with power, can contribute

to abuse and exploitation of people (e.g. uncivil behaviour). Differences can be used to disqualify

others or, when valued and respected, used to build a work environment based on human dignity

and civility (Clark & Carnosso, 2008).

Given the positive impacts of workplace civility (both at an individual and organizational

level), the need to develop actions that promote civility demands an adequate instrument to

measure it. One such measure has become part of a comprehensive survey applied at the Veter-

ans Health Administration (VHA). This measure, comprising 8 items, is presented in Osatuke et

al. (2009) in Appendix B as Veterans Health Administration Civility Scale (VHA-CS), the psycho-

metric properties of which are referred to in Meterko, Osatuke, Mohr, Warren, and Dyrenforth

(2007, 2008).

The same instrument (part of the VHA survey) was subsequently used to measure civility

pre and post intervention (Osatuke et al., 2009; Osatuke, et al., 2014) and also used under the

name CREW (Civility, Respect and Engagement in the Workforce) Civility Scale (as mentioned in

Leiter, et al., 2012; Leiter et al., 2011; Leiter et al., 2010; Nicholson et al., 2014). These interventions

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

targeted professionals with various backgrounds, such as administrative supervisors, clerks, and

secretaries (Osatuke et al., 2009). Due to the possibility of its application to different professional

profiles, we suggest a broader name, Workplace Civility Scale (WCS). The WCS focuses entirely

on workplace civility, differently from other instruments that also include other constructs (Clark

et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2012), as in the case of the Organizational Civility Scale (OCS; Clark et al.,

2013), which includes organizational climate, civility, satisfaction stress and coping.

The current study supports the adaptation and validation of the Workplace Civility Scale

(WCS; Osatuke et al., 2009) for European Portuguese samples. Due to the importance of culture

on what is considered uncivil, rude or acceptable, and the nuances of the meaning of words and

phrasal constructions, there is a need for distinct instruments for different Portuguese speaking

countries, such as Brazil. Said context there is already a translated and adapted instrument (de

Andrade et al, 2020). The current study aims to present one for Portugal. In order to scientifically

study these effects in a Portuguese speaking community, a sound measure is needed, which is

the goal of our work. The presented instrument assesses civility from a perception poit of view,

therefore no specific behaviors are listed. This way, our measure accounts for the cultural and

social variability of what is considered civil or uncivil. The discussion presents possible applica-

tions of the validated instrument and the potential contributions to human resources manage-

ment, in an increasingly multicultural workplace (Oliveira, 2023). Practical implications and new

directions for future research are also discussed.

Methods

Participants

A total of 1375 Portuguese workers from three different professional groups, participated in

this research. Sample 1 (n = 695) was composed of healthcare professionals from two different

hospitals in Lisbon, Portugal: Hospital A and Hospital B. Sample 2 (n = 241) was comprised by

police officers, also working in Lisbon. Catering and hospitality professionals (tourism) made up

Sample 3 (n = 439) are shown in Table 1.

Procedure

We obtained written authorization from the original WCS authors (Osatuke et al., 2009), to

translate, adapt and validate the original English version to the European Portuguese profes-

sional context. The translation followed the guidelines for cultural adaptation, forward-trans-

lation and of research instruments by Brislin (1970), ITC (2017) and Wild et al. (2005). Two Por-

tuguese psychologists fluent in English performed the forward-translation independently. The

comparison between translations, and the compilation of the final version in Portuguese, was

done by a panel of judges composed of three organizational psychologists (none of whom were

involved in the translation process). One of the latter is Safety and Health manager in a data ser-

vice organization. The back-translation of the Portuguese version was carried out by two bilin-

gual psychologists. Subsequently, the panel of judges made a comparison between the transla-

tions and the original version of the scale, and determined the content of the final version of the

WCS in Portuguese.

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

TABLE1

Sociodemographic Information (N = 1375)

Characteristics

n %

Gender

Men 518 37.7

Women 821 59.7

Missing values 36 2.6

Age (years)

≤ 24 159 11.6

25 – 34 438 31.9

35 – 44 224 16.3

45 – 54 190 13.8

55 – 64 47 3.4

Missing values 317 23.0

Educational Level

PhD 4 0.3

Master’s degree 79 5.7

College degree 654 47.6

Bachelor or equivalent 15 1.1

[General nursing course] 9 0.7

Up to 12 years / [Vocational course] 334 24.3

Up to 9 years 241 17.5

Missing values 39 2.8

The adequacy of the Portuguese version of the WCS (face validity study) was evaluated in

a pilot study with among 28 workers with similar characteristics to the validation sample. No

issues were raised by the participants in the pilot study, so no items were changed. The final

Portuguese version maintained the original 8 items (Osatuke et al., 2009), as well as instructions,

format of items and response options (see Appendix A).

Following the approval of the top managers and the cooperation of intermediate and direct

supervisors, workers (except trainees/interns) were asked to answer the questionnaire at their

workplace. Participation was voluntary. The data from healthcare professionals was gathered at

their work environment, with prior approval form the Hospital’s Ethics Committee. The other

two groups of professionals were contacted individually outside their work premises. All partic-

ipants were given a Informed Consent prior to data collection, and thus informed of the purpose

of the study, and anonymity and confidentiality of data was assured, consequently following

ethical norms referred by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2016) and stated in the

Code of Ethics of the Portuguese Psychologists Association (Ordem dos Psicólogos Portugueses,

OPP, 2011). The participants received no incentive to their participation.

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

Data collection

The data were collected using a convenience sampling strategy. Participants filled in paper

versions of instruments, described below. The questionnaires were distributed and immediately

collected by the research team or via a ballot box.

Measures

Workplace Civility Scale (WCS)

To evaluate workplace civility, we used the WCS (Osatuke et al., 2009), an instrument devel-

oped to measure the workers’ perceptions of WC within their work groups and in their organi-

zations. The WCS is an 8-item unidimensional scale (e.g., “A spirit of cooperation and teamwork

exists in my work group”; “Disputes or conflicts are resolved fairly in my work group”; “This

organization does not tolerate discrimination”). Response options are answered on a 5-point Lik-

ert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the current study, the Overall

Civility Cronbach’s alpha of .88, and in the original study .93 (Osatuke et al., 2009).

Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)

The Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS; Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jack-

son, 1996) is a measurement of burnout, i.e., a syndrome associated with emotional exhaustion

and cynicism that can manifest among professionals who work as service providers (Maslach &

Jackson, 1981). The MBI-GS is a 16-item scale with three subscales: exhaustion, cynicism, and pro-

fessional inefficacy. Responses to the MBI-GS are given on a 7-point Likert scale, from 0 (never) to

6 (daily). A sample item is ‘I feel emotionally drained from my work’. The Overall Burnout Cron-

bach’s alpha in the current study was .85. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .90 (Exhaustion),

.81 (Cynicism) and .78 (Professional Inefficacy), (Tecedeiro, 2003).

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale was created to measure work engagement (Schaufeli &

Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker,

2002). Engagement is the enthusiasm and vigour people feel with their own work (Schaufeli &

Bakker, 2003). The UWES-9 comprises three subscales: vigour, dedication and absorption, com-

prising a total of 9 items (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Response options are given on a 7-point Likert

scale ranging from 0 = (Never) to 6 = (Always/Every day). A sample item is ‘At my work, I feel

bursting with energy’. In the current study, the Overall Work Engagement Cronbach alpha was

.92. The three subscales’ Cronbach alpha coefficients were: .87 (vigour), .88 (dedication) and .74

(absorption).

Community

The Areas of Worklife Scale (AWS) is a 28-item instrument that measures six areas/subscales

of worklife associated to burnout and job stress (workload, control, reward, community, fair-

ness, and values, Leiter & Maslach, 1999, 2004). In the current study, only the 5-item Commu-

nity subscale was used. The community concept represents the social interaction quality at work

and includes closeness, mutual support, the capacity to work as a team (social support) and the

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

capacity to manage interpersonal conflict, a community-orientation at work (Leiter & Maslach,

2004). We chose this subscale because of the perceiving a sense of community to WC, allowing

for short protocol. Response options are given on a 5-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disa-

gree) to 5 (strongly agree). One sample item is “People trust one another to fulfil their roles”. In the

present study, the Alpha coefficient of Community was .82.

Data analysis

To assess the psychometric sensitivity of the items, summary measures (mean, median,

mode, and standard deviation) and form (skewness and kurtosis) were used. In accordance with

Kline (2011), distributional properties and psychometric sensitivity were considered adequate if

their absolute value was lower than 3 for skewness and 7 for kurtosis, thus confirming normal

distribution.

We performed a CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) with the total sample of N =

1375. Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino (2006) recommend performing a factorial analysis of an inven-

tory of eight items with no fewer than 80 participants. In order to perform statistical analysis,

we used the software IBM SPSS Statistics (v.23.0, SPSS, IBM Company) and AMOS 24.0 (Arbuckle,

2016).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Based on prior research (Nitzsche, 2015; Osatuke et al., 2009), and the theoretical framework

plausibility, we performed the CFA of the 8 items expecting to find a unidimensional measure.

Evaluation of the model began with the assessment of the chi-square value of the sample and

its significance. However, because of the sensitivity of the chi-square test to large sample sizes

(Kline 2011), for models with N ≥ 300, it is expected that chi-square will almost always be sta-

tistically significant. The model was further examined using several fit indices: Comparative Fit

Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Usually, an excellent fit is

indicated when CFI values are close to .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011; Maroco, 2014; Meyers

et al., 2006). Values higher than .90 indicate a reasonable fit (Hair et al., 2006; Mueller & Hancock,

2010; Lomax, 2010).

The most acceptable models have RMSEA values up to .10 (Kline, 2011). Therefore, it was

important to examine the effect of our large sample size over the found indices. Currently, some

studies recommend evaluating the adequacy of model fit by simultaneously considering: the sta-

tistical standards, psychometric reflections and internal coherence with theory plausibility and

practical implications (Hair et al., 2006; McNeish et al., 2017). There seems to be no absolute rules

or standards to determine a bad and good fitting model (Hair et al., 2006; McNeish et al., 2017).

Results

Our results are presented in two parts. First, we present a CFA using Structural Equation

Modelling (SEM) for construct validity. Then we present the zero-order correlations between

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

workplace civility and burnout and work engagement and community to test the concurrent

validity of the WCS.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The CFA confirmed the unidimensionality of the instrument with 8-item, with no saturated

item outside the expected dimension. The tested measurement model presents a single factor

model (Credé & Harms, 2015; Edwards, 2001; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Johnson et al., 2012; Mac-

Kenzie et al., 2005) with eight items (see Figure 1).

FIGURE1

Final Structural Model Tested (n = 1375)

Considering the outputs and following the modifications suggested by the indices, the fol-

lowing correlations between item errors were inserted in the 8-item WCS measurement model:

between item 6 “This organization does not tolerate discrimination” and item 7 “Differences

among individuals are respected and valued in my work group”; between item 6 and item 8

“Managers/Supervisors/Team leaders work well with employees of different backgrounds in my

work group”; and between item 7 and item 8. These three items address issues of workplace

diversity, but despite similarities, each item addresses a different facet of acceptance of differ-

ences: item 6 focus on the organizational level; item 7 on the perception of the worker within the

work group; and item 8 on the behavior of the leader.

Items 4 (“The people I work with take a personal interest in me,”) and 5 (“The people I work

with can be relied on when I need help,”) are both about coworkers’ support relationships. The

former item relates to the care and attention that colleagues can show towards the respondent

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

and the latter item refers to the level of trust between them. Although these two perceptions can

be seen as related, they also represent different nuances of workplace civility.

Table 2 shows the initial goodness-of-fit indices (Model 1, without adjustments) and after

model amendments (Model 2). We concluded this analysis with the WCS presenting an accept-

able unidimensional representation through eight items as sources of workplace civility.

TABLE2

Goodness-of-fit Indices of Tested Structural Models

Model

χ2(df) χ2/df

CFI

RMSEA

(IC 90%)

Model 1

(without ajusments)

427.968**

(20)

21.398 .92 .122

[.112, .132]

Model 2

(with adjustments)

104.878**

(16)

6.555 .98 .064

[.052, .075]

Notes. χ2 (chi-square); df (degrees of freedom); CFI (Comparative Fit Index); RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), ** ρ = .000.

Test of convergent validity

All the participants in our study filled the civility questionnaire. However, only sample 1,

composed of 695 participants, filled burnout and work engagement instruments, whereas the

rest of the sample (680 participants) filled only the civility instrument. After verifying the aver-

age of both samples for the instrument of civility, it was found that they are similar, which sug-

gests that for the purpose of a confirmatory factor analysis, they can be analyzed as one sample.

Therefore, for the convergent validity test, only the participants that filled all questionnaires

were considered.

For the examination of convergent validity our sample was thus reduced to n = 695, the num-

ber of participants who completed all measures (civility, burnout, work engagement and com-

munity). Convergent validity was studied through correlations between WC and burnout, work

engagement and community (Hair et al., 2006; Urbina, 2014). Although the concept of burnout

seems further removed from civility, we hypothesised a negative association between these var-

iables, i.e., in professional settings where burnout prevails, it seems likely to expect lower levels

of civility. Indeed, some studies have suggested that promoting civility will reduce burnout (Fida

et al., 2018; Laschinger et al., 2009; Leiter et al., 2015; Leiter et al., 2011; Nicholson et al., 2014).

Additionally, workplaces providing social support between coworkers and supervisors show

higher levels of work engagement (Bakker at al., 2011). WC (a concept that includes cooperation

and personal interest in others) may favour healthy work environments, conducive to dedication

and engagement at work (Christian et al., 2011; Leiter et al., 2012; Osatuke et al., 2009).

Finally, WC, through social support might lead to a community feeling. We therefore tested

the association between WC and community (Hepburn & Enns, 2013; Leiter & Maslach, 2004;

Schnorpfeil et al., 2002; Truchot & Deregard, 2001; Van Yperen et al., 1992).

Table 3 shows means and standard deviations of the scores of WCS, as well as the correlations

between Civility with Burnout (overall and each of its three dimensions), with work engagement

(overall and its three dimensions) and with Community.

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

All correlations were, significant in the expected direction and showed the expected direc-

tion – a negative association between civility and burnout (-.43), as well as between civility and

each of burnout’s dimensions (between -.11 and -.35), and positive correlations between WC and

engagement and community, ranging from .25 to .74.

The reported value of the χ2/df statistic is slightly above the accepted recommended thresh-

old, although there is no consensus on what the limit should be (Hooper et al., 2008). Notwith-

standing, the modified version of our model shows a great improvement in fit statistics. This

statistic would very likely improve with the combination of the items with correlating errors into

a single item (e.g. Brown, 2015). However, for the reasons already explained (comparability and

few robust studies with Portuguese samples), the authors opted to keep all items intact. A version

with reduced items, as indicated by the correlated errors, might have shown better fit indices,

but the instrument would be less accurate for further scientific comparison.

TABLE3

Descriptive statistics and Correlations between Overall Civility of the Workplace Civility Scale (WCS)

andBurnout, Work Engagement and Community using Pearson’s correlation coefficient in the Portuguese

sample (n = 695)

Measure Overall Civility (WCS)

M SD

Burnout (MBI) - - -

Overall -.43** 33.93 14.88

Exhaustion -.35** 16.37 7.69

Cynicism -.41** 10.26 7.32

Professional Inecacy -.11** 7.41 5.41

Work Engagement (UWES) - - -

Overall .40** 37.24 10.71

Vigour .38** 12.49 3.96

Dedication .43** 12.95 4.05

Absorption .25** 11.77 3.98

Community .74** 17.52 3.57

Overall Civility (WCS) - 27.82 3.57

Notes. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1 tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1 tailed); Overall Civility (WCS) α = .88.

Discussion

Portugal is, as Hofstede (2011) mentions, is a high power distance country, where the major-

ity of subordinates accept incivility behaviors. Thus the presence of an instrument that measures

civility can portray the reality of the nefarious impact of such behaviors in the workplace. Fur-

thermore, this instrument can help human resources to assess civility and evaluate the efficacy

of civility intervention programs.

Considering this is a relatively new concept in Portugal, but which the western world has

embraced in their literature and in the workplace. It is thus important to add to the framework

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

by emphasizing this concept in the workplace in Portuguese context. In recent years, Portugal

has received an increasingly number of foreign workers, including highly qualified professionals

(Oliveira, 2023). Cultural differences render civility in the workplace a highly relevant concept,

as well as addressing it.

The results support our main objective, to adapt and validate the WCS for Portuguese sam-

ples. The results of the convergent validity study also enhance the knowledge about the nomo-

logical network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) of WC. The findings suggest that WC can be measured

through the presented 8-item instrument.

In order to improve the 8-item version of the WCS, four correlations between item errors

were added, thus creating a modified model. Inspection of model-data fit confirmed the orig-

inal one-factor solution proposed by the original authors. With our sample, the WCS showed

good psychometric proprieties. Internal consistency for the WCS, measured through Cronbach’s

alpha, was very good (Kline, 2011). The correlations with burnout, work engagement and com-

munity measurements were significant and coherent, supporting the convergent validity of the

WCS.

Despite the possibility to combine the items with correlating errors into a single item, (e.g.

Brown, 2015) the authors decided to keep the original structure. This will allow research works

to be more accurately compared, until more information is gathered from different Portuguese

samples, since agglutination of items inevitably leads to a different total score.

The findings also show a significant negative association between burnout and WC. Simi-

larly, Laschinger et al. (2009) found that strategic management policies which foster empower-

ment of nurses also lower workplace incivility and burnout. Nicholson et al. (2014) showed that

nurses’ WC can diminish their level of cynicism. In turn, the decrease in cynicism contributes to

the reduction of burnout. This led the authors to recommend interventions to promote civility at

work as a way to tackle burnout.

The correlation between civility and burnout (overall measures) and cynicism present sim-

ilar values (-.43 and -.41, respectively). This seems to indicate that cynicism might be burnout’s

dimension most affected by the presence of civility, which is in line with Nicholson et al.’s (2014)

findings. Correlation with the exhaustion dimension is slightly lower (-.35) and with professional

inefficacy is clearly lower (-.11). This latter dimension might be a more internal variable, less

related to the professional environment, which might explain the difference.

Laschinger (2010) stated that positive working relationships among professionals are essential

to maintain nurses’ satisfaction and engagement and to ensure high quality of care for patients

and their families. Leiter et al. (2011) presented the impact of civility interventions on social rela-

tionships at work. They found that social support and empowerment at work can improve psy-

chological safety and broaden employees’ perspectives to solve challenges, as well as to “learn

to produce more positive social behavior and be motivated to act accordingly at work” (Leiter, et

al., 2011, p. 1270). On the contrary, distress can narrow employees’ perspectives, reducing their

potential for creative problem-solving when faced with challenges (Leiter et al., 2011), potentially

leading to the development of burnout. “The improvements in the positive behaviors of civility

and respect demonstrate that people can learn to produce more positive social behavior and be

motivated to act accordingly at work” (Leiter, et al., 2011, p. 1270).

Work engagement had a positive and significant association with WC (.40). Leiter et al. (2012)

found that relationships of positive social support with coworkers and supervisor are related to

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

greater work engagement (see also Bakker et al., 2011). Yanchus, Fishman, Teclaw, and Osatuke

(2013) found that peer support (referred in two items of WCS) is strongly related to the promotion

of engagement at work. Osatuke et al. (2009, 2014) reported the successful CREW interventions,

which were based on the promotion of civility to positively affect the feeling of respect and

improve employee engagement. Our results are in line with these previous studies. The correla-

tions between WC and work engagement’s dimensions show similar values for vigour (.38) and

dedication (.43), but a lower value for absorption (.25). Since absorption is the ability to immerse

in the task at hand, it is more dependent on the task itself, which might explain the lower value.

Finally, Community had not only a positive and significant association with WC but was

also the correlation that presented the largest magnitude. This suggests that the concept of Com-

munity (as social support or communal orientation) is conceptually is conceptually close to the

workplace civility in our samples. Those participants who perceive a healthy environment of

civility in the workplace also seem to feel they have social support and a sense of belonging to a

workplace that conveys a sense of community (Leiter et al., 2011).

One important idea reported by the tested association regarding convergent validity is that

the quality of interpersonal relationships in the workplace may act as a inhibitor (if positive/

good) or promoter (if negative/bad) of burnout. They can also promote (if relationships are pos-

itive) or lower work engagement (if bad). Finally, the quality of civility-oriented relationships is

positively associated with the sense of community when they are healthy and positive and/or

negatively related to the sense of community when unpleasant interpersonal relationships are

present.

There is ample evidence of the correlation between civility and burnout and work engage-

ment. The construct of community is indeed closer to civility. Our results show that WCS behaves

accordingly, showing higher convergence with Community and intermediate with burnout and

work engagement.

Another relevant facet of our work was the heterogeneous samples. Considering healthcare

professionals, particularly nurses, Clark and Kenski (2017) highlighted the importance for mod-

ern clinical practice of good working conditions in healthcare, and positive working relation-

ships for ethical, safe, respectful and civil workplaces for both professionals and patients. Bel-

ton and Dyrenforth (2007) emphasized that WC influences business outcomes in a positive way,

improving job satisfaction and attendance. Maslach and Leiter (2017) emphasized the importance

of improving civility to reduce burnout, especially considering quality of social relationships

in healthcare systems and even previously in a professional career in medical education. The

improvement of positive social climates of workgroups can promote positive social behaviours.

They concluded that well-designed organizational interventions could deal with the burnout in

healthcare systems and required the involvement of individual professionals, workgroups and

organizational/ management leaders. Having in particular consideration the sense of commu-

nity, they proposed that the promotion of civility may be key in creating a real transformation of

the workplace.

Despite its relevance, as far as we know, there is still a lack of studies on the promotion of

civility at work for police professionals, represented in our sample. According to Borrello (2012),

a lieutenant serving in San Gabriel Police Department, California, “civility is right behaviour

that serves as an ethical sentry encouraging the prevention of and guarding against miscon-

duct” (2012, p. 1). He believes in the potential of decorum and power that small, collective, and

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

everyday applications of civil behaviour can have in promoting real positive change. He consid-

ers that civility can promote positive changes and mitigate adverse occurrences.

As was the case with empirical studies with samples of police professionals, we also found

a gap in studies that focus on civility in the area of catering and hospitality. With a sample of

tourism professionals, Nitzsche (2015) refers the importance of considering the quality of inter-

personal relationships at work and workplace civility for the study of job satisfaction and profes-

sional well-being in catering and hospitality industries. Holm, Torkelson and Bäckström (2015),

with a sample of 2871 workers from hotels and restaurants in Sweden, demonstrated that incivil-

ity from supervisors was strongly and negatively correlated with the perception of supervisors’

social support, and incivility from peers was moderately and negatively associated with per-

ceived social support from colleagues.

The concept of civility is associated with improved relationships and social support. In three

professional areas of our samples that are so socially relevant and also so diverse: health care

systems, safety systems and even tourism and hospitality, which have as essential part of their

functions working for and with people.

Limitations

The current research has some limitations. First, despite an adequate number of participants

for validation studies, data were gathered by convenience. Second, as with any self-reported

questionnaires and cross-sectional data collection, there is the risk of response bias. Research

using a longitudinal design might provide more in-depth knowledge on the stability or variations

of WC over the course of time. Qualitative research applying different methods, such as inter-

views or focus groups, could be conducted, incorporating new variables that would allow for the

discriminant validity of the WCS to be tested.

Having different professional groups in our sample, it would be interesting to explore the

factor structure to probe for the emergence of a culture-specific factor structure or to test the

invariance of the factor structure in the distinct professional groups. However, the three samples

had too dissimilar dimensions rendering this option unsuitable.

Finally, for future research, a new data collection could be made with new variables that

allow the test of discriminant validity.

Despite these limitations, the current study has several strengths, such as the heterogeneous

groups that constitute our sample, comprising a diversity of professions and work environments,

not limiting the results to a specific profession or organizational setting.

Future research

The test of convergent validity between WC and three different concepts enhances knowl-

edge about WC’ conceptual nomological network. Therefore, studies that focus on the relation-

ship between WC and relevant concepts in the organizational field, such as performance, job

satisfaction and well-being at work can further enrich this nomological network, increasing the

number of potential applications.

Special attention still needs to be given to the associations between toxic leadership (Web-

ster et al., 2016) and civility/incivility at work, considering that abusive supervision often begins

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

to manifest itself through uncivil behaviour. Abusive supervision is determinant for employees’

motivation and organizational outcomes (Ronan & Donia, 2020). Other advances in research and

practical applications can be made by testing the association between WC and understudied

issues, such as social burden (Yang et al., 2016). The research of individual characteristics and

the WC (such as personality characteristics or demographic characteristics such as age, tenure or

educational level) can also generate relevant information about WC nomological network.

Future studies with other samples with participants who are Portuguese-speakers from

other nations (such as Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, etc.) can contribute to evaluate the influence

of national cultures on WC.

Conclusion

Considering the associations between the theoretical framework, psychometric analysis,

statistical data analysis, technical developments and practical implications for organizational

settings, WCS can be a relevant source of debate and advances in knowledge to increase perfor-

mance and promote health and wellbeing at work. Some practical consequences of the study of

this concept can be found in interventions to promote civility (e.g. CREW, in Osatuke et al., 2009,

2014).

Findings from the study of WC can have many practical implications for human resources

development and management in organizational settings. The increasing expansion of busi-

nesses through internationalization and globalization tends to increase diversity in the work-

place, highlighting a greater need for respect and politeness in interactions. The positive results

of promoting civility in the workplace are becoming increasingly desirable and necessary. Inter-

ventions to promote workplace civility (such as Osatuke et al., 2009; Cisco Global Workplace

Civility program: Spreitzer et al., 2012; and Civility Among Healthcare Professionals (CAHP)

Project: Walsh & Magley, 2018) have brought important contributions to improve individual and

organizational outcomes and to show that workers in a civil professional environment thrive

(Spreitzer et al., 2012) and have higher levels of well-being. To accurately assess levels of WC and

interventions’ efficacy, a robust scale is desirable, and this is our immediate contribution.

Fundings

This research has been partially funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Por-

tuguese Foundation for Science and Technology – as part of the project Centre for Research in

Psychology – UAL. Grant UID/PSI/04345/2013.

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

References

American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Amer-

ican Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

Andersson, L. M. & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.

Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131

Arbuckle, J. L. (2016). IBM® SPSS® Amos™ 24: User’s Guide. IBM Corporation.

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L. & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2010.485352

Barsade, S. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–677. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912

Belton, L. W. & Dyrenforth, S. R. (2007). Civility in the workplace: Measuring the positive outcomes of a

respectful work environment. Healthcare Executive, sept/oct, 40-43.

Borrello, A. (2012). Focus on ethics: The power of police civility. U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Govern-

ment. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. August 1, 2012. https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/focus/focus-on-eth-

ics-the-power-of-police-civility

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1(3),

185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Clark, C. M. & Carnosso, J. (2008). Civility: A concept analysis. Journal of Theory Construction & Testing,

12(1), 11-15.

Clark, C. M. & Kenski, D. (2017). Promoting civility in the OR: An ethical imperative. Association of peri-

Operative Registered Nurses (AORN) Journal, 105(1), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2016.10.019

Clark, C. M., Landrum, R. E. & Nguyen, D. T. (2013). Development and description of the Organizational

Civility Scale (OCS). Journal of Theory Construction & Testing, 17(1), 11-17.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S. & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative

review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

Credé, M. & Harms, P. D. (2015). 25years of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis in the organiza-

tional sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations. Journal of Organ-

izational Behavior, 36, 845-872. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2008

Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4),

281-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

De Andrade, A. L., Matos, F. R., Lobianco, V. M. P. & Broseguini, G. B. (2020). (In)civilidade no Trabalho: Medi-

das e Modelos. Revista Psicologia: Organizações e Trabalho, 20(1), 914-921. https://doi.org/10.17652/

rpot/2020.1.16841

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An inte-

grative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144-192. https://doi.

org/10.1177/109442810142004

Edwards, J. R. & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationship between constructs and

measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155-174.

Ferriss, A. L. (2002). Studying and measuring civility: A framework, trends, and scale. Sociological Inquiry,

72(3), 376-392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-682x.t01-1-00023

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

Fida, R., Laschinger, H. K. S. & Leiter, M. P. (2018). The protective role of self-efficacy against workplace

incivility and burnout in nursing: A time-lagged study. Health Care Management Review, 43(1), 21-29.

https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000126

Floyd, F. J. & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assess-

ment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Date analysis (6th

ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hepburn, C. G. & Enns, J. R. (2013). Social undermining and well‐being: The role of communal orientation.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 354-366. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-01-2013-0011

Holm, K., Torkelson, E. & Bäckström, M. (2015). Models of workplace incivility: The relationships to insti-

gated incivility and negative outcomes. BioMed Research International, vol. 2015, Article ID 920239,

1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/920239

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determin-

ing Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53 – 60.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-

tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.

org/10.1080/10705519909540118

International Test Commission (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (Second edition).

https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, C.-H., Djurdjevic, E. & Tang, M. U. (2012). Recommendations for improv-

ing the construct clarity of higher-order multidimensional constructs. Human Resource Management

Review, 22, 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.006

Kelly, J. R. & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974

Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3

Ed.). Guilford Press.

Laschinger, H. K. S. (2010). Positive working relationships Matter for better nurse and patient outcomes.

Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 875–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01206.x

Laschinger, H. K. S., Leiter, M., Day, A. & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment, incivility, and burn-

out: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3),

302-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.00999.x

Leiter, M. P. (2013). Analyzing and theorizing the dynamics of the workplace incivility crisis. Springer Briefs

in Psychology. Springer.

Leiter, M., Day, A., Oore, D. & Laschinger, H. (2012). Getting better and staying better: Assessing civility,

incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a civility intervention. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 17(4), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029540

Leiter, M. P., Day, A. & Price, L. (2015). Attachment styles at work: Measurement, collegial relationships,

and burnout. Burnout Research, 2, 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2015.02.003

Leiter, M., Laschinger, H., Day, A. & Oore, D. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on employee

social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1258–1274. https://doi.

org/10.1037/a0024442

Leiter, M. P. & Maslach, C. (1999). Six Areas of Worklife: A model of the organizational context of burnout.

Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 21(4), 472-489.

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

Leiter, M. P. & Maslach, C. (2004). Areas of worklife: A structured approach to organizational predictors

of job burnout. In P. L. Perrewe & Daniel C. Ganster (Eds.), Emotional and Physiological Processes and

Positive Intervention Strategies (Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being), volume 3 (pp.91-

134). Emerald Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1479-3555(03)03003-8

Leiter, M. P., Price, S. L. & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2010). Generational differences in distress, attitudes and

incivility among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 970–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1365-2834.2010.01168.x

Lomax, R. G. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling: Multisample covariance and mean structures. In G. R.

Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp.

385-395). Routledge.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological

Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.4.1.84

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M. & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecifica-

tion in behavioral and organizational Research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(4), 710-730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710

McNeish, D., An, J. & Hancock, G. R. (2017). The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit

index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(1), 43-52. https://doi.org

/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286

Maroco, J. (2014). Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, software & aplicações. Report

Number.

Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational

Behaviour, 2, 99-113.

Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (2017). New insights into burnout and health care: Strategies for improv-

ing civility and alleviating burnout. Medical Teacher, 39(2), 160-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421

59x.2016.1248918

Meterko, M., Osatuke, K., Mohr, D., Warren, N. & Dyrenforth, S. (2007). Civility: The development and psy-

chometric assessment of a survey measure. In M. Nagy (Moderator), Measuring and assessing work-

place civility: Do “nice” organizations finish first? Symposium presented at the 67th annual meeting of

the Academy of Management, Philadelphia.

Meterko, M., Osatuke, K., Mohr, D., Warren, N. & Dyrenforth, S. (2008). Civility: The development and psy-

chometric assessment of a survey measure. Unpublished manuscript.

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation.

Sage Publications.

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S. & Stilwell, D. (1989). Evaluation of good-

ness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445. https://doi.

org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430

Mueller, R. O. & Hancock, G. R. (2010). Structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Muel-

ler (Eds.). The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 371-383). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649-33

Nicholson, R. M., Leiter, M. P. & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2014). Predicting cynicism as a function of trust

and civility: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(8), 974–983. https://doi.

org/10.1111/jonm.12073

Nitzsche, M. (2015). (In)Civilidade no trabalho: Escalas de medida e efeitos no burnout e engagement. [Disser-

tação de Mestrado]. Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa.

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

Ordem dos Psicólogos Portugueses (2011). Código deontológico. Diário da República, 2ª Série, número 78,

20 de Abril, 17931-17936.

Oliveira, C. R. (2023). Indicadores de integração de imigrantes: relatório estatístico anual 2023 (1ª ed.)

Imigração em Números – Relatórios Anuais 8. Observatório das Migrações.

Ronan, R. & Donia, M. B. L. (2020). Stifling my fire: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’

motivation and ensuing outcomes at work. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Advance

online publication. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2020a20

Osatuke, K., Moore, S. C., Ward, C., Dyrenforth, S. R. & Belton, L. (2009). Civility, respect, engagement in the

workforce (CREW): Nationwide organization development intervention at veterans health adminis-

tration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 384– 410. ht tps://doi.org /10.1177/0021886309335067

Osatuke, K., Cash, M., Belton, L. W. & Dyrenforth, S. R. (2014). Civility, Respect and Engagement in the

Workplace (CREW): Creating organizational environments that work for all. In C. Biron, R. J., Burke,

& C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Creating healthy workplaces: Interventions that reduce stress, improve individual

well-being and organizational effectiveness (pp. 147-167). Gower. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315574608

Peterson, R. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2),

381–391.

Porath, C. L . (2011). Civility. In: G. M. Spreitzer and K. S. Cameron (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of positive organi-

zational scholarship (pp. 1-18). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.013.0033

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734610.001.0001

Porath, C. (2018). Make civility the norm on your team. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/01/

make-civility-the-norm-on-your-team>;

Porath, C. L. & Gerbasi, A. (2015a). Does civility pay? Organizational Dynamics, 44, 281-286. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.005

Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A. & Schorch, S. L. (2015b). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and perfor-

mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527-1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000016

Schaufeli, W. & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale manual. Occupational Health

Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short

questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M., Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. (1996). The MBI-General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E.

Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), The Maslach Burnout Inventory manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211913.003.0005

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. & Bakker, A.B. (2002). The Measurement of engagement

and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1),

71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015630930326

Schnorpfeil, P., Noll, A., Wirtz, P., Schulze, R., Ehlert, U., Frey, K. & Fischer, J. E. (2002). Assessment of

exhaustion and related risk factors in employees in the manufacturing industry: A cross-sectional

study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 75, 535–540. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s00420-002-0369-6

Spreitzer, G., Porath, C. L. & Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriv-

ing at work. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.009

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

Truchot, D. & Deregard, M. (2001). Perceived inequity, communal orientation and burnout: The role of

helping models. Work and Stress, 15, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370110086380

Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Van Yperen, N. W., Buunk, B. P. & Schaufeli, W. B. (1992). Communal orientation and the burnout syndrome

among nurses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 173-189 . ht t p s ://d oi . or g /10 .1111/j .1559 -1816 .19 92 .

tb01534.x

Walsh, B. M. & Magley, V. J. (2018). Workplace civility training: Understanding drivers of motivation to

learn. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, online first. https://doi.org/10.1080

/09585192.2018.1441164

Walsh, B. M., Magley, V. J., Reeves, D. W., Davies-Schrils, K. A., Marmet, M. D. & Gallus, J. A. (2012). Assess-

ing Workgroup Norms for Civility: The Development of the Civility Norms Questionnaire-Brief. Jour-

nal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9251-4

Webster, V., Brough, P. & Daly, K. (2016). Fight, flight or freeze: Common responses for follower coping

with Toxic Leadership. Stress and Health, 32, 346-354. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2626

Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., Elroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A. & Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of

good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO)

measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2),

94-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x

Yanchus, N. J., Fishman, J. L, Teclaw, R. & Osatuke, K. (2013). Employee perceptions of job demands and

resources and relationship to engagement. Applied Human Resources Management Research, 13(1),

1-23. http://www.xavier.edu/appliedhrmresearch/ 2013/EmployeePerceptionsOfJobDemandsAn-

dResources_Publish.pdf

Yang, Liu, Nauta, Caughlin & Spector, (2016). Be mindful of what you impose on your colleagues: Impli-

cations of social burden for burdenees’ well-being, attitudes and counterproductive work behaviour.

Stress and Health, 32, 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2581

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Adaptation and Validation of the Workplace Civility Scale for European Portuguese samples

Appendix A

ECT – Escala de Civilidade no Trabalho

Por favor responda a todas as seguintes questões pensando acerca das suas experiências nos

últimos seis meses. O seu grupo de trabalho consiste nos indivíduos que reportam ao seu super-

visor. Indique em que medida concorda ou discorda com cada uma das seguintes afirmações.

Coloque um ‘X’ na resposta mais adequada, utilizando a seguinte escala de pontuação.

1 2 3 4 5

Discordo fortemente Discordo Não concordo nem

discordo

Concordo Concordo fortemente

1 2 3 4 5

1 No meu grupo de trabalho, as pessoas tratam-se umas às outras com respeito

2 No meu grupo de trabalho existe espírito de cooperação e de trabalho de equipa

3 No meu grupo de trabalho, as disputas ou conitos são resolvidos com justiça

4 As pessoas com quem trabalho interessam-se pessoalmente por mim

5 Posso conar nas pessoas com quem trabalho quando preciso de ajuda

6 Esta organização não tolera a discriminação

7 As diferenças entre os indivíduos são respeitadas e valorizadas no meu grupo de trabalho

8 Os gerentes/supervisores/chefes do meu grupo de trabalho/equipa trabalham bem com

funcionários provenientes de diferentes contextos

PSIQUE • e-ISSN 2183-4806 • Volume XX • Issue Fascículo 1 • 1

january janeiro-30

june junho 2024 • pp. 40-59

Tito Laneiro, Luisa Ribeiro, Martina Nitzsche, Tânia Ferraro, Genta Kulari

Appendix B

Veterans Health Administration Civility Scale items (Osatuke et al., 2009)

1 People treat each other with respect in my work group.

2 A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work group.

3 Disputes or conicts are resolved fairly in my work group.

4 The people I work with take a personal interest in me.

5 The people I work with can be relied on when I need help.

6 This organization does not tolerate discrimination.

7 Dierences among individuals are respected and valued in my work group.

8 Managers/Supervisors/Team leaders work well with employees of dierent backgrounds in my work group.