| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Description | The AIMSS Workplace Incivility (WI) Scale (Sümer et al., 2024) was developed to assess workplace mistreatment (WM) or harassment. The scale was created through focus groups, thematic analysis, and a pilot study. The final 24-item AIMSS WI Scale and 15-item AIMSS WI Short Form were tested in Turkish working adult samples recruited online. The scale underwent factor analysis, reliability, and validity testing. |
| Alternate Test Names | AIMSS WI Scale |
| Author | Sümer, H. Canan; Göncü-Köse, Aslı; Toker-Gültaş, Yonca; Acar, F. Pınar; Karanfil, Derya; Ok, A. Başak |
| Purpose | To measure low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. |
| Construct | Workplace Mistreatment |
| Instrument Type | Rating Scale |
| Test Type | Original |
| Test Year | 2024 |
| Affiliation | Sümer, H. Canan – Özyeğin University; Göncü-Köse, Aslı – Çankaya University; Toker-Gültaş, Yonca – Middle East Technical University; Acar, F. Pınar – Middle East Technical University; Karanfil, Derya – İzmir Bakırçay University; Ok, A. Başak – Ankara University |
| Author Identifier | Yonca Toker-Gültaş: ORCID |
| H. Canan Sümer: [email protected] | |
| Correspondence Address | H. Canan Sümer, Özyeğin University, Department of Psychology, İstanbul, Turkey, [email protected] |
| Format | Items are introduced with the phrase “My coworkers, supervisor, or subordinates…” Participants rate how often they have been exposed to these behaviors at work over the past year using a 5-point scale (1 = Never to 5 = Always). |
| Administration Method | Electronic |
| Number of Items | Full scale: 24 items; Short form: 15 items. |
| Reliability | Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.96 for the full scale; 0.93 for the short form. |
| Validity | Convergent Construct Validity: The scale demonstrated associations with a widely used counterpart while distinguishing itself from other related measures. Criterion Validity: The scale effectively predicted burnout and organizational commitment. |
| Factor Analysis | Principal Component Analysis: A single-factor solution explained 52.47% of variance (loadings from 0.47 to 0.84). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: The single-factor model fit: SB χ²(252) = 592.642, p < 0.001; χ²/df = 2.35; CFI = 0.903; TLI = 0.893; RMSEA = 0.052 (90% CI: 0.047, 0.058, p = 0.257); SRMR = 0.050. Item loadings ranged from 0.46 to 0.85. |
| Test Methodology | Test Validity; Construct Validity; Convergent Validity; Criterion Validity; Test Reliability; Internal Consistency; Factor Analysis; Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Principal Component Analysis |
| Classification | Organizational, Occupational, and Career Development |
| Age Group | Adulthood (18 yrs & older) |
| Population Group | Human; Male; Female |
| Population Details | Location: Turkey; Respondents: Working Adults |
| Keywords | Workplace Incivility; Workplace Mistreatment; Harassment |
| Index Terms | Employee Interaction; Counterproductive Work Behavior; Employee Relations; Workplace Harassment; Workplace Health and Well-Being Measures; Incivility |
| Files | No file available for download. |
| Reference | Sümer, H. C., Göncü-Köse, A., Toker-Gültaş, Y., Acar, F. P., Karanfil, D., & Ok, A. B. (2024). Incivility, mobbing, and abusive supervision: A tripartite scale development study. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 158(6), 428–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2024.2321881 |
AIMSS Workplace Incivility Scale
Items
| Item Number | Item Description |
| 1 | Gave sloppy answers to my questions. |
| 2 | Ignored my work-related competencies .* |
| 3 | Acted like I did not exist .* |
| 4 | Instead of kindly asking, spoke to me in imperative. |
| 5 | Did not apologize to me for a mistake he/she made. |
| 6 | Spoked to me rudely in front of others .* |
| 7 | Exhibited behaviors implying that he/she considers him/herself superior to me* |
| 8 | Took his/her anger toward someone else out on me. |
| 9 | Interrupted me, did not let me finish my word .* |
| 10 | Made me feel like he/she wasn’t listening to me by being busy with other things .* |
| 11 | Didn’t appreciate/thank me when I did my job well. |
| 12 | Made a decision without consulting me on a matter I should have been consulted. |
| 13 | Talked behind my back, gossiped about me .* |
| 14 | Scolded me in front of others .* |
| 15 | Made fun of me. |
| 16 | Asked uncomfortable personal questions .* |
| 17 | Talked to me in an offhand manner against my preference .* |
| 18 | Didn’t arrive on time, even though we agreed .* |
| 19 | Didn’t greet me or didn’t respond to my greeting .* |
| 20 | Didn’t respond or responded late to my work-related messages .* |
| 21 | Used slang .* |
| 22 | Messed with my stuff without permission .* |
| 23 | Read my messages, documents, emails without my permission. |
| 24 | Did not return things he/she borrowed from me |
Note. *= Short form.
Scoring Scale
| Response | Numerical Value |
| Never | 1 |
| Rarely | 2 |
| Sometimes | 3 |
| Often | 4 |
| Always | 5 |
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). AIMSS Workplace Incivility Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/aimss-workplace-incivility-scale/
Mohammed looti. "AIMSS Workplace Incivility Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 4 Apr. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/aimss-workplace-incivility-scale/.
Mohammed looti. "AIMSS Workplace Incivility Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/aimss-workplace-incivility-scale/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'AIMSS Workplace Incivility Scale', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/aimss-workplace-incivility-scale/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "AIMSS Workplace Incivility Scale," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, April, 2026.
Mohammed looti. AIMSS Workplace Incivility Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.