Table of Contents
Abstract
The Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment–Model was created by Kanjanakan, Wang, & Kim in 2023. It was designed for a study that examined an integrated research model of employee empowerment. This model considered the perspectives of both managers (the empowering individuals) and employees (the empowered individuals). A key feature of this research was the introduction of a new construct called “empowerment disparity,” which is defined as the difference in how empowerment is perceived by various employees within the same team. The items for the model were adapted from established previous research. To ensure the accuracy and equivalence of meaning, a conventional translation and back-translation process was conducted following established procedures. The resulting measure was evaluated using structural equation modeling and administered to a sample group consisting of managers, employees, and customers located in tourist cities throughout Thailand. The study reported findings related to the model’s factor structure, reliability, and validity.
Keywords
Measure of Empowering Behavior; Measure of Psychological Empowerment; Measure of Psychological Contract; Measure of Interaction Quality; Empowerment Disparity; Consumer Attitudes; Employee Characteristics; Empowerment; Management Personnel; Supervisor Employee Interaction; Psychological Contracts; Organizational and Occupational Measures
Authors
Kanjanakan, Pattamol; Wang, Pola Q.; Kim, Peter B.
Purpose
The purpose of this measurement model is to examine the comparison between how managers perceive their empowering behavior and how employees perceive managers’ empowering behavior.
Construct
Empowerment Disparity; Employee Empowerment
Validity
Evidence for the measure’s validity was established through assessments of both convergent and discriminant validity. For convergent validity, all factor loadings for the measurement items were found to be statistically significant (p < .01). For discriminant validity, the analysis confirmed that all Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were greater than the squared correlation (R2) for every pair of constructs. Furthermore, the composite reliability (CR) values surpassed the recommended cut-off threshold of 0.7, providing additional support for discriminant validity.
Reliability
Internal consistency was evaluated for the measure. The Composite Reliability (CR) values for the constructs ranged from .83 to .91.
Factor Analysis
An examination of common method variance was conducted using Harman’s single factor test. The results showed that the total variance extracted by a single factor was 33.52%, which is below the 50% threshold. This indicates that common method bias was not a significant issue in the data. Additionally, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed. The CFA results demonstrated that the proposed factor structure provided a good fit to the data, with the following fit indices: χ2 = 893.567, df = 395, p = .000; Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.94; and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.93.
Instrument : ” Test Type , Format , Language Available , Population Group, Age Group, Population Details and Test Methodology”
Test Type: This instrument is an original Inventory/Questionnaire. Format: Items are presented on paper and are rated using a 7-point Likert scale. Language Available: The test is available in both English and Thai. Population Group: The intended population is human, including both males and females. Age Group: It is designed for adults aged 18 years and older, including young adults (18-29 years), individuals in their thirties (30-39 years), and those in middle age (40-64 years). Population Details: The measure was administered to respondents who were managers, employees, and customers in Thailand. Test Methodology: The development and validation of this instrument involved several analytical methods, including Test Validity analysis (Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity), Test Reliability analysis (Internal Consistency), Factor Analysis (Confirmatory Factor Analysis), Measurement Model evaluation, and Structural Equation Modeling.
Keywords
Measure of Empowering Behavior; Measure of Psychological Empowerment; Measure of Psychological Contract; Measure of Interaction Quality; Empowerment Disparity; Consumer Attitudes; Employee Characteristics; Empowerment; Management Personnel; Supervisor Employee Interaction; Psychological Contracts; Organizational and Occupational Measures
Authors including ” Author ocrid Identifier and Affiliation Email addresses Correspondence Address “
Author ORCID Identifier and Affiliation:
Kanjanakan, Pattamol: Auckland University of Technology
Wang, Pola Q.: Auckland University of Technology
Kim, Peter B.: Auckland University of Technology; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1063-5264
Email addresses:
Kim, Peter B.: [email protected]
Correspondence Address:
Kim, Peter B.: [email protected]
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
Permissions: This instrument may be used for research and teaching purposes.
Fee: There is no fee for using this instrument, and it is not a commercial product.
Test Year: 2023
Reference’s
Kanjanakan, P., Wang, P. Q., & Kim, P. B. (2023). The empowering, the empowered, and the empowerment disparity: A multilevel analysis of the integrated model of employee empowerment. Tourism Management, 94, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104635
Items of the Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment–Model
The full instrument consists of 38 items. The original test items are available for review and can be found in the Appendix on pages 9-10 of the source publication. The measure is composed of the following factors and subscales:
Measure of Empowering Behavior
Measure of Psychological Empowerment, which includes the subscales:
Meaning
Competence
Self-determination
Impact
Measure of Psychological Contract, which includes the subscales:
Attitude
Behavior
Expertise
| Item |
| 1. I allow employees complete freedom in their work. |
| 2. I permit employees to use their own judgment in solving problems. |
| 3. I encourage initiative in my employees. |
| 4. I let employees do their work the way they think best. |
| 5. I assign tasks, then let employees handle them. |
| 6. I turn employees loose on a job and let them go to it. |
| 7. I allow employees a high degree of initiative. |
| 8. I trust employees to exercise good judgment. |
| Sub-dimension | Item |
| Meaning | 1. The work I do is very important to me. |
| 2. My job activities are personally meaningful to me. | |
| 3. The work I do is meaningful to me. | |
| Competence | 1. I am confident about my ability to do my job. |
| 2. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities. | |
| 3. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job. | |
| Self-determination | 1. I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job. |
| 2. I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work. | |
| 3. I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job. | |
| Impact | 1. My impact on what happens in my work is large. |
| 2. I have a great deal of control over what happens in my work. | |
| 3. I have a significant influence over what happens in my work. |
| Item |
| 1. I expect to grow in this restaurant. |
| 2. I feel part of a team in this restaurant. |
| 3. I have a reasonable chance of promotion if I work hard. |
| 4. To me working for this restaurant is like being a member of a family. |
| 5. The restaurant develops/rewards employees who work hard and exert themselves. |
| 6. I expect to gain promotion in this restaurant with length of service and effort to achieve goals. |
| 7. I feel this restaurant reciprocates the effort put in by its employees. |
| 8. My career path in the restaurant is clearly mapped out. |
| 9. I am motivated to contribute 100% to this restaurant in return for future employment benefits. |
| Sub-dimension | Item |
| Attitude | 1. I can count on the employees at the restaurant being friendly. |
| 2. The attitude of the restaurant’s employees demonstrates their willingness to help me. | |
| 3. The attitude of the restaurant’s employees shows me that they understand my needs. | |
| Behavior | 1. I can count on the restaurant’s employees taking actions to address my needs. |
| 2. The restaurant’s employees respond quickly to my needs. | |
| 3. The behavior of the restaurant’s employees indicates to me that they understand my needs. | |
| Expertise | 1. I can count on the restaurant’s employees to know their jobs. |
| 2. The restaurant’s employees are able to answer my questions quickly. | |
| 3. The employees understand that I rely on their knowledge to meet my needs. |
Note. Items are rated using a 7-point Likert scale.
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment Model Inventory. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/empowerment-disparity-and-employee-empowerment-model-inventory/
Mohammed looti. "Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment Model Inventory." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 6 Apr. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/empowerment-disparity-and-employee-empowerment-model-inventory/.
Mohammed looti. "Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment Model Inventory." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/empowerment-disparity-and-employee-empowerment-model-inventory/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment Model Inventory', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/empowerment-disparity-and-employee-empowerment-model-inventory/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment Model Inventory," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, April, 2026.
Mohammed looti. Empowerment Disparity and Employee Empowerment Model Inventory. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.