Procedural Justice scale


This measure (Procedural Justice scale) was developed by Folger and Konovsky (1989). The measure contains 23 items designed to describe procedural justice in performance appraisal and pay raise decisions. The 23 items form subscales that describe the effectiveness of the feedback an employee receives (11 items), the extent of planning that went into a performance appraisal and pay raise decision (six items), the extent to which an employee had recourse after a pay raise decision (five items), and the degree to which a supervisor observed the employee’s performance (one item). Skarlicki, Folger, and Tesluk (1999) and Skarlicki and Folger (1997) used an eight-item version based on items that measure the extent to which company procedures are consistent, sup­ press bias, require accuracy, are correctable, ensure representation, and are ethical.


Coefficient alpha for the full 23-item measure ranged from .93 to .95 (Lee & Farh, 1999). Alpha values for the subscales were .88 for interactive justice and .86 for planning and ranged from .90 to .94 for feedback (Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, & Wesolowski, 1998; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki & Latham, 1997). Test-retest reliability of the feedback subscale was .84 (Skarlicki & Latham, 1997). Coefficient alpha for the eight-item subscale was .88 (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Skarlicki et al., 1999).


Procedural justice correlated positively with distributive justice, interactive justice, pay satisfaction, trust, bonus amount, commitment, and pay raise. Procedural justice correlated negatively with negative affectivity and retal­ iatory behavior (Lee & Farh, 1999; Skarlicki et al., 1999; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Interactive justice correlated positively with organizational citizen­ ship behaviors. Interactive justice also correlated positively with distributive justice and participation (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997). Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, and Wesolowski (1998) found through confirmatory analysis that procedural justice, five types of social power, job satisfaction, and organiza­ tional commitment were empirically distinct.


Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Jour­ nal, 32(1), 115-130. © 1989 by Academy of Management. Items were taken from Table 1, pp. 120-121. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management in the format textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.


Responses are obtained using a 9-point Likert-type scale where 1 = very lit­tle and 9 = very much.

Feedback items:

Indicate the extent to which your supervisor did each of the following:

  1. Was honest and ethical in dealing with you.
  2. Gave you an opportunity to express your side.
  3. Used consistent standards in evaluating your performance.
  4. Considered your views regarding your performance.
  5. Gave you feedback that helped you learn how well you were doing
  6. Was completely candid and frank with you
  7. Showed a real interest in trying to be fair
  8. Became thoroughly familiar with your performance
  9. Took into account factors beyond your control
  10. Got input from you before a recommendation
  11. Made clear what was expected of you

Planning items:

  1. Discussed plans or objectives to improve your performance

Indicate how much of an opportunity existed, after your last raise decision, for you to do each of the following things:

  1. Review, with your supervisor, objectives for improvement
  2. With your supervisor, resolve difficulties about your duties and responsibilities

Indicate the extent to which your supervisor did each of the following:

  1. Obtained accurate information about your performance
  2. Found out how well you thought you were doing your job
  3. Asked for your ideas on what you could do to improve company performance

Recourse items:

Indicate how much of an opportunity existed, after your last raise decision, for you to do each of the following things:

  1. Find out why you got the size of raise that you did
  2. Make an appeal about the size of a raise
  3. Express your feelings to your supervisor about salary decisions
  4. Discuss, with your supervisor, how your performance was evaluated
  5. Develop, with your supervisor, an action plan for future performance

Observation item:

Indicate the extent to which your supervisor did each of the following:

  1. Frequently observed your

This content is licensed under a CC-BY license. The CC-BY licenses grant rights of use the scales in your studies (the measurement instrument and its documentation), but do not replace copyright. This remains with the copyright holder, and you have to cite us as the source.

Mohammed Looti, PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES (2023) Procedural Justice scale. Retrieved from DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31575.96163