Extended DCA-Transparency Scale (German Version)

1. Abstract

The Extended DCA-Transparency Scale (German Version) is a psychometrically validated, multidimensional self-report instrument designed to evaluate an individual’s perception of the quality of information intentionally shared by an information sender, predominantly an organizational supervisor or leader (Hossiep et al., 2021). Grounded in the conceptual framework articulated by Schnackenberg and Tomlinson (2016) and extended by Hossiep and colleagues, the instrument expands the original tripartite operationalization of transparency—comprising Disclosure, Clarity, and Accuracy (DCA; Schnackenberg et al., 2020)—by incorporating two vital, ecologically valid facets: Timeliness and Relevance. The German inventory comprises 20 items distributed evenly across the five distinct latent dimensions, with four items allocated to each subscale. Responses are recorded on an unlabelled five-point Likert scale bounded by polarized anchors ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

Psychometric evaluation across six independent empirical samples ($N_{total} = 1,790$), including a three-wave longitudinal investigation representative of the German working population in terms of age, gender, and employment modality, established robust structural, convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) affirmed the tenability of the hypothesized five-factor oblique structure ($\chi^2/df = 2.79$, $ ext{CFI} = .971$,$ ext{TLI} = .967$,$ ext{SRMR} = .041$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .058$), which accounted for 77% of total variance in exploratory analyses. Scale reliability is exceptional across all subscales, with McDonald’s hierarchical and total \omega coefficients consistently exceeding$.87$ ($\omega = .865$ to $.946$). Quantitative content validation using the Hinkin and Tracey (1999) and Colquitt et al. (2019) definitional correspondence paradigms verified moderate distinctiveness from orbiting constructs (such as informational justice and communication quality) and very strong definitional differentiation among the five transparency facets. Furthermore, longitudinal criterion-related testing confirmed that discrete transparency dimensions differentially predict supervisor trustworthiness, cognitive and affective trust, and employee job satisfaction, proving the scale’s empirical and practical utility across diverse organizational and inter-agent communication systems.

2. Keywords

organizational transparency, information quality, extended DCA scale, disclosure, clarity, accuracy, timeliness, relevance, psychometrics, leader-member communication, organizational trust, employee job satisfaction

3. Authors

The Extended DCA-Transparency Scale (German Version) was conceptualized, adapted, translated, and psychometrically validated by:

• Christian Hossiep, Department of Psychology, Organizational and Business Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
• Contributors and Co-Investigators at Ruhr University Bochum, collaborating in psychometric alignment with international conceptual frameworks established by Angela K. Schnackenberg (Department of Management, Daniels College of Business, University of Denver) and Edward C. Tomlinson (Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University).
• Institutional Data Archival Support: Data collection for the representative longitudinal panels was supported and formally indexed by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany.

4. Purpose

In modern industrial, organizational, and technological contexts, communication exchange is central to organizational functioning, decision latitude, and occupational health. Historically, psychological and managerial scholarship treated transparency colloquially as a unidimensional synonym for information volume, open-door policies, or radical disclosure. However, uncurated data dumps and voluminous information sharing often precipitate cognitive overload, ambiguity, and employee cynicism rather than clarity or alignment. Recognizing that transparency represents a subjective, perceptual evaluation of information quality rather than an objective, mechanical state of transmission (Albu & Flyverbom, 2019), the primary purpose of the Extended DCA-Transparency Scale is to provide an empirically grounded, psychometrically standardized diagnostic tool designed to measure an information recipient’s perception of the quality of deliberately shared communication.

The instrument was engineered to rectify chronic operational limitations within previous organizational communication research, where unstandardized, ad-hoc single-item indicators or narrow disclosure scales produced contradictory empirical associations with downstream organizational outcomes. The scale explicitly disentangles what information is shared (Disclosure), how comprehensibly it is framed (Clarity), whether it can be relied upon as truthful and unbiased (Accuracy), whether it arrives early enough to inform consequential decisions (Timeliness), and whether it bears substantive personal or professional significance for the recipient (Relevance).

From an applied organizational and clinical-occupational health perspective, this dimensional granularity allows practitioners, human resource consultants, and occupational psychologists to pinpoint exact communication deficits within leadership hierarchies. For example, a leader may exhibit exemplary scores in informational accuracy and volume (disclosure) while failing fundamentally in timeliness or clarity, thereby cultivating workplace stress, operational bottlenecks, and administrative mistrust. Beyond hierarchical supervisor-subordinate dyads, the deliberately open formulation of the instrument allows researchers to substitute the focal sender. Consequently, the scale serves as a standardized diagnostic instrument for evaluating departmental disclosures, institutional communications, change management campaigns, customer-organization transparency, and user-centered evaluations of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) and algorithmic technology acceptance (Oldeweme et al., 2021).

5. Psychological Construct

The focal psychological construct evaluated by this instrument is perceived organizational transparency. Building upon the foundational conceptualization formulated by Schnackenberg and Tomlinson (2016), transparency is defined as the recipient’s subjective perception of the quality of intentionally shared information provided by a sender. Rather than conceptualizing transparency as an intrinsic property of a document, database, or policy, this construct captures the perceptual receiver-centric appraisal of communicative interaction. Perceived transparency is defined as a multidimensional, higher-order construct encompassing five interdependent yet conceptually distinct subscales:

Disclosure

Disclosure reflects the degree to which an information recipient perceives that the sender provides an open, comprehensive, and sufficient quantity of relevant information without deceptive omission or strategic concealment. It captures subjective informational adequacy and perceived completeness. For instance, employees evaluating their supervisor on disclosure consider whether the leader proactively shares necessary contextual data regarding organizational restructuring or strategic pivots, or conversely, withholds pivotal operational facts.

Clarity

Clarity denotes the extent to which shared communication is perceived as lucid, comprehensible, coherent, and free from obfuscating jargon or intentional ambiguity. It serves as a psychometric marker for the cognitive congruence between the sender’s intended meaning and the receiver’s synthesized understanding. High clarity implies that the information is structured logically, expressed in an accessible linguistic register, and interpretable without requiring laborious deciphering. In organizational settings, a supervisor who presents complex policy changes using straightforward, unambiguous language achieves high clarity.

Accuracy

Accuracy represents the recipient’s subjective appraisal of the truthfulness, correctness, reliability, and lack of bias in the received communication at the specific moment it is transmitted. Because employees rarely have unmediated access to ultimate objective reality, accuracy reflects perceptual verification—namely, whether the shared statements align with verifiable facts, are free from manipulative distortion, and reflect honest representation rather than political spin or deliberate deception.

Timeliness

Introduced by Hossiep et al. (2021) to supplement the original DCA framework, timeliness assesses the temporal appropriateness and punctuality of communication delivery. Accurate, crystal-clear information that arrives after critical deadlines, or at the immediate precipice of execution (“just in time”), loses operational utility and generates severe psychological strain. Timeliness reflects whether information arrives with adequate lead time, enabling the recipient to absorb, process, and act upon the communication prudently.

Relevance

Relevance captures the degree of personal, professional, or contextual significance that the disclosed information holds for the recipient. Even voluminous, truthful, and timely disclosures are perceived as noise if the recipient experiences them as trivial or disconnected from their operational mandates, psychological contracts, or core workplace values. Relevance evaluates whether the focal topics directly impact the employee’s work tasks, professional security, or intrinsic vocational interests.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Extended DCA-Transparency Scale is grounded in modern organizational psychology, information economics, and cognitive communication theory. It bridges three primary theoretical frameworks: the Perceptual Model of Transparency (Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016), the Integrative Model of Organizational Trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), and Signaling Theory (Connelly et al., 2011).

The Perceptual Model of Transparency

For decades, administrative and organizational scholarship operated under an unexamined transmission paradigm, assuming that transparency was an absolute, objective condition achieved through mere information access. Schnackenberg and Tomlinson (2016) challenged this assumption by demonstrating that information receiver psychology mediates all objective communicative acts. Information is filtered through receiver schemas, cognitive loads, past experiences, and contextual expectations. Hence, transparency cannot be established by policy mandate alone; it exists only in the perceived synthesis of disclosure, clarity, and accuracy. Hossiep et al. (2021) observed that in fast-paced, information-saturated corporate environments, information ecology requires two further constraints: temporal viability (timeliness) and functional alignment (relevance). Communicative acts that ignore recipient bandwidth degrade cognitive resources, proving that transparency is an active relational construct rather than a passive repository.

The Integrative Model of Organizational Trust

The scale’s construct architecture directly interfaces with Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman’s (1995) triad of perceived trustee attributes: Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity. According to trust theory, an employee does not extend vulnerability to a leader arbitrarily; trust is mediated by perceptions of trustworthiness. Schnackenberg and Tomlinson (2016) and Hossiep et al. (2021) mapped the five dimensions of transparency onto these antecedent evaluations:

• Integrity: High perceived Accuracy and consistent Disclosure signal value congruence, adherence to ethical codes, and behavioral consistency, cultivating recipient perceptions of leader integrity.
• Benevolence: Providing information with high Relevance and generous Timeliness signals that the leader genuinely cares for the follower’s operational comfort, psychological well-being, and workload management, reflecting benevolence.
• Ability: Communicating complex organizational changes with high Clarity and precise contextual coordination signals managerial competence, domain expertise, and communicative efficacy (ability).

Empirical structural equation models confirm that trustworthiness acts as an essential mediator bridging the five transparency dimensions to both downstream relational trust and vocational outcomes such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Signaling Theory and Information Asymmetry

Under conditions of inherent organizational hierarchy, information asymmetry naturally exists between supervisors and subordinates. According to Signaling Theory, subordinates constantly monitor managerial communication as intentional signals regarding organizational climate, impending threats, and leadership fidelity. When supervisors deliver transparent communication characterized by all five extended DCA dimensions, subordinates interpret these signals as evidence of procedural fairness and psychological safety. Conversely, vague, inaccurate, delayed, or self-serving disclosures signal communicative exploitation, triggering defensive workplace behaviors, cognitive withdrawal, and burnout.

7. Validity

The psychometric properties of the Extended DCA-Transparency Scale were validated through a multi-study program conducted across six independent samples ($N_{total} = 1,790$), establishing content, convergent, discriminant, and longitudinal criterion validity.

Content Validity and Definitional Distinctiveness

Addressing widespread methodological shortcomings in scale development highlighted by Colquitt et al. (2019), the authors evaluated content validity quantitatively via a formal definitional correspondence paradigm. In Sample 3 ($N = 133$), naive judges evaluated focal transparency items alongside orbiting, conceptually proximal scales: informational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Maier et al., 2007) and communication quality (Mohr et al., 2014). Results confirmed statistically significant, moderate definitional distinctiveness between transparency and these orbiting constructs. In Sample 4 ($N = 120$), the same approach tested definitional boundaries among the five internal transparency subscales. The items exhibited very strong definitional distinctiveness, demonstrating that the supplemental dimensions of timeliness and relevance are not subsumed within the original disclosure, clarity, or accuracy items.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity was formally evaluated in Sample 6 ($N = 114$) and Sample 5 ($N = 540$) by examining bivariate nomological networks with related communication scales and theoretically orthogonal psychological constructs. As predicted, overall transparency exhibited high convergent correlations with established communication and justice measures, while remaining uncorrelated or trivially associated with unrelated affective or cognitive personality traits:

• Informational Justice (Maier et al., 2007): $r = .861, p < .01$ (Overall); Disclosure: $r = .767$; Clarity: $r = .746$; Accuracy: $r = .750$; Timeliness: $r = .744$; Relevance: $r = .629$.
• Communication Quality (Mohr et al., 2014): $r = .650, p < .01$ (Overall); Disclosure: $r = .616$; Clarity: $r = .604$; Accuracy: $r = .557$; Timeliness: $r = .538$; Relevance: $r = .453$.
• KomminO Organizational Communication Scale (Sperka, 1997): $r = .572, p < .01$ (Overall); Disclosure: $r = .514$; Clarity: $r = .473$; Accuracy: $r = .405$; Timeliness: $r = .376$; Relevance: $r = .372$.
• Discriminant Trait – Well-Being (Brähler et al., 2007): Demonstrating clear conceptual divergence from individual affective well-being, correlations were small: Overall $r = .164, p < .01$; Accuracy $r = .041, ns$; Clarity $r = .084, ns$.
• Discriminant Trait – Need for Cognition (Beißert et al., 2014): Demonstrating full divergence from stable cognitive disposition, correlations were negligible: Overall $r = .067, ns$; Clarity $r = -.029, ns$; Accuracy $r = -.013, ns$; Timeliness $r = .040, ns$.

Criterion and Longitudinal Predictive Validity

Criterion-related validity was established in Sample 5 using a three-wave panel design ($t_0 = 540, t_1 = 447, t_2 = 376$) over representative German workforce cohorts. Stepwise and multiple linear regressions revealed that the five transparency dimensions differentially predicted key organizational criteria:

• Trustworthiness & Trust: In alignment with Mayer et al. (1995), multiple regression demonstrated that all five transparency dimensions significantly influenced supervisor trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, integrity) either directly or indirectly, which in turn predicted affective and cognitive trust in leadership.
• Job Satisfaction: When regressing employee job satisfaction onto the multidimensional profile, Disclosure, Timeliness, and Relevance emerged as statistically significant positive antecedents, whereas Clarity and Accuracy exhibited non-significant direct effects once variance from the other three facets was partitioned out. This confirms the critical theoretical premise that distinct dimensions of transparency fulfill differential functional roles in organizational life.

8. Reliability

The Extended DCA-Transparency Scale displays exceptional internal consistency and measurement precision across heterogeneous demographic and occupational cohorts. Recognizing that Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) relies on tau-equivalence assumptions that are frequently violated in multidimensional psychological inventories (Hayes & Coutts, 2020), the scale authors computed both McDonald’s omega total ($\omega$) and Cronbach’s alpha across multiple independent validation samples.

Table 1 summarizes McDonald’s omega coefficients across Sample 1 (EFA exploratory calibration), Sample 2 (EFA verification following item A3 revision), and Sample 5 (first wave of the representative longitudinal panel, $N = 540$). All values substantially exceed standard psychometric cut-off thresholds of $.70$ or $.80$, demonstrating excellent composite reliability.

Standard errors of measurement (SEM) calculated across waves in Sample 5 revealed negligible disturbance noise ($SEM < 0.28$ across subscales), supporting test score stability and reliability for both group-level academic research and individual-level diagnostic evaluations.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the Extended DCA-Transparency Scale was rigorously scrutinized using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across discrete empirical samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In Sample 1 ($N = 325$), an EFA using Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation with oblique rotation (Oblimin) was conducted to evaluate common factor variance (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) corroborated a clear five-factor solution, accounting for 77% of the total variance. In Sample 1, one item from the Accuracy subscale (A3: “Die Informationen von meiner Führungskraft erscheinen zutreffend”) manifested cross-loadings onto Clarity. A modified translation was generated and evaluated in Sample 2 ($N = 322$). In this second sample, the revised A3 item loaded cleanly onto the Accuracy factor ($lambda = .788$) with zero cross-loadings above $.20$. Across all five extracted factors, primary pattern matrix loadings ranged between $.484$ and $.961$, confirming robust construct representation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the five-dimensional structure without capitalization on chance, a CFA was executed on the first wave of the representative longitudinal panel (Sample 5, $N = 540$) using the R-based psychometric platform JASP (version 13) with maximum likelihood estimation. The hypothesized five-factor oblique model exhibited excellent global fit to the empirical data:

• $\chi^2/df = 2.79$ (indicates good fit below the conservative benchmark of $3.0$)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.971$ (exceeds the $.95$ cutoff)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.967$ (exceeds the $.95$ cutoff)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.041$ (well below the $.08$ cutoff)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.058$ ($90% ext{CI} [.051, .065]$, below the $.06$ benchmark)

Inter-Factor Correlations

Latent and manifest factor correlations in Sample 5 confirmed that all five dimensions are moderately to strongly correlated, yet share sufficient unique variance to warrant multidimensional treatment:

• Disclosure & Clarity: $r = .711, p < .001$
• Disclosure & Accuracy: $r = .682, p < .001$
• Disclosure & Timeliness: $r = .743, p < .001$
• Disclosure & Relevance: $r = .539, p < .001$
• Clarity & Accuracy: $r = .758, p < .001$
• Clarity & Timeliness: $r = .658, p < .001$
• Clarity & Relevance: $r = .597, p < .001$
• Accuracy & Timeliness: $r = .644, p < .001$
• Accuracy & Relevance: $r = .587, p < .001$
• Timeliness & Relevance: $r = .521, p < .001$

Notably, Relevance correlated to a lesser degree with the remaining four dimensions ($r = .521$ to $.597$), corroborating its unique conceptual status as a motivational and significance appraisal rather than a structural transmission property.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multidimensional psychological rating scale / standardized self-report questionnaire.
• Administration Format: Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI) via web browser or mobile interface; also suitable for paper-and-pencil administrative execution.
• Item Count: 20 items in total (4 items per dimension across 5 dimensions).
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 minutes (mean empirical completion time across longitudinal waves: 118 to 135 seconds).
• Target Population: Employed individuals in non-self-employed positions reporting on workplace supervisors. Adaptable for customer-organization interactions, teams, institutions, or algorithmic explainability interfaces.
• Response Format: 5-point unlabelled Likert scale with polarized anchor endpoints: 1 = “strongly disagree” (“stimme gar nicht zu”) to 5 = “strongly agree” (“stimme voll und ganz zu”). Intermediate points (2, 3, 4) remain unlabelled to ensure equal interval properties.
• Item Polarity: All 20 items are formulated positively; no reverse-keyed items are employed, minimizing cognitive confusion and artifactual method factors.
• Missing Data Rules: Mean imputation or scale score computation requires respondents to complete at least three out of four items within a given subscale ($75%$ completion rule). If two or more items are omitted within a single subscale, that subscale must be excluded list-wise. Complete subscales can still be evaluated independently if others contain missing values, though higher-order transparency aggregation requires full five-factor completion.
• Scoring and Aggregation Rules:
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean across the four items of each respective dimension (range: 1.00 to 5.00).
    • Disclosure Score: $\text{Mean}(D_1, D_2, D_3, D_4)$
    • Clarity Score: $\text{Mean}(C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4)$
    • Accuracy Score: $\text{Mean}(A_1, A_2, A_3, A_4)$
    • Timeliness Score: $\text{Mean}(T_1, T_2, T_3, T_4)$
    • Relevance Score: $\text{Mean}(R_1, R_2, R_3, R_4)$
  • Global Transparency Score: Evaluated as a higher-order composite by computing the grand mean across all 20 items or the arithmetic average of the five subscale means (range: 1.00 to 5.00). In empirical and diagnostic modeling, analyzing subscales individually is strongly recommended to identify specific communication deficits.
• Administrative Standardization & Anonymity: To ensure implementation objectivity and eliminate social desirability bias—especially when employees evaluate direct supervisors—strict anonymity guarantees and clear instructions must be provided emphasizing that responses reflect personal perceptions and have no “correct” or “incorrect” answers (Krumpal, 2013).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Extended DCA-Transparency Scale (German Version) was developed and validated between 2019 and 2021, with its formal definitive psychometric publication appearing in 2021 (Hossiep et al., 2021). The instrument is published as an open-access scientific scale under the auspices of the Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie (Hogrefe Publishing) and the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID).

Permissions and Licensing: The scale is available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and scientific investigations. Researchers and practitioners are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale provided that appropriate academic attribution and citation are given to the original scale validation study (Hossiep et al., 2021) and foundational theoretical works (Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016; Schnackenberg et al., 2020). For commercial consulting tools or integrated corporate audit platforms, users should consult the corresponding authors and standard publisher licensing terms. Full dataset archives and syntax are cataloged at the ZPID repository under https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000360.

12. References

• Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business & Society, 58(2), 268–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316659851
• Beißert, H., Köhler, M., Rempel, M., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Beschäftigung: Die Need for Cognition Kurzskala (NFC-K). GESIS-Working Papers, 2014(32). Mannheim: GESIS. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000109
• Brähler, E., Mühlan, H., Albani, C., & Schmidt, S. (2007). Teststatistische Prüfung und Normierung der deutschen Versionen des EUROHIS-QOL 8-Item-Index und des WHO-5-Wohlbefindens-Index. Diagnostica, 53(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.53.1.28
• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
• Colquitt, J. A., Sabey, T. B., Rodell, J. B., & Hill, E. T. (2019). Content validation guidelines: Evaluating programmatic use of scale development and evaluation techniques. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(10), 1243–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000361
• Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
• Harkness, J. A. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 35–56). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471725332.ch3
• Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1790518
• Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819924003
• Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
• Hossiep, C., et al. (2021). Erfassung von Transparenz in Organisationen: Validierung der erweiterten deutschsprachigen DCA-Transparenzskala. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O, 65(4), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000360
• Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-013-0208-8
• Maier, G. W., Streicher, B., Jonas, E., & Woschée, R. (2007). Gerechtigkeitseinschätzungen in Organisationen: Validierung einer deutschsprachigen Fassung des Fragebogens von Colquitt (2001). Diagnostica, 53(2), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.53.2.93
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080332
• Mohr, G., Müller, A., & Rigotti, T. (2014). Kommunikationsqualität zwischen Beschäftigten und Führungskräften: Validierung eines Erfassungsinstruments. Technische Universität Dresden. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000155
• Oldeweme, M., Märtins, J., Westmattelmann, D., & Schewe, G. (2021). The role of transparency in explaining algorithmic decision-making: Extending technology acceptance models. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106861
• Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016). Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784–1810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525202
• Schnackenberg, A. K., Tomlinson, E. C., & Coen, C. A. (2020). The cost of transparency: The subconstructs of transparency and their distinct relationships with organizational trust. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1782–1812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319889417
• Sperka, M. (1997). KomminO: Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Kommunikation in Organisationen. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 41(3), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1026//0033-3042.49.2.100
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)