Individualized Management Style Questionnaire

Abstract

The Individualized Management Style Questionnaire (German: Fragebogen zum individualisierten Führungsstil – IL) is an established psychometric assessment designed to evaluate dyadic leadership processes through the lens of Individualized Leadership theory (Dansereau et al., 1998). Originally adapted into German and psychometrically validated by Dr. Birgit Schyns and Tina Paul, the instrument captures the bilateral, social-exchange-driven relationship between supervisors and subordinates. Rather than conceptualizing leadership as an average supervisory style applied uniformly across a workgroup, the questionnaire conceptualizes leadership as an idiosyncratic, one-to-one dyadic relationship founded on mutual reciprocity. The instrument comprises 11 self-report items distributed across two distinct theoretical dimensions: (1) Promotion of Employee Self-Worth by the Supervisor (5 items), which measures the supervisor’s active investment in the subordinate’s psychological resources, trust in their integrity and motivation, and support for their initiatives; and (2) Satisfactory Employee Performance (6 items in the full form, with an empirically supported 3-item short form), which quantifies the employee’s perceived level of supervisor satisfaction with their work quantity, quality, and overarching performance.

Responses are scored on multidimensional 5-point rating scales assessing perceived investment, satisfaction, and frequency. Psychometric evaluation across a heterogeneous occupational sample (N = 252) confirmed robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha reaching α = .91 for the Self-Worth dimension, α = .75 for the 6-item Satisfactory Performance full scale, and α = .84 for the 3-item performance short form. Construct validity was corroborated via exploratory factor analyses and structural associations with related leadership and outcome constructs: the scale demonstrated strong convergent validity with unidimensional and multidimensional Leader-Member Exchange measures (LMX-7: r = .80 and .66; LMX-MDM: r = .71 and .52), substantial positive relationships with organizational commitment (r = .59 and .46), and theoretical inverse relationships with turnover intentions (r = -.41 and -.31). The instrument provides organizational researchers and human resource practitioners with an empirically robust tool for investigating individualized dyadic dynamics, psychological resource exchange, and leadership effectiveness in modern work environments.

Keywords

Individualized Leadership, dyadic leadership, social exchange theory, self-worth promotion, satisfactory performance, Leader-Member Exchange, psychometrics, vertical dyad linkage, organizational behavior, employee turnover intentions, organizational commitment

Authors

The German adaptation, psychometric operationalization, and empirical validation of the Individualized Management Style Questionnaire were conducted by:

• Dr. Birgit Schyns – Professor of Organizational Behavior and Leadership. Affiliated with NEOMA Business School, France (formerly University of Portsmouth, UK, and University of Leipzig, Germany). Primary research areas: leader-member exchange, implicit leadership theories, toxic/destructive leadership, and dyadic workplace interactions. E-Mail contact: [email protected].
• Dipl.-Psych. Tina Paul – Organizational Psychologist and Researcher. Affiliated with the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Leipzig, Germany. Specializes in occupational assessment, leadership metrics, and relational workplace psychology. E-Mail contact: [email protected].

The foundational theoretical framework and original English-language conceptual model were developed by Fred Dansereau, Francis J. Yammarino, Steven E. Markham, and colleagues (Dansereau et al., 1995, 1998) within the Department of Organization and Human Resources, State University of New York at Buffalo, United States.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Individualized Management Style Questionnaire is to provide an empirically validated, theoretically grounded instrument to capture the idiosyncratic dyadic relationship between a supervisor and an employee from the subordinate’s perspective. In contemporary work and organizational psychology, leadership is increasingly recognized not as an undifferentiated, blanket set of behavioral traits exhibited toward an aggregate collective, but rather as a series of distinct, negotiated interactions between leaders and individual subordinates. The questionnaire operationalizes the core tenets of Dansereau et al.’s (1998) Individualized Leadership (IL) theory, enabling researchers and organizational diagnosticians to evaluate whether and to what degree a supervisor invests in an employee’s personal sense of psychological competence and self-worth, and how this investment reciprocally relates to perceived performance expectations.

In applied organizational development and human resource management, the tool fulfills several key functions:

• Diagnosing Dyadic Relationship Quality: It allows organizations to assess whether supervisors are effectively tailoring their leadership behaviors to meet the unique psychological needs of individual team members, rather than relying on standardized management scripts that may fail to engage diverse personnel.
• Evaluating Employee Retention and Well-Being: Because the promotion of employee self-worth serves as a protective psychological resource against workplace strain and professional cynicism, the scale serves as an early indicator of employee engagement, affective commitment, and turnover risk.
• Leadership Training and Executive Coaching: The instrument can be incorporated into 360-degree feedback systems and leadership development interventions, helping managers recognize disparities between their intended supportive actions and the actual psychological impact experienced by individual subordinates.
• Academic and Empirical Research: The scale enables organizational researchers to test complex structural equation models, mediation pathways, and multilevel hypotheses contrasting dyadic leadership frameworks with broader constructs such as transformational leadership, servant leadership, and psychological safety.

Psychological Construct

The Individualized Management Style Questionnaire measures the construct of Individualized Leadership (IL), which is explicitly conceptualized as a dual-axis, reciprocal psychological exchange occurring exclusively within the vertical dyad. Unlike traditional average leadership style models (which assume a leader behaves similarly toward all direct reports) or early Leader-Member Exchange frameworks (which emphasize differential in-group versus out-group status based on task negotiation), Individualized Leadership argues that every single employee can potentially forge a unique, high-quality, personal bond with their manager based on psychological support and performance competence.

The instrument operationalizes this construct across two distinct yet interdependent psychological dimensions:

1. Promotion of Employee Self-Worth by the Supervisor (Förderung des Selbstwerts der MitarbeiterInnen)

This dimension encompasses 5 items that gauge the extent to which a supervisor validates, respects, and bolsters the subordinate’s core psychological self-evaluations. According to self-worth and identity theories within organizational settings, an employee’s sense of professional efficacy and self-esteem is heavily moderated by the behavioral cues and explicit assurances provided by organizational authority figures. In this scale, self-worth promotion manifests across five operational facets:

• Trust in Integrity: The leader openly communicates unwavering faith in the employee’s ethical character, honesty, and moral reliability.
• Attention to Feelings and Needs: The supervisor demonstrates emotional intelligence, empathy, and active listening regarding the subordinate’s personal states and psychological requirements.
• Trust in Motivation: The manager assumes intrinsic positive intent, demonstrating confidence that the employee is genuinely committed to their professional duties without requiring coercive oversight.
• Support for Actions and Ideas: The supervisor provides tangible psychological and managerial backing for the subordinate’s autonomous initiatives, innovative proposals, and decision-making processes.
• Trust in Competence and Capabilities: The supervisor explicitly validates the subordinate’s technical skills, knowledge base, and problem-solving aptitude.

2. Satisfactory Employee Performance (Zufriedenstellende Leistung der MitarbeiterInnen)

The second dimension reflects the reciprocal obligation within the dyad: the delivery of work performance that satisfies the leader’s specific, personal standards. In the IL paradigm, performance is not judged against standardized company-wide metrics or normative comparisons with peer colleagues; rather, it is anchored entirely in whether the employee’s output meets the idiosyncratic expectations held by their specific direct supervisor. This dimension contains 6 items covering:

• Quantitative Output Satisfaction: Perceived supervisor contentment with the overall volume and pace of work completed.
• Qualitative Performance Satisfaction: Perceived supervisor satisfaction regarding the precision, accuracy, and technical excellence of the work.
• Overall Performance Evaluation: A global composite judgment of the employee’s holistic workplace contributions.
• Congruence of Working Style: The frequency with which the employee’s practical methods and workflows align with the supervisor’s cognitive models and procedural expectations.
• Promotion Viability: The subordinate’s perception of whether the supervisor would independently sponsor them for advancement into a position of higher responsibility.
• Compensation Viability: The subordinate’s perception of whether the supervisor would independently award them a salary increase.

An empirically validated 3-item short form isolates the first three core items (quantity, quality, overall performance), offering an exceptionally focused metric of perceived task satisfaction.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Individualized Management Style Questionnaire is situated at the intersection of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and dyadic leadership paradigms, directly evolving from the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) model (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) and culminating in Dansereau et al.’s (1995, 1998) formal Individualized Leadership (IL) theory.

From Vertical Dyad Linkage to Individualized Leadership

In the mid-1970s, Dansereau, Graen, and Haga challenged prevailing leadership paradigms that treated leadership as an average style (Average Leadership Style – ALS), wherein a manager was presumed to treat all subordinates relatively equally. The Vertical Dyad Linkage model demonstrated that leaders form highly differentiated relationships: some subordinates are granted negotiating latitude, autonomy, and intrinsic rewards (the “in-group”), whereas others are managed primarily through formal employment contracts and transactional control (the “out-group”). This line of inquiry later branched into Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

However, Dansereau et al. (1995, 1998) identified a critical limitation in traditional VDL and LMX conceptualizations: LMX often presupposes that resource scarcity forces managers to differentiate their teams hierarchically, inherently relegating some subordinates to lower-quality exchanges based on social comparison. Dansereau and colleagues proposed Individualized Leadership as an alternative model. IL posits that dyadic relationships are fundamentally independent rather than mutually exclusive. A leader does not need to treat an employee well at the expense of another; instead, each dyad operates as a self-contained psychological system driven by personal social exchange.

The Currency of Exchange: Self-Worth for Performance

At the heart of IL theory is the principle of psychological reciprocity. Social exchange theory asserts that human relationships are sustained through iterative cycles of reciprocal investments and obligations. Within the IL framework, the primary socio-emotional currency exchanged within the workplace dyad consists of:

1. The Leader’s Investment: The supervisor identifies the unique psychological needs of the individual employee and purposefully builds their self-worth. This is achieved by communicating authentic faith in their integrity, expressing emotional support, affirming their intellectual capabilities, and backing their autonomous actions.
2. The Subordinate’s Reciprocation: In return for this psychological enrichment, the subordinate experiences an internalized obligation to fulfill the leader’s performance expectations. They dedicate their cognitive and physical efforts to producing work outcomes that the specific leader deems highly satisfactory.

Crucially, IL theory emphasizes that standards of satisfactory performance are personal and dyad-specific. What satisfies a particular manager may depend heavily on that manager’s personal idiosyncrasies, cognitive styles, and immediate situational demands, rather than standardized corporate benchmarks. Furthermore, even if third-party observers might view certain dyadic behaviors as non-standard, the relationship remains functionally robust as long as the leader feels satisfied with the employee’s contributions and the employee feels their self-worth is genuinely fostered.

Validity

The construct, convergent, and criterion-related validity of the German version of the Individualized Management Style Questionnaire was rigorously established by Schyns and Paul across a diverse sample of N = 252 employed individuals representing varied industrial and service sectors (e.g., insurance corporations, wholesale and retail trade, education, skilled craft trades, information technology, and medical institutions). The validation protocol utilized bivariate Pearson correlation analyses with validated multi-item benchmarking scales.

Convergent Validity

To establish convergent validity, the scale was evaluated alongside two gold-standard measures of dyadic workplace relationships:

• The German LMX-7 Scale (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schyns, 2002): The Self-Worth Promotion subscale demonstrated an exceptionally strong positive correlation with the unidimensional LMX-7 scale (r = .80, p < .001). The Satisfactory Performance subscale also correlated strongly (r = .66, p < .001 for the 6-item full form; r = .50, p < .001 for the 3-item short form). As theoretically anticipated, Self-Worth Promotion displayed a significantly stronger alignment with LMX-7 than did Satisfactory Performance, reflecting the shared socio-emotional and relational core of both constructs.
• The Multidimensional LMX Scale (LMX-MDM; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Paul & Schyns, 2002): The Self-Worth Promotion dimension exhibited a high correlation with the composite LMX-MDM (r = .71, p < .001). The Satisfactory Performance dimension correlated substantially with LMX-MDM (r = .52, p < .001 for the full form; r = .37, p < .001 for the short form).

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Criterion-related validity was examined against well-established occupational outcome variables:

• Affective Organizational Commitment (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979): Subordinates who reported high levels of supervisory self-worth promotion exhibited significantly higher organizational commitment (r = .59, p < .001). Satisfactory performance also shared a robust positive association with commitment (r = .46, p < .001 for the full form; r = .36, p < .001 for the short form).
• Turnover Intentions (Fluktuationstendenz; Baillod, 1992): Theoretical models suggest that supportive dyadic leadership significantly suppresses withdrawal cognitions. In line with meta-analytic benchmarks (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997), Self-Worth Promotion was moderately to strongly negatively correlated with employee turnover intention (r = -.41, p < .001). Perceived Satisfactory Performance also exhibited significant negative associations with turnover intention (r = -.31, p < .001 for the full form; r = -.29, p < .001 for the short form).

The pattern of correlations confirms that while both dimensions contribute to critical organizational criteria, the promotion of self-worth acts as the primary affective catalyst driving subordinate engagement and retention.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates strong psychometric reliability across both subscales, meeting and exceeding standard thresholds for basic research and applied diagnostic utility.

Internal Consistency

• Promotion of Self-Worth Subscale (5 items): Demonstrates excellent internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .91. Corrected item-total correlations (r_it) range from .74 to .83, indicating that every item contributes meaningfully to the common latent construct without redundancy. Analysis of “alpha if item deleted” values confirms that removing any single item results in an alpha coefficient between .88 and .90, verifying the cohesive internal structure of the 5-item set.
• Satisfactory Performance Subscale – Full Form (6 items): Exhibits an acceptable internal consistency of α = .75. Corrected item-total correlations range from .37 to .62.
• Satisfactory Performance Subscale – Short Form (3 items): Isolating the three pure performance satisfaction items (work quantity, quality, and overall output) substantially increases the internal consistency to α = .84. The corrected item-total correlations for this refined subset range between .65 and .79, demonstrating superior internal homogeneity compared to the 6-item version.

Descriptive Sample Parameters

In the standardization sample (N = 252), normative parameters were documented as follows:

• Self-Worth Promotion: Scale Mean = 3.39 (SD = 0.86), Median = 3.60, Skewness = 0.57 (SE = 0.16), Kurtosis = -0.09 (SE = 0.31).
• Satisfactory Performance (Full Form): Scale Mean = 3.62 (SD = 0.55), Median = 3.67, Skewness = 0.47 (SE = 0.16), Kurtosis = 0.06 (SE = 0.31).

The close proximity of means and medians, paired with moderate skewness and kurtosis indices well within the acceptable [-1.0, +1.0] boundary, indicates an approximately normal distribution suitable for parametric statistical analyses.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the questionnaire was examined using Maximum Likelihood Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with oblique (oblimin) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that leadership support and subordinate performance are correlated dimensions in a functioning social exchange system.

Joint Factor Analysis across All 11 Items

An initial Maximum Likelihood EFA incorporating all 11 items extracted two primary factors with eigenvalues exceeding Kaiser’s criterion (λ > 1.0), accounting for 50.6% and 13.0% of the common variable variance, respectively (cumulative explained variance = 63.6%).

• Factor 1: Defined unambiguously by the 5 items of the Promotion of Self-Worth subscale, displaying exceptionally high primary factor loadings ranging from .69 to .87.
• Factor 2: Anchored strongly by the first three items of the Satisfactory Performance subscale (loadings between .68 and .96). However, Items 5 and 6 of the performance scale (perceived willingness of the leader to offer promotions or raises) demonstrated cross-loadings of .58 and .55, respectively, while Item 4 (methodological congruence) exhibited weak associations with both latent factors.

Independent Subscale Factor Analyses

To verify the construct purity of each dimension, independent Maximum Likelihood factor analyses were executed for each subscale:

1. Promotion of Self-Worth

A single dominant factor emerged (λ > 1.0), accounting for 73.92% of the total variable variance. All factor loadings were uniformly high, comfortably exceeding Bortz and Döring’s (1995) strict .60 criterion for high factor saturation:

• Trust in integrity: Factor Loading = .79 (M = 3.55, SD = 0.94, r_it = .74, α if deleted = .90)
• Attention to feelings and needs: Factor Loading = .78 (M = 2.91, SD = 1.04, r_it = .74, α if deleted = .90)
• Trust in motivation: Factor Loading = .87 (M = 3.36, SD = 1.02, r_it = .82, α if deleted = .88)
• Support for actions and ideas: Factor Loading = .79 (M = 3.38, SD = 1.04, r_it = .75, α if deleted = .90)
• Trust in abilities: Factor Loading = .88 (M = 3.72, SD = 0.94, r_it = .83, α if deleted = .88)

2. Satisfactory Performance

In the unconstrained EFA of the 6-item performance battery, two factors produced eigenvalues > 1.0, explaining 49.71% and 20.04% of the variance, with a third minor eigenvalue accounting for 12.89%. Items 1 to 3 loaded heavily onto Factor 1 (.71 to .97), whereas Items 5 and 6 separated onto Factor 2 (.91 and .69), and Item 4 exhibited a marginal loading of .36.

However, scree plot inspection and theoretical coherence justified a forced single-factor solution. Under a constrained unidimensional model:

• Work quantity: Loading = .74 (Short form loading = .71, M = 3.91, SD = 0.63, r_it = .55 [.65])
• Work quality: Loading = .78 (Short form loading = .77, M = 4.00, SD = 0.58, r_it = .54 [.69])
• Overall performance: Loading = .90 (Short form loading = .94, M = 3.99, SD = 0.58, r_it = .60 [.79])
• Congruence of work execution: Loading = .42 (M = 4.11, SD = 0.70, r_it = .37)
• Promotion likelihood: Loading = .46 (M = 2.93, SD = 1.09, r_it = .62)
• Salary raise likelihood: Loading = .31 (M = 2.78, SD = 1.17, r_it = .47)

While loadings for Items 4–6 fall below the .60 threshold, they remain within the acceptable range (> .30) defined by psychometric conventions (e.g., Guthke, Böttcher, & Sprung, 1990). Retaining all 6 items preserves content breadth in the full scale, while the 3-item short form provides an exceptionally unified alternative.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized psychological self-report questionnaire / organizational rating inventory.
• Target Population: Employed adults working under direct supervisory oversight across any commercial, industrial, educational, or administrative sector. (Not suitable for self-employed individuals without a formal direct superior).
• Administration Format: Individual or group paper-pencil administration, or computer-assisted / web-based survey.
• Time Required: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete all 11 items.
• Scale Structure: 11 total items categorized into two core subscales:
  • Subscale 1: Promotion of Self-Worth by the Supervisor – 5 items.
  • Subscale 2: Satisfactory Employee Performance – 6 items (or 3 items in the psychometrically refined short form).
• Response Formats: Fully anchored 5-point Likert-type rating scales:
  • Subscale 1 (Promotion of Self-Worth): 1 = sehr wenig (very little), 2 = wenig (little), 3 = mittelmäßig (moderately), 4 = ziemlich viel (quite a lot), 5 = sehr viel (very much).
  • Subscale 2 (Satisfactory Performance – Items 1 to 3): 1 = sehr unzufrieden (very dissatisfied), 2 = unzufrieden (dissatisfied), 3 = weder noch (neither / neutral), 4 = zufrieden (satisfied), 5 = sehr zufrieden (very satisfied).
  • Subscale 2 (Satisfactory Performance – Items 4 to 6): 1 = fast nie (almost never), 2 = selten (rarely), 3 = gelegentlich (occasionally), 4 = oft (often), 5 = fast immer (almost always).
• Scoring and Index Computation:
  • All items are positively keyed (coded from 1 to 5). No reverse-coded items are present.
  • A mean composite score is calculated separately for each subscale by summing the numerical ratings and dividing by the total number of answered items in that subscale:
    
    Mean Self-Worth Promotion = Sum(Items 1-5) / 5

Mean Satisfactory Performance (Full) = Sum(Items 1-6) / 6

Mean Satisfactory Performance (Short) = Sum(Items 1-3) / 3
  • Higher scores on Subscale 1 reflect higher levels of supervisory investment in the subordinate’s professional self-worth. Higher scores on Subscale 2 denote higher perceived supervisory contentment and appraisal of the subordinate’s task performance.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The German adaptation and psychometric documentation of the Individualized Management Style Questionnaire were formalized and published in 2002 by Dr. Birgit Schyns and Tina Paul, based on the original 1998 operationalization by Fred Dansereau and colleagues. The instrument was developed within an academic research context and is made available for scholarly, non-commercial research, academic teaching, and organizational diagnostic studies free of licensing fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic attribution is accorded to the original authors.

Commercial reproduction, incorporation into proprietary diagnostic software suites, or mass corporate deployment should be cleared through correspondence with the primary authors. Inquiries regarding extended psychometric norms or permission for customized adaptations may be directed to Dr. Birgit Schyns ([email protected]) or Tina Paul ([email protected]).

References

• Baillod, J. (1992). Fluktuation von Informatik-Fachleuten [Turnover among computer science specialists]. Verlag Hans Huber.
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (1995). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Sozialwissenschaftler [Research methods and evaluation for social scientists] (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07299-8
• Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
• Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1995). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90030-6
• Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J. A., Choi, M., Kuan, W. D., Carsten, J. M., Dumas, M., Kim, K. I., & Lee, S. (1998). Individualized Leadership. JAI Press.
• Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
• Guthke, J., Böttcher, H. R., & Sprung, H. (1990). Psychodiagnostik – Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch für Psychologen sowie für im Ausbildungs- und Erziehungsbereich tätige Pädagogen. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
• Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400105
• Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
• Paul, T., & Schyns, B. (2002). Die Validierung einer deutschsprachigen Version des LMX-MDM [Validation of a German version of the LMX-MDM]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23(4), 463–472.
• Schyns, B. (2002). Überprüfung einer deutschsprachigen Skala zum Leader-Member Exchange [Evaluation of a German-language scale for Leader-Member Exchange]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 46(2), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1026//0932-4089.46.2.55
• Schyns, B., & Paul, T. (2002). Fragebogen zum individualisierten Führungsstil – IL [Questionnaire on individualized leadership – IL]. Dokumentation des Erhebungsinstruments. Universität Leipzig.
• Strack, F. (1994). Zur Psychologie der standardisierten Befragung: Kognitive und kommunikative Prozesse [On the psychology of standardized surveys: Cognitive and communicative processes]. Springer.
• van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89

Items of the Scale