Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS)

1. Abstract

The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS) is an ultra-brief, five-item unidimensional self-report inventory specifically constructed to quantify exposure to workplace mobbing (workplace bullying) within heterogeneous, representative samples of the general working population. Originating within the ongoing longitudinal Quality of Work monitor conducted by the University of Luxembourg in collaboration with the Luxembourg Chamber of Labour (Chambre des Salariés Luxembourg; CSL), the LWMS was engineered to circumvent the severe survey fatigue, prohibitive administrative burden, and high attrition rates associated with classic, exhaustive instruments such as the 45-item Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) and the 22-item Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R). Administered via Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) and paper-and-pencil or digital formats, the instrument requires approximately one to two minutes to complete. The LWMS assesses both work-related and person-related hostile acts using a five-point frequency-based response format ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Almost always), intentionally omitting subjective self-labelling labels or temporal constraints (e.g., “in the past six months”) to mitigate social desirability and recall biases.

The psychometric integrity of the LWMS has been rigorously established across two extensive, representative epidemiological cohorts of employees operating within Luxembourg’s multilingual labor market (Sample 1, N = 1,500; Sample 2, N = 1,480). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) employing Satorra-Bentler robust estimation demonstrates that the single-factor congeneric measurement model exhibits exceptional fit to empirical data across all official language adaptations (German, French, and Luxembourgish; comparative fit index [CFI] = .978–.998, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .014–.049). The scale demonstrates adequate to strong internal consistency across linguistic versions, demographic cohorts, and occupational strata (Cronbach’s α = .71–.76; McDonald’s ω = .71–.77). Rigorous multigroup CFA demonstrates configural and metric invariance, as well as partial scalar invariance across language versions, age categories, and occupational categories, alongside full scalar invariance across biological sex. Criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity analyses confirm robust, theoretically coherent associations with key organizational, attitudinal, and health indicators, including job dissatisfaction (r = -.53), occupational burnout (r = .50), psychological stress (r = .49), absenteeism (r = .11), and self-labelled mobbing victim status (area under the curve [AUC] = .87).

2. Keywords

Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale, LWMS, workplace mobbing, workplace bullying, psychological terror, occupational health psychology, psychometrics, measurement invariance, industrial and organizational psychology, negative acts, burnout, job strain, employee well-being, Quality of Work study, Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing.

3. Authors

The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale was designed, validated, and standardized by an academic team of psychometricians and work psychologists based at the Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences within the Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences at the University of Luxembourg (Esch-sur-Alzette, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), in formal partnership with the Luxembourg Chamber of Labour (Chambre des Salariés, CSL).

• Georges Steffgen, Ph.D.: Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology and head of the Research Group Health Promotion and Aggression Prevention at the University of Luxembourg. Professor Steffgen serves as the principal investigator of the nationwide Quality of Work (QoW) project, focusing on occupational well-being, workplace aggression, stress mechanics, and psychosocial working conditions.
• Philipp E. Sischka, Ph.D.: Research scientist, quantitative methodologist, and psychometrician at the University of Luxembourg. Dr. Sischka specializes in structural equation modeling (SEM), measurement invariance evaluation, psychometric scale refinement, and advanced survey methodology within organizational and occupational epidemiology.
• Alexander F. Schmidt, Ph.D.: Quantitative psychologist and methodological collaborator with expertise in statistical modeling, structural equation frameworks, and applied psychological measurement.
• Dietmar Kohl & Christian Happ, Ph.D.: Researchers and co-investigators involved in the initial conceptualization, large-scale CATI data collection pipelines, and longitudinal survey infrastructure of the Luxembourgish Quality of Work monitoring project.

Correspondence regarding the instrument, ongoing cross-national adaptations, and psychometric inquiries is typically directed to the Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences, University of Luxembourg, 11 Porte des Sciences, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.

4. Purpose

Workplace mobbing—often used interchangeably with workplace bullying in international occupational psychology literature—constitutes an insidious, severe occupational stressor characterized by systematic, hostile, and repeated non-physical or physical aggression directed toward an employee by superiors, colleagues, or subordinates over an extended duration. Epidemiological inquiries have consistently highlighted workplace mobbing as one of the most debilitating psychosocial hazards an employee can encounter, precipitating devastating psychological trauma, systemic burnout, somatic distress, clinically elevated depressive symptoms, anxiety disorders, and heightened risks of suicidal ideation. Beyond individual health destruction, mobbing systematically undermines organizational viability, precipitating soaring voluntary employee turnover, chronic absenteeism, presenteeism, degraded task performance, and profound organizational cynicism.

Despite its recognized gravity, the psychometric measurement of workplace mobbing has historically been constrained by a stark methodological dilemma. Classical instruments developed during the pioneering eras of occupational aggression research—most notably the 45-item Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT; Heinz Leymann, 1996) and the widely implemented 22-item Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen et al., 2009)—were constructed as exhaustive behavioral inventories. Although these omnibus inventories provide rich behavioral granularity, their extensive length renders them practically prohibitive for inclusion in large-scale national epidemiological surveys, multi-thematic organizational censuses, and brief longitudinal employee monitoring systems. Survey administrators facing strict time constraints (such as during commercial or public Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews) are frequently forced to omit mobbing assessments altogether or rely on single-item, self-labelling questions (e.g., “Have you been bullied at work in the past six months?”).

Single-item self-labelling measures introduce severe psychometric distortion. Target individuals frequently resist identifying themselves with socially stigmatized labels such as “victim” due to intense feelings of shame, cognitive dissonance, or fear of professional marginalization, resulting in pronounced underreporting and false-negative classifications. Conversely, individuals experiencing standard, normative occupational friction or constructive performance critique may mislabel benign workplace conflict as “mobbing,” inflating false-positive rates. Moreover, classical inventories frequently append arbitrary retrospective time horizons (e.g., “in the preceding 6 or 12 months”) accompanied by rigid behavioral thresholds (e.g., “at least once a week for at least six months”), a methodological practice increasingly critiqued for inducing severe recall decay and failing to capture early-stage or intermittent yet profoundly toxic interpersonal hostilities.

The primary purpose of the Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS) is to resolve these psychometric and practical trade-offs. The scale was purposefully engineered to fulfill four distinct measurement objectives:

• Ultra-Brief Administration Economy: To distill the core behavioral manifestations of workplace mobbing into five psychometrically robust items capable of being completed within 60 to 120 seconds, thereby enabling seamless integration into high-density multi-topic surveys without causing survey fatigue or elevating abandonment rates.
• Behavioral, Non-Stigmatizing Formulation: To present concrete, observable negative workplace interactions without employing the emotionally charged and stigmatizing terms “mobbing” or “bullying,” thus neutralizing self-labelling defense mechanisms and preserving ecological validity.
• Omission of Arbitrary Temporal Constraints: To assess the subjective behavioral frequency of hostile acts without imposing rigid retrospective cutoff frames (e.g., past 6 months), aligning with contemporary empirical insights indicating that persistent interpersonal toxicity exerts destructive psychological tolls regardless of artificial temporal boundaries.
• Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Demographic Equivalence: To establish rigorous measurement invariance across diverse languages (German, French, Luxembourgish), biological sexes, age cohorts, and occupational strata, ensuring valid cross-group epidemiological comparisons within complex, multilingual labor forces.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the LWMS is workplace mobbing exposure. In psychological literature, workplace mobbing is conceptualized as an extreme social stressor involving the repeated, prolonged exposure of an individual to negative, hostile, or exclusionary behaviors orchestrated by one or more organizational members (superiors, peers, or subordinates). Crucially, the target person perceives themselves as being in an inferior, disadvantaged power position relative to the perpetrator(s), experiencing severe difficulty in defending against or halting the abusive dynamics.

Grounded in the landmark taxonomy pioneered by Heinz Leymann (1996), workplace mobbing is not defined as an isolated conflict, occasional professional disagreement, or standard managerial supervision. Rather, it represents an escalating, systematic campaign of hostile interpersonal actions targeting specific facets of an employee’s occupational and psychological existence. Leymann demarcated five fundamental behavioral categories through which mobbing undermines a target:

• Attacks on Communication and Social Expression: Silencing the target, interrupting interactions, or preventing meaningful verbal exchange.
• Attacks on Social Relationships and Isolation: Systematically ignoring, ostracizing, or physically isolating the individual from workplace networks.
• Attacks on Personal Reputation: Circulating rumors, ridiculing the victim in public settings, or subjecting them to insults and humiliation.
• Attacks on the Quality of Professional and Life Situation: Stripping the employee of meaningful duties, assigning impossible or absurd tasks, or relentlessly devaluing legitimate professional achievements.
• Attacks on Health: Direct threats of physical violence, assigning physically dangerous tasks, or causing psychological injury.

The LWMS was deliberately constructed as a unidimensional construct of mobbing exposure by sampling highly representative, high-impact behavioral indicators across these structural domains, bridging both work-related and person-related forms of aggression:

Dimension 1: Systematic Work Devaluation and Destabilizing Criticism

Represented by Item 1 (“How often is your work criticised by your colleagues or by your superior?”), this facet measures persistent, disproportionate, and non-constructive attacks directed at the employee’s professional output. While constructive feedback is an indispensable facet of organizational functioning, in mobbing dynamics, criticism becomes hyper-scrutinizing, malicious, and designed to induce feelings of professional incompetence, unworthiness, and perpetual vulnerability.

Dimension 2: Workplace Ostracism and Social Isolation

Represented by Item 2 (“How often are you ignored at work by your colleagues or your superior?”), this facet operationalizes the devastating phenomenon of workplace ostracism. Research shows that being deliberately ignored, given the “silent treatment,” or treated as socially invisible inflicts psychological distress comparable to, or exceeding, overt verbal abuse. Ostracism systematically severs the target’s fundamental sense of belonging and organizational connection.

Dimension 3: Professional Destabilization through Meaningless Tasks

Represented by Item 3 (“How often are you assigned meaningless tasks by your superior?”), this facet captures work-directed aggression executed through institutional power structures. Superiors often execute mobbing subtly by stripping employees of meaningful responsibilities, assigning degrading or absurd duties, or allocating tasks that serve no logical organizational utility. This tactic diminishes personal accomplishment and attacks self-efficacy.

Dimension 4: Public Humiliation and Personal Ridicule

Represented by Item 4 (“How often are you ridiculed in front of others by your superior or by your colleagues?”), this item assesses overt, person-directed hostility aimed at dismantling social standing and self-esteem. Public mockery, sarcastic disparagement, and belittling remarks generate acute psychological humiliation, publicly signaling to the wider work group that the target is an acceptable subject of devaluation and social contempt.

Dimension 5: Pervasive Interpersonal Conflict

Represented by Item 5 (“How often are you in conflict with your colleagues or superior?”), this facet functions as a broad barometer of interpersonal strain. While normative workplace conflict involves task-based disagreements, mobbing-related conflict is persistent, personalized, and marked by structural antagonism, creating an unremitting state of interpersonal friction.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale is rooted in three foundational theoretical paradigms: Heinz Leymann’s Phase Model of Psychological Terror, the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, and Self-Determination Theory (SDT).

Heinz Leymann’s Etiological Model of Psychological Terror

Heinz Leymann conceptualized mobbing as an escalating dynamic that evolves through four distinct, interrelated developmental phases:

1. Phase 1: The Critical Incident or Triggering Conflict: An unmanaged, unresolved task or relationship conflict that metastasizes into personalized animosity.
2. Phase 2: Mobbing and Psychological Terrorizing: The systematic deployment of hostile acts designed to isolate, humiliate, and devalue the target over an extended timeline.
3. Phase 3: Formal Personnel Management and Institutional Complicity: Organizational authorities misinterpret the situation, framing the targeted individual as the “problem employee,” thereby legitimizing stigmatizing managerial actions (e.g., disciplinary procedures, medical leaves, marginalizing task assignments).
4. Phase 4: Expulsion: The final expulsion of the individual from the organization via resignation, dismissal, medical retirement, or prolonged incapacity.

The LWMS captures Phase 2 dynamics, assessing the recurring behavioral expressions of hostile acts before formal organizational expulsion occurs.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

Developed by Stevan E. Hobfoll, Conservation of Resources Theory posits that individuals are fundamentally driven to acquire, maintain, foster, and protect basic resources (objects, conditions, personal characteristics, and energies). Psychological stress manifests when key resources are threatened, lost, or when an individual invests substantial energy without resource gain.

Workplace mobbing operates as a profound threat to an employee’s resource pool. Persistent criticism (Item 1) and assigning meaningless tasks (Item 3) deplete cognitive resources and professional self-efficacy. Social ostracism (Item 2) and interpersonal conflict (Item 5) eliminate social support capital, while public ridicule (Item 4) damages social reputation. Because targeted employees must expend psychological resources defending themselves, they enter a loss spiral, culminating in emotional exhaustion, chronic burnout, somatic complaints, and cognitive detachment.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Basic Psychological Needs

According to Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, human psychological functioning, vitality, and well-being depend on the satisfaction of three innate psychological needs:

• Autonomy: The experience of volition, agency, and self-endorsement of one’s activities.
• Competence: Feeling effective in interacting with the environment and exercising one’s capacities.
• Relatedness: Experiencing a secure sense of belonging, mutual care, and connection with others.

The LWMS measures behaviors that systematically undermine these three basic needs:

• Relatedness Thwarting: Direct attacks via ostracism and social isolation (Item 2), persistent interpersonal conflict (Item 5), and public ridicule (Item 4) dissolve workplace belongingness.
• Competence Thwarting: Unrelenting work criticism (Item 1) and public humiliation (Item 4) disrupt feelings of competence, generating self-doubt, learned helplessness, and imposter distress.
• Autonomy Thwarting: Imposing absurd and meaningless tasks (Item 3) diminishes perceived volition, reducing work to an arbitrary exercise in institutional subservience.

By capturing the systematic thwarting of these core psychological needs, the LWMS demonstrates strong associations with broad deficits in personal vitality, subjective well-being, and work-related attitudes.

7. Validity

The empirical validation of the Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale was conducted across two large-scale, representative samples of the Luxembourgish labor market, documented by Steffgen et al. (2019) and Sischka et al. (2020).

Content Validity

Content validity was established by mapping the scale items against the theoretical categories identified by Leymann (1996). Four items were adapted from the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) to represent the most toxic forms of mobbing: work criticism (attacks on professional performance), social ostracism (attacks on social relationships), absurd/meaningless duties (attacks on professional standing), and public ridicule (attacks on personal dignity). A fifth item assessing interpersonal conflict frequency was incorporated to maximize screening sensitivity.

Construct and Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion and construct validity were evaluated by examining bivariate correlations between manifest LWMS composite scores and a broad nomological network of psychosocial working conditions, attitudes, behavioral patterns, and physical/mental health parameters (Steffgen et al., 2019; Sischka et al., 2020):

• Psychosocial Working Conditions: Exposure to mobbing was negatively correlated with supportive communication and feedback (r = -.31, p < .01), workplace cooperation (r = -.26, p < .01), and professional appraisal (r = -.22, p < .01), while displaying positive correlations with perceived mental strain at work (r = .29, p < .01).
• Work-Related Attitudes: Higher LWMS scores were strongly associated with lower overall work satisfaction (r = -.53, p < .01) and decreased perceived organizational respect (r = -.53, p < .01), alongside elevated turnover intentions (r = .21, p < .01).
• Occupational Behaviors: Mobbing exposure correlated negatively with subjective work performance (r = -.23, p < .01) and positively with sickness-related absenteeism (r = .11, p < .01).
• Psychological and Physical Well-Being: The LWMS correlated strongly with work-related burnout (r = .50, p < .01) and general psychological stress (r = .49, p < .01). Conversely, it demonstrated negative associations with occupational vigor (r = -.33, p < .01) and general psychological well-being measured via the WHO-5 Well-Being Index (r = -.33, p < .01). Somatic complaints and physiological health problems correlated positively at r = .33 (p < .01), and sleep duration was negatively impacted (r = -.18, p < .01). Suicidal thoughts were positively correlated with mobbing exposure (r = .16, p < .01).

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and Discriminative Accuracy

Due to low base rates of severe outcomes (5.7% for self-labelled mobbing victim status, 14.6% for active turnover intention, and 3.3% for suicidal ideation), Sischka et al. (2020) conducted Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses to evaluate classification performance:

• Self-Labelled Mobbing Victim Status: The LWMS demonstrated high discriminative accuracy in classifying self-identified mobbing victims, yielding an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of .87 (p < .01, 95% CI [.82, .91]).
• Suicidal Thoughts: The scale showed moderate diagnostic capacity in identifying employees reporting active suicidal ideation (AUC = .69, p < .01, 95% CI [.61, .77]).
• Turnover Intentions: The instrument similarly classified employees with explicit intentions to quit their organizations (AUC = .66, p < .01, 95% CI [.62, .70]).

8. Reliability

The internal consistency of the Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale has been evaluated using both Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω). Because the five items exhibit varying factor loadings (congeneric structure), McDonald’s omega provides a more accurate, unbiased estimate of reliability than Cronbach’s alpha, which assumes tau-equivalence.

Across validation studies, the five-item LWMS demonstrated stable internal consistency, ranging from .70 to .77. These values are well within acceptable bounds for brief screening inventories in large-scale social science research:

• Total Cohort Reliability:
  • Study 1 (N = 1,500; Steffgen et al., 2019): Cronbach’s α = .73; McDonald’s ω = .73.
  • Study 2 (N = 1,480; Sischka et al., 2020): Cronbach’s α = .72; McDonald’s ω = .73.
• Linguistic Subgroup Reliability:
  • Luxembourgish version (n = 207): α = .76; ω = .77.
  • German version (n = 579): α = .73; ω = .73.
  • French version (n = 714): α = .71; ω = .71.
• Gender Subgroups:
  • Male employees (n = 804): α = .70; ω = .70.
  • Female employees (n = 676): α = .74; ω = .75.
• Age Cohort Subgroups:
  • Ages 16–34 (n = 175): α = .68; ω = .68.
  • Ages 35–44 (n = 430): α = .70; ω = .70.
  • Ages 45–54 (n = 641): α = .74; ω = .74.
  • Ages 55 and older (n = 234): α = .75; ω = .76.
• Occupational Groups (ISCO-08 Classification):
  • Professionals (n = 395): α = .71; ω = .71.
  • Technicians and associate professionals (n = 371): α = .72; ω = .73.
  • Clerical support workers (n = 190): α = .75; ω = .75.
  • Service and sales workers (n = 160): α = .75; ω = .76.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality and measurement invariance of the LWMS were evaluated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) utilizing the lavaan package in R. Given the significant univariate skewness (ranging from 0.60 to 3.03) and kurtosis (ranging from 0.05 to 10.15), coupled with substantial multivariate non-normality (Mardia’s normalized multivariate kurtosis = 24.34), parameter estimation was performed using Satorra-Bentler scaled χ² test statistics and robust standard errors.

Single-Factor Congeneric Model Fit

A unidimensional congeneric measurement model was estimated, where each of the five items loaded onto a single latent factor representing workplace mobbing exposure. In Sample 1 (N = 1,500), the overall model demonstrated strong fit to the empirical data: Satorra-Bentler χ²(5) = 22.770, p < .001; RMSEA = .049 (90% CI [.033, .065]); SRMR = .022; CFI = .978; TLI = .956. When estimated independently within each linguistic subsample, the χ² statistic was non-significant, reflecting excellent fit:

• Luxembourgish Version (n = 207): χ²(5) = 6.991, p = .221; RMSEA = .044 (90% CI [.000, .098]); SRMR = .034; CFI = .985; TLI = .971.
• French Version (n = 714): χ²(5) = 8.317, p = .140; RMSEA = .030 (90% CI [.000, .059]); SRMR = .019; CFI = .991; TLI = .981.
• German Version (n = 579): χ²(5) = 13.257, p = .021; RMSEA = .053 (90% CI [.026, .082]); SRMR = .027; CFI = .978; TLI = .956.

This single-factor model was subsequently replicated in Sample 2 (N = 1,480; Sischka et al., 2020), yielding fit indices: χ²(5) = 6.527, p = .258; RMSEA = .014 (90% CI [.000, .035]); SRMR = .013; CFI = .998; TLI = .995.

Standardized Factor Loadings

Completely standardized factor loadings (λ) derived from the total sample and linguistic subgroups are detailed below:

• Item 1 (“criticized”): Total Sample λ = .60; Luxembourgish λ = .66; French λ = .59; German λ = .60. (Sample parameters: Mean = 2.22, SD = 0.84, Skewness = 0.72, Kurtosis = 0.89).
• Item 2 (“ignored”): Total Sample λ = .63; Luxembourgish λ = .55; French λ = .65; German λ = .64. (Sample parameters: Mean = 1.73, SD = 0.90, Skewness = 1.30, Kurtosis = 1.42).
• Item 3 (“absurd duties”): Total Sample λ = .55; Luxembourgish λ = .61; French λ = .51; German λ = .57. (Sample parameters: Mean = 1.85, SD = 0.96, Skewness = 1.09, Kurtosis = 0.70).
• Item 4 (“ridiculed”): Total Sample λ = .58; Luxembourgish λ = .59; French λ = .54; German λ = .64. (Sample parameters: Mean = 1.27, SD = 0.63, Skewness = 2.72, Kurtosis = 7.97).
• Item 5 (“conflicts”): Total Sample λ = .62; Luxembourgish λ = .74; French λ = .61; German λ = .58. (Sample parameters: Mean = 1.93, SD = 0.80, Skewness = 0.78, Kurtosis = 0.84).

Measurement Invariance Testing

To establish whether the LWMS measures the same construct equivalently across demographic subgroups, hierarchical multigroup CFAs were conducted. Invariance was evaluated using standard criteria (ΔCFI ≥ -.010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ .015):

• Linguistic Invariance (German, French, Luxembourgish): Configural invariance was verified (χ²[15] = 28.383, p = .019; RMSEA = .042; CFI = .984). Metric (weak) invariance was confirmed (χ²[23] = 35.170, p = .050; RMSEA = .033; ΔRMSEA = -.009; CFI = .986; ΔCFI = .002). Full scalar invariance was rejected (χ²[31] = 69.967, p < .001; CFI = .954; ΔCFI = -.032). Following modification indices, the intercepts of Items 1, 2, and 5 were freely estimated across languages, establishing partial scalar invariance (χ²[25] = 37.474, p = .052; RMSEA = .032; CFI = .985; ΔCFI = -.001).
• Gender Invariance (Men vs. Women): The LWMS demonstrated full scalar invariance across biological sex: Configural (χ²[10] = 10.784, CFI = .999), Metric (χ²[14] = 15.235, CFI = .998), and Scalar (χ²[18] = 19.986, p = .334; RMSEA = .012; CFI = .997; TLI = .997). This indicates that observed score differences between men and women reflect true differences in mobbing exposure.
• Age Invariance (4 Age Brackets): Configural and metric invariance were supported across age cohorts. Full scalar invariance was rejected (χ²[44] = 64.498, p = .024; CFI = .970). Freeing the intercepts of Items 1 and 2 established partial scalar invariance (χ²[41] = 54.682, p = .075; RMSEA = .030; CFI = .980; TLI = .981).
• Occupational Group Invariance (ISCO-08 Classes): Full scalar invariance was confirmed across professionals, technicians, clerical workers, and service/sales employees (χ²[21.846], confirming structural equivalence across job roles).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS).
• Instrument Type: Self-report behavioral screening inventory; standardized psychometric assessment.
• Construct Assessed: Workplace mobbing exposure (systematic exposure to negative and hostile interpersonal behaviors).
• Target Population: General working population, employed adults (working ≥ 10 hours per week). Suitable for clinical screening, organizational health audits, and epidemiological research.
• Administration Modalities: Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), online/web-based surveys, or paper-and-pencil questionnaires.
• Estimated Completion Time: 1 to 2 minutes.
• Item Count: 5 items.
• Scale Dimensionality: Unidimensional (single congeneric factor).
• Instructional Prompt: “How often from your point of view do difficult situations arise with your colleagues or your superior?” (German: „Wie häufig sind aus Ihrer Sicht schwierige Situationen mit Kollegen und Kolleginnen oder Vorgesetzten?“; French: „De votre point de vue, à quelle fréquence des situations difficiles avec des collègues ou un supérieur surviennent-elles?“; Luxembourgish: „Wéi oft kommen aus Ärer Siicht schwiereg Situatiounen mat Kollegen a Kolleginnen oder Ärem Viergesetzten vir?“).
• Response Format: Standard 5-point frequency Likert scale:
  • 1 = Never (German: Niemals; French: Jamais; Luxembourgish: Ni)
  • 2 = Rarely (German: Selten; French: Rarement; Luxembourgish: Seelen)
  • 3 = Sometimes (German: Manchmal; French: Parfois; Luxembourgish: Munchmol)
  • 4 = Often (German: Oft; French: Souvent; Luxembourgish: Oft)
  • 5 = Almost always (German: Fast immer; French: Presque tout le temps; Luxembourgish: Bal ëmmer)
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • All five items are positively keyed (no reverse coding required).
  • A manifest composite score is generated by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean across the five completed items: $$\text{LWMS Mean Score} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{5} \text{Item}_i}{5}$$, yielding an index ranging from 1.00 to 5.00.
  • Higher numerical scores reflect greater exposure to workplace mobbing.
  • In advanced structural equation modeling, latent factor scores can be extracted via congeneric modeling using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) to handle missing values.
• Percentile Norms (Representative Luxembourg Workforce Data, N = 1,480):
  • Mean Score 1.00 = 1st–7th Percentile (Absolute absence of mobbing behaviors)
  • Mean Score 1.20 = 8th–15th Percentile
  • Mean Score 1.40 = 16th–30th Percentile
  • Mean Score 1.60 = 31st–45th Percentile
  • Mean Score 1.80 = 46th–60th Percentile
  • Mean Score 1.84 = 61st Percentile
  • Mean Score 2.00 = 62nd–73rd Percentile
  • Mean Score 2.20 = 74th–82nd Percentile
  • Mean Score 2.31 = 83rd Percentile
  • Mean Score 2.40 = 84th–88th Percentile (Elevated risk threshold)
  • Mean Score 2.60 = 89th–92nd Percentile
  • Mean Score 2.80 = 93rd–95th Percentile (Severe exposure)
  • Mean Score 3.00 = 96th Percentile
  • Mean Score 3.20 = 97th–98th Percentile
  • Mean Score 3.60 = 99th Percentile (Extreme crisis)
  • Mean Score 4.60 = 100th Percentile

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS) was first conceptualized and implemented within the nationwide Luxembourg Quality of Work survey wave in 2014, with formal psychometric validation studies published in 2019 (Steffgen et al.) and 2020 (Sischka et al.).

The instrument is an open-access psychometric scale available for academic research, organizational diagnostics, and non-commercial public health monitoring. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for academic or scientific research use. The scale items, response anchors, and scoring algorithms are published in open-access peer-reviewed literature under Creative Commons licensing terms (CC BY-NC or equivalent scholarly dissemination).

Researchers and practitioners utilizing the LWMS are expected to cite the original validation papers in all academic publications, organizational reports, or assessment documentation:

• Steffgen, G., Sischka, P. E., Schmidt, A. F., Kohl, D., & Happ, C. (2019). The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(6), 864–871.
• Sischka, P. E., Schmidt, A. F., & Steffgen, G. (2020). The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS)—A short instrument to measure workplace mobbing exposure. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 583111.

Commercial consulting firms, private corporate platforms, and software vendors integrating the LWMS into commercial products should contact the principal developers at the University of Luxembourg to ensure appropriate usage and compliance.

12. References

• Agervold, M. (2007). Bullying at work: A discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00585.x
• Agervold, M., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work & Stress, 18(4), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370412331319794
• Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the targets’ perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163703
• Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
• Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370902815673
• Gupta, R., Bakhshi, A., & Sharma, E. (2020). Workplace bullying: A systematic review and future research agenda. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 13(4), 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-08-2019-0110
• Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.007
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414853
• Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.734709
• Sischka, P. E., Schmidt, A. F., & Steffgen, G. (2020). The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale (LWMS)—A short instrument to measure workplace mobbing exposure. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 583111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.583111
• Steffgen, G., Sischka, P. E., Schmidt, A. F., Kohl, D., & Happ, C. (2019). The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(6), 864–871. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000469
• Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 27(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.588

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)