Abstract

The appropriateness of single-item measures of psychological constructs is a debated topic in psychological measurement. The present study investigated the comparability of single- and multiple-item scales for distributive, procedural, interactional, and global organizational justice, using a sample of 138 students. Estimates of reliability and validity were obtained using an experimental manipulation of justice perceptions to underscore psychometric differences between measures. Furthermore, validity estimates obtained using experimental manipulation procedures were compared with estimates obtained using traditional cross-sectional survey methodology, to test the comparative rigor of the two methodologies for obtaining psychometric evidence. Results indicated that single-item measures demonstrated lower reliability than their multiple-item counterparts. However, single- and multiple-item measures demonstrated comparable estimates of validity and measurement error. Validity estimates were significantly higher using experimental manipulation procedures than using cross-sectional survey methodology. Findings for the comparability of single- and multiple-item justice measures are mixed. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.