See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264943382

The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European

countries

Article  in  European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · May 2014

DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.745989

CITATIONS READS

204 25,742

3 authors:

Tinne Vander Elst Hans De Witte

IDEWE & University of Leuven KU Leuven
61 PUBLICATIONS   1,811 CITATIONS    438 PUBLICATIONS   20,036 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nele De Cuyper
KU Leuven
167 PUBLICATIONS   8,611 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Job Insecurity, in South Africa and Globally View project

Cyber-Shoc View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hans De Witte on 29 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Canterbury]
On: 25 February 2014, At: 12:21
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation

across five European countries
a a b a
Tinne Vander Elst , Hans De Witte & Nele De Cuyper
a
Research Group on Work , Organizational and Personnel Psychology , University of
Leuven , Leuven , Belgium
b
Vanderbijlpark Campus , North-West University , South Africa
Published online: 17 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Tinne Vander Elst , Hans De Witte & Nele De Cuyper (2014) The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric
evaluation across five European countries, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23:3, 364-380, DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2012.745989

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.745989

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2014
Vol. 23, No. 3, 364–380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.745989

The Job Insecurity Scale: A psychometric evaluation across five European

countries

Tinne Vander Elst1, Hans De Witte1,2, and Nele De Cuyper1

1
Research Group on Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2
Vanderbijlpark Campus, North-West University, South Africa
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014

Multiple instruments have been developed and used to measure quantitative job insecurity (i.e., insecurity to lose the
job as such), often without systematic evaluation of their psychometric characteristics across countries and language
barriers. This may hamper consistent and reliable cross-study and cross-country comparisons. This study’s aim was to
introduce and validate the four-item Job Insecurity Scale (JIS) developed by De Witte across five European countries
(i.e., Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Overall, the results demonstrated the construct validity
(i.e., configural invariance and invariance of the measurement model parameters), the reliability (internal consistency of
the items), and the criterion validity (with respect to affective organizational commitment, perceived general health, and
self-reported performance) of the JIS. The different translations of the JIS can thus be considered as valid and reliable
instruments to measure job insecurity and can be used to make meaningful comparisons across countries. Furthermore,
the JIS translations may be utilized to assess how job insecurity is related to outcomes.

Keywords: Affective organizational commitment; Cross-country validation; Job Insecurity Scale; Perceived general
health; Self-reported performance.

Working life is characterized by various changes with
significant consequences for employees. On the one
hand, organizations in precarious economic
situations may, for example, try to recuperate by
outsourcing services, saving on material or even
dismissals. Organizations in times of prosperity, on
the other hand, may try to realize even more profit,
for instance by restructuring to gain organizational
efficiency or by employing temporary workers to
increase flexibility. All these changes may increase
employees’ feelings that their job is at risk (Reisel,
2003). In the area of work and organizational
psychology, this experience is called job insecurity.
In general, job insecurity relates to employees’ overall
concern about the continued existence of the job in
the future (Cheng & Chan, 2008; De Witte, 1999;
Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002). This is a
quantitative approach to job insecurity and will be
the focus in the current study. It is distinct from the
qualitative conceptualization of job insecurity, which
is the insecurity about the continued existence of
valued characteristics of the job (Hellgren, Sverke, &
Isaksson, 1999; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Based on
the idea that the anticipation of a threat may have
equally severe consequences as the threat itself
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), job insecurity is
considered as an important job stressor which
hampers employees’ functioning (Cheng & Chan,
2008; Sverke et al., 2002).
In the current study, we aim to cross-nationally
validate the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS). This
quantitative job insecurity measure was originally
developed in Flemish1 by De Witte (2000). In the
context of a European study, the JIS was translated
(or adapted in the case of The Netherlands) for its use
in four other West European countries (i.e., The
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK).
The contribution of this study is multiple: First, the
1
Dutch is the official language in the Flemish part of Belgium
(and in Brussels, next to French) and in The Netherlands. For
reasons of clarification, we refer to the Flemish and the Dutch
translations of the JIS, when referring to the job insecurity scales
used in Belgium and The Netherlands, respectively.

Correspondence should be addressed to Tinne Vander Elst, Tiensestraat 102, Box 3725, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Email: Tinne.VanderElst@ppw.kuleuven.be

© 2013 Taylor & Francis


current study addresses the lack of a formal test of
the measurement properties of the JIS by
investigating its construct validity, reliability, and
criterion validity. Second, this study may facilitate
international comparative research on job insecurity,
a field recently enjoying increasing attention (e.g.,
König, Probst, Staffen, & Graso, 2011; Lee, Bobko,
Ashford, Chen, & Ren, 2008; Muñoz de Bustillo, &
de Pedraza, 2010). Although a large number of
quantitative job insecurity measures have been used
(e.g., De Witte, 2000; Hellgren et al., 1999; Mauno,
Leskinen, & Kinnunen, 2001; Sverke et al., 2004),
only few studies have systematically evaluated the
psychometric characteristics of these measures across
countries and language barriers (but see, e.g., König
et al., 2011; Sverke et al., 2004). This may hamper
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
consistent and reliable cross-study and cross-country
comparisons. We want to fill this gap by investigating
the psychometric characteristics of the JIS across five
European countries. Third and more generally, the
current study may add to the development of valid
and reliable short measures of work stressors. Not
only scientific research may benefit from a short job
insecurity scale, for example for theory development
or cross-national comparisons regarding job
insecurity, but also practitioners may profit from
such a scale to measure job insecurity as part of a
screening tool to detect work stressors in specific
work organizations.
JOB INSECURITY: DEFINITIONS
AND OUTCOMES
In the last decennia, multiple definitions of job
insecurity have been introduced. Greenhalgh and
Rosenblatt (1984) describe job insecurity as the
‘‘powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a
threatened job situation’’ (p. 438). Jacobson and
Hartley (1991) define job insecurity as ‘‘a discrepancy
between the level of security a person experiences and
the level she or he might prefer’’ (p. 1431). Other
definitions are ‘‘one’s expectations about continuity
in a job situation’’ (Davy, Kinicki, & Scheck, 1997, p.
323), ‘‘an overall concern about the future existence
of the job’’ (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996, p. 587), and
‘‘an employee’s perception of a potential threat to
continuity in his or her current job’’ (Heany, Isreal, &
House, 1994, p. 1431).
Although scholars differ in the way they define job
insecurity, there seems to be agreement on a number
of characteristics of job insecurity. First, scholars
agree on the assumption that job insecurity is a
subjective experience, resulting from a person’s
perception and interpretation of the actual work
environment. This means that the same objective
situation may result in different feelings of uncer-
tainty across employees (see e.g., Klandermans & van
VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE 365
Vuuren, 1999; Sverke et al., 2002). Second, job
insecurity is seen as an involuntary phenomenon (De
Witte, 2005; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Sverke
& Hellgren, 2002). It does not concern employees
who prefer an uncertain job status, such as workers
who—for certain reasons—choose to work on a
temporary basis. Third, insecurity about the future is
at the core of the job insecurity experience (De Witte,
1999; Jacobson, 1991; Sverke et al., 2002). This
experience encloses both the perceived chance of
losing the current job (i.e., cognitive component of
job insecurity), as well as the worries related to that
threat (i.e., affective component of job insecurity;
Borg & Elizur, 1992). Although the cognitive and
affective components can be clearly distinguished on
a theoretical level (Huang, Niu, Lee, & Ashford,
2012), these components seem to be intertwined in the
experience of employees (De Witte, 2000).2 Insecurity
about the job in the future thus refers to both the
threat and the worries regarding job loss. Related
constructs, such as the importance of the job for the
employees and the powerlessness to deal with the
threat of losing the job, may intervene in the process
from cause to job insecurity to consequence, but are
not considered as elements of the job insecurity
construct itself (Mauno et al., 2001; Vander Elst, De
Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011). In keeping with these
characteristics, we define job insecurity as the
subjectively perceived and undesired possibility to
lose the present job in the future, as well as the fear or
worries related to this possibility of job loss (De
Witte, 2005; Sverke et al., 2004).
Job insecurity has been identified as one of the
most important stressors in work life (De Witte,
1999) and has been associated with poor mental and
physical well-being, impaired attitudes towards the
job and the organization, and reduced performance
(for overviews, see Cheng & Chan, 2008; Probst,
2008; Sverke et al., 2002). Multiple studies, for
instance, pointed at the negative relationship between
job insecurity and perceived general health (e.g.,
Bernhard-Oettel, De Cuyper, Schreurs, & De Witte,
2011; Laszlo et al., 2010), affective organizational
commitment (e.g., Sora Miana, Gonzalez-Morales,
Caballer, & Peiro, 2011; Vander Elst et al., 2011), and
2
Note that some authors have advanced and demonstrated a
distinction between affective and cognitive job insecurity (e.g., Borg
& Elizur, 1992; Huang et al., 2012; Staufenbiel & König, 2011).
This distinction was however based on a different approach vis-à-
vis job insecurity. The emotional job insecurity scales used in these
studies might reflect the affective evaluation of the speculative
possibility to lose the current job (e.g., ‘‘The thought of losing my
job worries me’’), rather than the actual fear of job loss (Staufenbiel
& König, 2011). Moreover, unlike their affective job insecurity
measure, Huang et al. (2012) used a cognitive job insecurity
measure that concerned the threat of job features (versus the job as
such), which can thus be considered as a qualitative job insecurity
scale.
 366 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER
self-reported performance (e.g., Chirumbolo & Areni,
2010; Lee et al., 2008). These results were supported
by the results of two meta-analyses (Cheng & Chan,
2008; Sverke et al., 2002). Based on an analysis
involving 133 studies, Cheng and Chan (2008) found
meta-correlations of –.23, –.35, and –.16 for physical
health, affective organizational commitment, and
work performance, respectively. Furthermore, similar
results were found also in studies using a longitudinal
design, indicating that job insecurity impacts these
outcomes over time (e.g., Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995;
Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Gunter, & Germeys, 2012;
Virtanen, Janlert, & Hammarstrom, 2011).
These findings can be interpreted based on at least
two theories. First, based on appraisal theory (Folk-
man, 1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), we may
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
predict job insecurity to have negative outcomes for
both the employee and the organization as it brings
along feelings of uncontrollability (Dekker & Schau-
feli, 1995; Vander Elst et al., 2011). Due to the
insecurity about job loss in the future, employees lack
control to deal with the insecure situation, which in
turn may result in poor well-being (e.g., impaired
general health). Furthermore, job insecure employees
experiencing powerlessness are likely to withdraw
from the job and the organization (e.g., decreased
affective organizational commitment and perfor-
mance), in order to reduce the negative impact of
job insecurity itself or a possible actual job loss in the
future on well-being (Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995).
Second, psychological contract theory suggests that
employees expect a fair exchange between security
and rewards on the part of the employer, and loyalty
and effort on the part of the employee (De Cuyper &
De Witte, 2006). Job insecurity presents a violation of
the employer’s obligations, which may lead employ-
ees to decrease their loyalty and effort in order to
restore the balance.
JOB INSECURITY: MEASURES
Parallel to the abundance of definitions of job
insecurity, a large number of job insecurity measures
have been developed. Two broad types of job
insecurity measures can be distinguished: multi-
dimensional and global measures (Mauno et al.,
2001; Reisel & Banai, 2002; Sverke et al., 2004).
Multidimensional job insecurity measures reflect
various dimensions of job insecurity, such as the
threat of losing the job, the importance of the job,
and the powerlessness to maintain the job. The most
popular multidimensional job insecurity measure is
the one of Ashford, Lee, and Bobko (1989; see Lee
et al., 2008, for an abridged version of this scale).
Based on a multiplicative formula, the subscales are
combined into one general job insecurity measure.
This way of measuring job insecurity, however, may
have some disadvantages (Reisel & Banai, 2002;
Sverke et al., 2004): Besides the fact that such a scale
is rather lengthy, abstraction is made of all the
different aspects of the job insecurity experience.
Moreover, factors that are not belonging to the core
experience of job insecurity (i.e., the insecurity about
the future of the job), such as the importance of the
job and powerlessness (see earlier), are incorporated
in the job insecurity measure. Hence, we believe these
factors should be left out of the job insecurity
measure in order to investigate their relationship
with job insecurity as such (Mauno et al., 2001;
Probst, 2003; Vander Elst et al., 2011).
Together with other scholars (e.g., Reisel & Banai,
2002; Sverke et al., 2004), we therefore advocate the
use of a short and global (i.e., one-dimensional) job
insecurity scale that covers the core of the (quanti-
tative) job insecurity experience, i.e., the perceived
threat to lose the job and the worries related to that
threat (see earlier). In addition to the advantages that
such global measures are shorter and more closely
relate to our conceptualization of job insecurity,
studies indicated that global multiple-item scales
correspond to multidimensional job insecurity scales
in terms of construct validity and reliability over time
(Mauno et al., 2001) and explanatory power (Reisel
& Banai, 2002). Several global quantitative job
insecurity scales have been developed within the
context of specific studies (e.g., De Witte, 2000;
Mauno et al., 2001; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002; Sverke
et al, 2004). As such, there is a lack of a commonly
used scale of which the psychometric characteristics
are systematically investigated across countries and
language barriers. Sverke and colleagues (2004)
validated a global quantitative job insecurity scale
across four European countries, namely Belgium,
Italy, The Netherlands, and Sweden. However, as this
scale consisted of items from previously developed
job insecurity scales (i.e., Ashford et al., 1989;
Hellgren et al., 1999; De Witte, 2000), this scale as
such has been rarely used.
In this respect, we aim to cross-nationally evaluate
the psychometric characteristics of the Job Insecurity
Scale (JIS), a four-item scale developed by De Witte
(2000). The JIS is a global job insecurity measure that
corresponds to our conceptualization of job insecur-
ity: It includes items that refer to the threat or the
chances to lose the job, as well as an item that refers
to the worries of job loss. Furthermore, the JIS has
been used successfully in different contexts and
countries, and in different languages (e.g., Baillien
& De Witte, 2009, in Belgium; Kinnunen, Mauno, &
Siltaloppi, 2010, in Finland; Sora Miana et al., 2011,
in Spain; Tilakdharee, Ramidial, & Parumasur, 2010,
in South Africa). Baillien and De Witte (2009), for
example, used the JIS in a study on 1263 Flemish
employees working in multiple organizations from

the private sector in order to investigate its relation-
ship with workplace bullying. However, until now,
there is no study that formally validated the different
translations of the JIS. In the next paragraph, we
explain how we investigate the validity and the
reliability of this scale.
CURRENT STUDY
In this study, we aim to evaluate three psycho-
metric characteristics of the JIS, namely its
construct validity, reliability, and criterion validity.
Construct validity refers to the extent to which the
scale measures the intended theoretical construct,
whereas criterion validity can be described as the
extent to which scale scores can predict or are
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
associated with scores on outcome variables, such
as physical and mental health, attitudes and
behaviours. Reliability of a scale refers to the
internal consistency of the scale items. These
psychometric characteristics are investigated using
data from five West European countries in the
following languages: Flemish (Belgium), Dutch
(The Netherlands), Spanish (Spain), Swedish (Swe-
den), and English (the UK). Regarding the
construct validity, we additionally investigate
whether the different translations of the JIS
measure the same underlying construct and thus
whether scores on the JIS can be meaningfully
compared across countries and language barriers.
We furthermore test whether the JIS shows similar
relationships with the outcomes across countries,
which may further support the criterion validity of
the JIS.
In evaluating the construct validity, we first
investigate whether the one-factor structure of the
JIS can be found in every single country and across
all five countries simultaneously. In particular, we
investigate whether all items of the JIS load
significantly and in the expected direction on the
underlying factor in every country. This is called
configural invariance (Byrne & van de Vijver, 2010;
Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Second, we examine the
cross-national similarities of the measurement model
properties. In particular, we gradually check whether
the factor loadings, the item intercepts, the unique-
ness error variances, and the factor variance are
invariant across all five countries (i.e., metric
invariance, scalar invariance, error variance invar-
iance, and factor variance invariance, respectively;
Milfont & Fischer, 2010; Vandenberg & Lance,
2000). Following the recommendations by Vanden-
berg and Lance (2000; see also Milfont & Fischer,
2010), we will conclude for measurement invariance
when at least partial invariance of the parameters is
found. Regarding the construct validity, we thus
predict the following:
VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE 367
Hypothesis 1: In every country, the four items of
the JIS load significantly and in the expected
direction on one dimension (i.e., configural
invariance).
Hypothesis 2: The measurement model para-
meters, i.e., (a) factor loadings, (b) item intercepts,
(c) error variances, and (d) factor variance, are at
least partially invariant across countries (i.e.,
metric invariance, scalar invariance, error variance
invariance, and factor variance invariance,
respectively).
Furthermore, we evaluate the reliability of the
JIS in terms of internal consistency of the items by
calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the
different translations of the JIS. The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of a scale reflects the extent to
which the items are associated. We predict the
following:
Hypothesis 3: The JIS shows an adequate internal
consistency (i.e., reliability) in every country.
Regarding the criterion validity, based on the
fact that job insecurity is considered to be a work
stressor (see theory and empirical evidence dis-
cussed under ‘‘Job Insecurity: Definitions and
Outcomes’’), we may predict that the JIS is
negatively related to three outcomes, namely
affective organizational commitment, perceived gen-
eral health and self-rated performance. These out-
comes cover different types of stress outcomes of
job insecurity (Sverke et al., 2002), namely employ-
ees’ work-related attitudes, health, and work-related
behaviour, and can therefore be considered as
complementary. Furthermore, we may predict the
JIS to be associated with the outcomes in a similar
way across countries. After all, the West European
countries selected in this study showed cultural and
economic similarities in the period in which data
collection occurred (Rigotti, Schyns, & Mohr,
2008). For example, they were (and still are) all
members of the European Union and they all had
(and still have) a solid social security system as a
financial safety net in case of job loss (Guest,
Isaksson, & De Witte, 2010). At the same time,
however, these countries differed on a number of
potentially relevant factors, such as the national
unemployment rate and the trade union density
(Guest et al., 2010). When the JIS behaves in a
similar way across countries, this would thus
provide strong support for its criterion validity.
We therefore test whether the relationships between
the JIS and the outcomes are invariant across
countries (i.e., factor covariance invariance; Milfont
& Fischer, 2010; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). We
predict:
 368 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER
Hypothesis 4: The JIS is negatively related to (a)
affective organizational commitment, (b) perceived
general health, and (c) self-rated performance in
every country (i.e., criterion validity).
Hypothesis 5: The negative relationships between
the JIS, and (a) affective organizational commit-
ment, (b) perceived general health, and (c) self-
rated performance are invariant across countries
(i.e., factor covariance invariance).
METHOD
Data collection and respondents
The study was based on 2004 data collected within the
PSYCONES project (Psychological Contracting
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
across Employment Situations; Guest et al., 2010;
Rigotti et al., 2003), a European project that aimed to
investigate the effects of the changing nature of
employment contracts on employees’ job security,
well-being, and health in different Western European
countries, namely Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain,
Sweden, and the UK.3 Data were collected in two
sectors that were present in all countries and that were
characterized by a reasonable number of temporary
workers, namely manufacturing and the retail or
service sector (e.g., shops, travel agencies, banks,
assurance companies). Both private and public
organizations were selected. Employees filled out the
questionnaire on a voluntary basis, using paper and
pencil. In total, usable responses4 were collected for
2557 respondents (nBelgium ¼ 428; nNetherlands ¼ 513;
nSpain ¼ 649; nSweden ¼ 438; nUK ¼ 529). Within the
context of this study, we further cleaned the data by
deleting all respondents with missing values on the
study variables. This resulted in a total sample of
1966 respondents (nBelgium ¼ 377; nNetherlands ¼ 394;
nSpain ¼ 516; nSweden ¼ 310; nUK ¼ 369).
Table 1 shows the description of the total sample
and the subsamples based on different background
characteristics. The mean age of the employees in the
total sample was 34.07 years (SD ¼ 10.55). The total
sample consisted of 49% men (n ¼ 946) and 51%
women (n ¼ 1005; 15 respondents did not provide age
information). As the organizations that participated
in the survey were selected based on their number of
temporary employees, a relatively large part of the
sample worked on a temporary contract (n ¼ 668,
34%) versus on a permanent contract (n ¼ 1297,
66%; 1 respondent did not provide information
3
Note that, within the PSYCONES project, data were also
gathered in Israel and Germany. The Israeli JIS was, however,
excluded from this study, as Israel is not a European country. Also,
the German JIS had to be excluded because of an error in the data
collection.
4
‘‘A questionnaire would be unusable if it had a large amount of
missing data or questionable integrity’’ (Clinton et al., 2005, p. 29).
regarding contract type). Half of the employees
were white-collar workers (n ¼ 781, 41%), 45%
were blue-collar workers (n ¼ 868), and 14% were
managers (n ¼ 263; 54 respondents did not provide
information regarding their position in the organiza-
tion). Finally, 60% of the employees worked in the
manufacturing sector (n ¼ 1170), whereas 40% was
active in the retail or service sector (n ¼ 796).
Although the subsamples more or less showed a
similar composition as the total sample, we found
significant differences regarding the background
characteristics between the subsamples (see Table 1).
On average, the respondents of the Spanish and the
Swedish samples were somewhat younger than the
other subsamples, and the respondents of the British
sample were somewhat older. Although the majority
of the respondents in the Dutch, the Spanish, and the
Swedish samples were male, the majority of the
respondents in the Belgian and the British sample
were female. Furthermore, the British sample con-
sisted of more permanent workers than the Swedish
sample, which in turn consisted of more permanent
workers compared to the other samples. Next, the
Swedish sample consisted of relatively more blue-
collar workers. Additionally, compared to the other
subsamples, both the Belgian and the Swedish
samples contained fewer managers. Finally, the
proportion of workers from the manufacturing sector
was higher in the British sample than in the other
subsamples.
Measures
The study scales (i.e., job insecurity, affective
organizational commitment, perceived general
health, and self-reported performance) were trans-
lated in different languages. A thorough translation
procedure was followed: All scales were available in
English, which offered a starting point for further
translation. If there was no scale available in the
target language, a translation and back-translation
procedure (e.g., Behling & Law, 2000) was performed
by a national team of at least two bilingual
researchers. These teams had to make sure that the
translations of the scales were not only semantically,
but also conceptually and normatively equivalent. As
suggested by Geisinger (2003), a pilot study was
organized in each country: At least five persons filled
out the questionnaire in order to check for problems
regarding understanding and spelling errors. If
necessary, measures were adapted for the main study.
Furthermore, the choice of the word-anchors of the
scales was based on a compromise between the
translation of the response scale and the most
common used verbal qualifiers in that particular
country (Harkness, 2003; see Rigotti et al., 2003, for
more information about the translation of the scales).
 VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE 369

TABLE 1
Sample characteristics

Subsamples
Subsample
Characteristic Total sample Belgian Dutch Spanish Swedish British differences

N 1966 377 394 516 310 369

Age (M; SD) 34.07 (10.55) 34.53a (10.44) 34.33a (10.39) 31.94b (8.46) 31.59b (10.90) 38.27a (11.70) F(4) ¼ 25.38***
Gender
Male (%) 51.5 37.3a 57.3b 52.3b 54.9b 49.9a
Female (%) 48.5 63.7a 42.7b 47.7b 45.1b 60.1a w2(4) ¼ 49.52***
Contract
Permanent (%) 66.0 54.6a 59.6a 57.8a 76.8b 87.0c
Temporary (%) 34.0 45.4a 40.4a 42.2a 23.2b 13.0c w2(4) ¼ 132.48***
Professional level
Blue-collar 45.4 50.5a 41.5a 31.0a 63.7b 48.6c
worker (%)
White-collar 40.9 41.7a 39.7a 54.2b 33.3 a, c
29.6c
worker (%)
Manager (%) 13.7 7.8a 18.8b 14.8b 3.0a 21.8b w2(4) ¼ 145.34***
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014

Sector
Manufacturing (%) 59.5 49.6a 55.1a, b 58.5 a, b
62.3b 73.4c
Retail or service (%) 41.5 50.4a 44.9 a, b 41.5 a, b
37.7b 26.6c w2(4) ¼ 49.48***

The superscripts a, b, c each denote a subset of country categories whose means or proportions do not differ significantly from each other at
.05 level (Bonferroni correction). ***p 5 .001.

Job insecurity was measured using the Job
Insecurity Scale (JIS), a scale of four items originally
developed by De Witte (2000): ‘‘Chances are, I will
soon lose my job’’, ‘‘I am sure I can keep my job’’
(reverse coded), ‘‘I feel insecure about the future of
my job’’, and ‘‘I think I might lose my job in the near
future’’ (for an overview of the translations of the
JIS, see the Appendix). Respondents were asked to
rate these items on a 5-point Likert type scale,
ranging from 1 (‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly
agree’’).
A set of four items derived from Cook and Wall
(1980) was selected to measure affective organiza-
tional commitment (i.e., ‘‘To know that my own work
had made a contribution to the good of the
organization would please me’’; ‘‘I feel myself to be
part of the organization’’; ‘‘In my work, I like to feel
that I am making some effort, not just for myself but
for the organization as well’’; ‘‘I am quite proud to be
able to tell people who it is I work for’’). Items were
scored on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (‘‘strongly
disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly agree’’). Overall, this scale
was reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .73 in the
total sample (range across subsamples ¼ [.68; .80]).
Perceived general health was measured with the five-
item subscale assessing general health of the SF–12
questionnaire from Ware (1999; i.e., ‘‘In general,
would you say your health is?’’; ‘‘I seem to get sick a
little easier than other people’’ (R); ‘‘I am as healthy
as anybody I know’’; ‘‘I expect my health to get worse
in the near future’’ (R); ‘‘My health is excellent’’).
Items were scored on a 5-point scale (Item 1:
1 ¼ ‘‘poor’’, 5 ¼ ‘‘excellent’’; Items 2 to 5: 1 ¼ ‘‘de-
finitely false’’, 5 ¼ ‘‘definitely true’’). The Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient for the total sample was .77 and the
coefficients for the subsamples ranged from .73 to .81.
Self-reported performance was measured by means of
six items by Abramis (1994). The respondents had to
rate a number of tasks on the following question:
‘‘How well did you fulfil the following tasks during
your last working week? Make decisions / Perform
without mistakes / Devote yourself to work / Achieve
your objectives / Take initiatives / Take responsi-
bility’’. Respondents rated the items on a 5-point
scale from 1 (‘‘very badly’’) to 5 (‘‘very well’’). The
self-reported performance scale was reliable, with a
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .77 in the total sample
(range across subsamples ¼ [.76; .80]).
Analyses
In testing the hypotheses concerning the construct
validity (H1 and H2), the stepwise procedure to test
measurement invariance outlined by Vandenberg and
Lance (2000, see flowchart on p. 56) was followed.
The tests of measurement invariance were conducted
by means of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
using AMOS 20. The maximum likelihood method
was selected as the estimation procedure, as we did
not find any violations against normality (i.e.,
Skewness index smaller than 2; Kurtosis index
smaller than 10; Weston & Gore, 2006) of the study
variables. Preliminary to the CFAs, we followed the
procedure suggested by Vandenberg (2002) to select a
 370 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER
reference indicator of which the factor loading was
fixed to 1.00. Specifically, we performed exploratory
factor analyses on the job insecurity items in all
subsamples separately (using SPSS 19). The item of
which the loadings showed the least variance across
subsamples was chosen as the reference indicator.
This was the case for Item 4 (i.e., ‘‘I think I might lose
my job in the near future’’), and hence the factor
loading of this item was set to 1.00 when conducting
the CFAs.
First, the configural invariance of the JIS (H1) was
investigated by testing a measurement model (i.e.,
unconstrained model) in which the job insecurity
items loaded on the same latent factor by running
both single- and multigroup CFAs (Milfont &
Fischer, 2010; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). The
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
multigroup model served as the baseline model
against which the subsequent models with equality
constraints for particular parameters were compared.
Second, we investigated the metric invariance of
the JIS (H2a) by testing the model in which all factor
loadings were constrained to be equal across sub-
samples. When no full invariance across the sub-
samples was found, we investigated whether partial
invariance of the factor loadings could be found
(Byrne & van de Vijver, 2010). The invariance of each
factor loading was evaluated separately and the
equality constraints of the factor loadings that
proved to be invariant were cumulatively retained
while proceeding with the subsequent tests.
Third, when configural invariance and (at least
partial) metric invariance was found, we tested for
scalar invariance (H2b). This was done by adding the
equality constraints of the item intercepts to the
model. Again, partial invariance was investigated
when no full invariance was found. Fourth, the
invariance of the error variances were tested (H2c). In
a final step, we constrained the factor variance to be
invariant across subsamples (H2d). Note that the
errors were not allowed to correlate in the models.
The fit of the models was evaluated using the
following goodness-of-fit statistics (following the
recommendations of Vandenberg & Lance, 2000):
(1) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), (2) the Non-
Normed Fit Index (NNFI), (3) the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and (4)
the Standardized Root Mean square Residual
(SRMR). Values on CFI and NNFI indicate an
excellent fit when they are equal to or exceed .95,
whereas values across .90 indicate a good fit (Byrne,
2001; Hoyle, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Values
below .05 for RMSEA and values below .09 for
SRMR indicate excellent fit, while values less than or
equal to .08 and .10, respectively, indicate a good fit
(Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Byrne, 2001). As Dw2
highly depends on sample size, DCFI was used to
compare competitive nested models (Cheung &
Rensvold, 2002; Meade, Johnson, & Braddy, 2008),
with values smaller than or equal to .01 indicating
invariance (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).
To test whether the JIS showed an adequate
reliability in terms of internal consistency (H3),
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for
the total sample and each subsample (using SPSS 19).
Values starting from .70 are indicative for a good
internal consistency (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
The hypotheses regarding the criterion validity of
the JIS (H4 and H5) were investigated by means of
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM; maximum
likelihood estimation). Preliminary to these analyses,
a measurement model with job insecurity, affective
organizational commitment, perceived general
health, and self-reported performance as latent
factors was tested and compared with the alternative
one-factor model by means of single- and multigroup
CFAs. Next, we first investigated whether the JIS was
negatively related to affective organizational commit-
ment, perceived general health, and self-reported
performance (H4) by conducting both single- and
multigroup SEM analyses (i.e., unconstrained struc-
tural model). We then tested for invariance of the
relationships between job insecurity and the out-
comes (H5) by adding constraints of equal covar-
iances across subsamples to the unconstrained
multigroup model. Model fit was evaluated based
on the fit indices outlined above.
RESULTS
Descriptive results
Table 2 displays the means, the standard deviations,
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, and the intercorre-
lations for the study scales for the total sample, as
well as for each of the subsamples. With one
exception, all scales showed sufficient internal con-
sistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient 4 .70 for
existing scales; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) in all
subsamples, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ran-
ging from .68 to .88. Overall, job insecurity was
negatively related to affective organizational commit-
ment, perceived general health, and self-reported
performance, although there were two exceptions.
Job insecurity was not significantly related to
perceived general health in Belgium and Sweden.
Furthermore, the outcome variables were mutually
positively correlated.
Construct validity
Configural invariance (H1). The results of the
tests of configural invariance by means of single- and
 VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE 371

multigroup CFAs are displayed in Table 3. In line significantly and in the expected direction on the
with our expectations, the results of the single-group same underlying factor in every subsample.
CFAs showed that the job insecurity items loaded Furthermore, in every country, the measurement

TABLE 2
Job insecurity, affective organizational commitment, perceived general health and self-reported performance: Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in parentheses) and correlations for the total sample and the subsamples

Scale M SD 1 2 3 4

Total sample (N ¼ 1966)

1. Job insecurity 2.29 0.96 (.85)

2. Affective organizational commitment 3.87 0.71 7.26*** (.73)
3. Perceived general health 3.94 0.69 7.13*** .22*** (.77)
4. Self7reported performance 3.97 0.51 7.17*** .33*** .14*** (.77)
Belgian sample (n ¼ 377)

1. Job insecurity 2.47 0.91 (.88)

2. Affective organizational commitment 3.84 0.60 7.22*** (.74)
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014

3. Perceived general health 3.83 0.68 7.06 .22*** (.78)

4. Self-reported performance 4.04 0.45 7.22*** .38*** .16** (.77)
Dutch sample (n ¼ 394)

1. Job insecurity 2.39 1.02 (.87)

2. Affective organizational commitment 3.90 0.68 7.35*** (.71)
3. Perceived general health 3.99 0.63 7.11* .25*** (.74)
4. Self-reported performance 4.03 0.44 7.21*** .37*** .14** (.77)
Spanish sample (n ¼ 516)

1. Job insecurity 2.19 0.91 (.82)

2. Affective organizational commitment 4.01 0.75 7.36*** (.80)
3. Perceived general health 4.06 0.64 7.16*** .21*** (.79)
4. Self-reported performance 3.85 0.51 7.28*** .37*** .19*** (.76)
Swedish sample (n ¼ 310)

1. Job insecurity 2.08 0.93 (.88)

2. Affective organizational commitment 3.57 0.69 7.12* (.70)
3. Perceived general health 3.89 0.70 7.09 .16** (.73)
4. Self-reported performance 3.90 0.56 7.14* .31*** .12* (.76)
British sample (n ¼ 369)

1. Job insecurity 2.35 0.96 (.82)

2. Affective organizational commitment 3.93 0.72 7.26*** (.68)
3. Perceived general health 3.87 0.79 7.17** .21*** (.81)
4. Self-reported performance 4.05 0.45 7.12* .30*** .17** (.80)

All scales ranged from 1 to 5. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

TABLE 3
Single- and multigroup CFAs for the job insecurity items: Freely estimated factor loadings (standardized), factor variances
(unstandardized), and goodness-of-fit indices

Single group CFAs: Subsamples

Item Belgian Dutch Spanish Swedish British Multigroup CFA

1. Chances are I will soon lose my job. .81*** .83*** .74*** .78*** .72***
2. I am sure I can keep my job. (R) 7.78*** 7.76*** 7.62*** 7.81*** 7.66***
3. I feel insecure about the future of my job. .79*** .74*** .72*** .80*** .68***
4. I think I might lose my job in the near future. .84*** .82*** .84*** .84*** .85***
Factor variance (SE) 0.72 (0.08) 0.95 (0.10) 0.93 (0.09) 0.79 (0.09) 1.10 (0.06)
w2(df) 22.08(2)*** 21.48(2)*** 8.43(2)* 2.65(2) 9.47(2)** 64.109(10)***
CFI .975 .974 .991 .999 .985 .984
NNFI .924 .923 .973 .997 .956 .953
RMSEA .163 .157 .079 .032 .101 .053
SRMR .027 .028 .019 .010 .024 .027

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

 372 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER
model fitted the data well. A multigroup CFA
confirmed the results of the single-group CFAs: The
one-factor job insecurity model fitted the data well
across countries. The CFI and the NNFI values
exceeded the criterion of .95, whereas the values for
RMSEA and SRMR were .05 and .03, respectively.
We thus found substantial evidence for the configural
invariance of the JIS.
Invariant measurement model parameters
(H2). Table 4 shows the results of the tests of
invariance of the measurement model parameters by
means of multigroup CFAs. Compared to the
unconstrained model (see Step 1 in Table 4), the
model in which all factor loadings were constrained
to be invariant across subsamples (see Step 2 in Table
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
4) did not show a significant decrease in fit,
DCFI ¼ .008, 5 .01. This finding, together with the
values of the fit indices indicating an excellent fit of
the model (CFI ¼ .98, NNFI ¼ .95, RMSEA ¼ .04,
SRMR ¼ .03), supported Hypothesis 2a regarding
the invariance of the factor loadings across the
subsamples (i.e., metric invariance).
We subsequently investigated the invariance of the
item intercepts across the subsamples (see Step 3 in
Table 4). Comparing the model including the equality
constraints of the item intercepts with the full metric
invariance model however led to a significant
decrease in fit (DCFI ¼ .058, 4 .01). Hence, we
could not conclude for full scalar invariance. Inspec-
tion of the invariance of each single item intercept,
however, showed that the intercepts of Items 1 and 4
could be considered as invariant across the subsam-
ples (see Steps 3.2 to 3.5). In line with Hypothesis 2b,
we may therefore conclude for partial scalar
invariance.
Furthermore, we tested the invariance of all the
error variances (see Step 4 in Table 4). Although
there was no full invariance (DCFI ¼ .029, 4 .01),
we did find evidence for partial invariance: The error
variances related to the Items 1, 2, and 3 were
invariant across subsamples. We thus found evidence
for partial invariance of the error variances (H2c).
Finally, in line with Hypothesis 2d, the
factor variances were invariant across the subsam-
ples, DCFI ¼ .001, 5 .01 (see Step 5 in Table 4).
The final model in which the invariant para-
meters were constrained to be equal showed a
satisfactory fit to the data, CFI ¼ .94, NNFI ¼ .96,
RMSEA ¼ .05, SRMR ¼ .05. In sum, we may thus
conclude for full configural invariance, full metric
invariance, partial scalar invariance, partial error
variance invariance, and full factor variance invar-
iance of the job insecurity measurement model
across the subsamples. These results provide evi-
dence for the construct validity of the different
translations of the JIS.
Reliability (H3)
The different translations of the JIS turned out to be
reliable scales (see Table 2). The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for the total sample was .85. Furthermore,
we found Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .88 for the
Flemish scale, .87 for the Dutch scale, .82 for the
Spanish scale, .88 for the Swedish scale, and .82 for
the English scale.
Criterion validity
Table 5 summarizes the results of the tests of the
four-factor measurement model and the alternative
one-factor model for every subsample (i.e., multi-
group CFA) and across all subsamples (i.e., single-
group CFAs). These results show that the measure-
ment model with job insecurity, affective organiza-
tional commitment, perceived general health, and
self-reported performance as latent factors fitted the
data well in every single subsample. The results of the
multigroup CFA indicated a satisfactory fit
across subsamples, CFI ¼ .92, NNFI ¼ .91,
RMSEA ¼ .02, SRMR ¼ .06. Furthermore, the
four-factor measurement model fitted the data better
than the alternative one-factor model in each of the
five subsamples and across subsamples.
Job insecurity–outcome relationships (H4). Table
6 displays the results of the single- and multigroup
SEM analyses in which a structural model with direct
paths from job insecurity to affective organizational
commitment, perceived general health, and self-
reported performance was tested. The results of the
single-group analyses show that in every subsample
the structural model fitted the data in a satisfactory
way. In line with Hypothesis 4a, job insecurity was
negatively related to affective organizational
commitment, with an exception for the Swedish
sample. Furthermore, job insecurity was negatively
associated with perceived general health in the Dutch,
the Spanish, and the British sample (in accordance
with H4b), but not in the Belgian and the Swedish
sample. Finally, job insecurity related negatively to
self-reported performance in every subsample,
providing evidence for Hypothesis 4c. The results of
the multigroup analysis show that the structural
model fitted the data across subsamples, CFI ¼ .90,
NNFI ¼ .89, RMSEA ¼ .03, and SRMR ¼ .09. We
may therefore conclude that, overall, the JIS was
associated with decreased levels of affective
organizational commitment, perceived general
health, and self-reported performance.
Invariant factor covariances (H5). The
comparison of the unconstrained structural model
with the structural model in which the relationships
 Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014

TABLE 4
Tests of invariance of the parameters of the job insecurity measurement model across subsamples (multigroup CFAs): A summary

Step Hypothesis Model description Comp. model w2(df) Dw2(Ddf) CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR DCFI Decision

1 Full configural invariance (H1) Unconstrained model (M1) 64.109(10)*** — .984 .953 .053 .027 — Accept
2 Full metric invariance (H2a) Factor loadings constrained M1 105.450(22)*** 41.341(12)*** .976 .953 .044 .032 .008 Accept
equal (M2)
3.1 Full scalar invariance (H2b) M2 with item intercepts M2 317.493(38)*** 212.043(16)*** .918 .967 .061 .031 .058 Reject
constrained equal
3.2 Partial scalar invariance (H2b) M2 with item intercept of Item M2 140.629(26)*** 35.179(4)*** .967 .961 .047 .030 .009 Accept
1 constrained equal (M3)
3.3 Partial scalar invariance (H2b) M2 with item intercept of Items M3 240.923(30)*** 100.294(4)*** .938 .938 .060 .053 .029 Reject
1 and 2 constrained equal
3.4 Partial scalar invariance (H2b) M2 with item intercept of Items M3 686.073(30)*** 545.444(4)*** .808 .808 .106 .029 .159 Reject
1 and 3 constrained equal
3.5 Partial scalar invariance (H2b) M2 with item intercept of Items M3 173.475(30)*** 32.846(4)*** .958 .958 .049 .031 .009 Accept
1 and 4 constrained equal
(M4)
4.1 Full error variance invariance M4 with error variances M4 288.042(46)*** 114.567(16)*** .929 .954 .052 .073 .029 Reject
(H2c) constrained equal
4.2 Partial error variance M4 with error variance of Item M4 182.983(34)*** 9.508(4)* .956 .962 .047 .034 .002 Accept
invariance (H2c) 1 constrained equal (M5)
4.3 Partial error variance M4 with error variances of M5 213.793(38)*** 30.810(4)*** .949 .959 .049 .047 .007 Accept
invariance (H2c) Items 1 and 2 constrained
equal (M6)
4.4 Partial error variance M4 with error variances of M6 247.379(42)*** 33.586(4)*** .940 .957 .050 .061 .009 Accept
invariance (H2c) Items 1, 2, and 3 constrained
equal (M7)
5 Full factor variance invariance M7 with factor variance M7 254.437(46)*** 7.058(4) .939 .960 .048 .050 .001 Accept
(H2d) constrained equal (Final
model)

H ¼ hypothesis; M ¼ model.
VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE
373
 374 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER

TABLE 5
Results of single- and multigroup CFAs: Fit indices for alternative factor structures of job insecurity, affective organizational
commitment, perceived general health, and self-reported performance

Comp.
Model description model w2(df) Dw2(Ddf) CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR DCFI Decision

Single-group CFA: Belgian sample (n ¼ 377)

1. Proposed four-factor model (M1) — 317.797(146)*** — .928 .916 .056 .055 — Accept
2. One-factor model (M2) M1 1609.726(152)*** 1291.929(6)*** .391 .315 .160 .165 .537 Reject
Single-group CFA: Dutch sample (n ¼ 394)
1. Proposed four-factor model (M1) — 299.520(146)*** — .935 .924 .052 .054 — Accept
2. One-factor model (M2) M1 1523.547(152)*** 1224.027(6)*** .419 .346 .152 .143 .516 Reject
Single-group CFA: Spanish sample (n ¼ 516)
1. Proposed four-factor model (M1) — 397.774(146)*** — .921 .907 .058 .056 — Accept
2. One-factor model (M2) M1 1877.381(152)*** 1479.607(6)*** .456 .388 .148 .129 .465 Reject
Single-group CFA: Swedish sample (n ¼ 310)
1. Proposed four-factor model (M1) — 301.167(146)*** — .916 .902 .059 .061 — Accept
2. One-factor model (M2) M1 1311.933(152)*** 1010.766(6)*** .373 .295 .157 .165 .543 Reject
Single-group CFA: British sample (n ¼ 369)
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014

1. Proposed four-factor model (M1) — 348.746(146)*** — .911 .896 .061 .058 — Accept
2. One-factor model (M2) M1 1600.457(152)*** 1251.711(6)*** .364 .284 .161 .149 .547 Reject
Multigroup CFA
1. Proposed four-factor model (M1) — 1665.061(730)*** — .922 .909 .026 .055 — Accept
2. One-factor model (M2) M1 7923.240(760)*** 6258.179(30)*** .406 .331 .069 .165 .516 Reject

M ¼ model.

TABLE 6
Latent regression effects of job insecurity on affective organizational commitment, perceived general health, and self-rated
performance (standardized) and goodness-of-fit indices for all subsamples

Single group CFA’s: Subsamples Multi-group CFA

Covariances
Dependent Belgian Dutch Spanish Swedish British constrained
variable (n ¼ 377) (n ¼ 394) (n ¼ 516) (n ¼ 310) (n ¼ 369) Unconstrained equal

Affective 7.29*** 7.45*** 7.47*** 7.14 7.34***

organizational
commitment
Perceived 7.06 7.14* 7.16** 7.09 7.19**
general health
Self-reported 7.29*** 7.26*** 7.39*** 7.18* 7.14*
performance
w2(df) 382.961(149)*** 358.160(149)*** 467.277(149)*** 344.718(149)*** 397.146(149)*** 1950.321(745)*** 1998.086(757)***
CFI .902 .911 .900 .894 .891 .900 .897
NNFI .888 .898 .885 .879 .875 .885 .884
RMSEA .065 .060 .064 .065 .067 .029 .029
SRMR .094 .082 .081 .090 .086 .094 .096

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001.

between the latent factors job insecurity, and affective
organizational commitment, perceived general
health, and self-reported performance were
constrained to be invariant across subsamples
revealed no significant change in fit,
DCFI ¼ .003, 5 .01. These results suggest that job
insecurity was negatively related to the outcomes in
the same extent across subsamples, providing support
for Hypothesis 5. To conclude, although not every
relationship between job insecurity and the outcomes
turned out to be significant in every subsample, the
job insecurity–outcome relationships did not differ
across subsamples. These results provide evidence for
the criterion validity of the different translations of
the JIS.
DISCUSSION
The current study’s main aim was to cross-nationally
validate the Job Insecurity Scale (JIS; De Witte,

2000), in order to address the lack of a formal
investigation of this commonly used quantitative job
insecurity measure, and to facilitate comparisons of
results regarding job insecurity across studies and
countries. In particular, three psychometric charac-
teristics of the JIS were evaluated across samples
from five European countries (i.e., Belgium, The
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the UK), i.e., the
construct validity, the reliability, and the criterion
validity.
The results concerning the construct validity were
as follows: First, in every subsample, the four job
insecurity items loaded on one underlying dimension.
Furthermore, the factorial structure of the JIS turned
out to be the same across subsamples. Hence, we can
conclude for the configural invariance of the JIS
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
translations (Milfont & Fischer, 2010; Vandenberg &
Lance, 2000). Second, we found that the measure-
ment model parameters (i.e., factor loadings, item
intercepts, error variances, and factor variance) were
(at least partially) invariant across subsamples.
Multigroup comparisons pointed at full metric
invariance, partial scalar invariance, partial error
variance invariance, and full factor variance invar-
iance of the JIS across subsamples. Based on these
findings, we may conclude that—overall—the JIS is a
construct valid instrument.
These results have implications regarding the use
of the different translations of the JIS (Milfont &
Fischer, 2010; Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998;
Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). The configural invar-
iance of the JIS translations suggests that the
construct measured by the JIS, i.e., job insecurity,
was conceptualized in the same way across the
subsamples, or in other words, that respondents
from the different subsamples employed the same
conceptual frame of reference to make item re-
sponses. Furthermore, the metric invariance of the
JIS translations implies that the observed scores on
the JIS items are calibrated to the score on the latent
factor job insecurity in the same way across language
groups (i.e., equality of scaling units across coun-
tries). As a result, item scores and differences in item
scores may be meaningfully compared across coun-
tries. Next, scalar invariance reflects that the means
of the observed item scores are related to the means
of the latent job insecurity scores in the same way
across countries. Consequently, mean scores and
differences in mean scores of job insecurity may be
meaningfully compared across countries. Addition-
ally, error variance invariance shows that the JIS
items’ uniquenesses (which are assumed to be
mutually uncorrelated), or the measurement errors
of the JIS translations, are invariant across countries.
Invariance of the factor variances finally reflects the
equality of the dispersion of the latent factor job
insecurity across countries, meaning that all samples
VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE 375
used the same ranges of the job insecurity continuum
to respond to the JIS items. Note that the tests for
error variance invariance and factor variance invar-
iance are considered to be optional or even to be
unreasonable strict (Byrne & van de Vijver, 2010;
Milfont & Fischer, 2010). In sum, we may conclude
that the different translations of the JIS may be
considered as invariant measures of the same under-
lying theoretical construct, that is, job insecurity.
This enables scholars and practitioners to make
meaningful cross-national comparisons regarding
job insecurity items and mean job insecurity scores,
using the different translations of the JIS.
The reliability analyses showed that the different
translations of the JIS were reliable. In every
subsample, the four JIS items constituted a consistent
scale.
Regarding the criterion validity of the JIS, the
results of the single-group SEM analyses showed that
job insecurity was negatively related to both affective
organizational commitment and self-reported perfor-
mance (with one exception for the Swedish sample, in
which the relationship between job insecurity and
affective organizational commitment was not signifi-
cant). The results regarding perceived general health
were, however, less univocal: Job insecurity was
negatively related to perceived general health in the
Dutch, the Spanish, and the British samples, but not
in the Belgian and the Swedish samples. This might
be explained by the fact that job insecurity is more
strongly related to indicators of work-related func-
tioning, such as affective organizational commitment
and self-reported performance (Cheng & Chan, 2008;
Sverke et al., 2002). Associations with poor physical
health are smaller since it is a long-term and
nonwork-specific outcome of job insecurity (Sverke
et al., 2002), and this may explain why job insecurity
was significantly related to perceived general health in
only three of the five subsamples.
Multigroup SEM analyses indicated that the
model with the predicted job insecurity–outcome
relationships fitted the data in a satisfactory way
across subsamples. Additionally, the strength of the
relationships between job insecurity, and affective
organizational commitment, perceived general
health, and self-reported performance did not sig-
nificantly differ between subsamples. This result
differs from findings from previous cross-national
comparisons in which differences between countries
were found in the strength of the job insecurity–
outcome relationship (e.g., Burchell, 2009; König
et al., 2011). This may be explained by the fact that
the countries examined in the current study are
similar on a number of cultural and economic
characteristics, such as the existence of a solid social
security system (Guest et al., 2010), while other
studies investigated countries that are more divergent
 376 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER
(e.g., US versus Switzerland in König et al., 2011).
Moreover, in the current study, similar samples were
selected in terms of the sector and the percentage of
temporary workers. This was not the case in a study
by Burchell (2009), for example, in which nationally
representative samples were used. To conclude, the
JIS can be considered as a criterion valid scale with
respect to the indicators of work-related functioning,
namely affective organizational commitment, per-
ceived general health, and self-reported performance
(although mixed evidence was found with respects to
perceived general health). Hence, scholars may use
the different translations of the JIS as valid scales to
investigate job insecurity and its associations with
(especially work-related) attitudes, well-being, and
behaviours.
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
Limitations and avenues for future research
Possible limitations of the current study should be
mentioned. A first limitation of the current study
concerns the cross-sectional research design. This
prevents us from drawing inferences about causal
relationships between the variables. We theorized job
insecurity to lead to decreased affective organiza-
tional commitment, perceived general health, and
self-reported performance, but in practice this can be
the other way round. Longitudinal research is
necessary to fill this gap and to explore the predictive
validity of the JIS (i.e., the extent to which scale
scores can predict future scores on outcome vari-
ables). Nevertheless, there have been longitudinal
studies that underline causal relationships in the
direction expected in this study (e.g., Dekker &
Schaufeli, 1995; Ferrie et al., 2001; Schreurs et al.,
2012; Virtanen et al., 2011). Furthermore, a long-
itudinal design would allow us to study the invariance
of the JIS across time, and thus to evaluate the test–
retest reliability of the JIS.
Second, in addition to testing the predictive
validity and the test–retest reliability, it would be
interesting to investigate the convergent and the
incremental validity of the JIS. Convergent validity
refers to the extent to which the JIS is related to other
global measures of quantitative job insecurity,
whereas incremental validity refers to the degree to
which the JIS explains or predicts different types of
outcomes, relative to other job insecurity measures.
We want to emphasize that we do not have
theoretical or methodological reasons to expect that
the JIS has a better incremental validity than
comparable job insecurity measures, such as the scale
of Sverke and Hellgren (2002). Nevertheless, evaluat-
ing the convergent and the incremental validity may
increase our knowledge of mutual relationships
between alternative job insecurity measures, and of
the differences in their associations with outcomes,
and may therefore facilitate meaningful comparisons
of the results across studies in which different job
insecurity scales were used.
Third, potential routes for future research may
concern predictors of the JIS and moderators of the
job insecurity–negative outcomes relationship. Pre-
dictors may include variables at the level of the
individual (e.g., perceived job control, personality
characteristics; see, e.g., Mauno & Kinnunen, 2002)
and at the level of the organization (e.g., size of the
organization, organizational changes; see, e.g., Beni-
to, 2006; Lee et al., 2008) or labour market (e.g.,
unemployment rate; see, e.g., Green, 2009). Modera-
tors may include issues tied to the experience of job
insecurity, such as objective insecurity in the form of
temporary versus permanent employment (see, e.g.,
Klandermans, Hesselink, & van Vuuren, 2010), or
job security preferences.
Fourth, all measures were based on self-reports,
which may have inflated the relationships between
job insecurity and the outcomes, that is, common
method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Whereas job
insecurity and affective organizational commitment
are private experiences that cannot be measured than
by asking respondents themselves, perceived general
health and performance could be measured by using
external sources (i.e., results of an examination by a
doctor and evaluations by employees’ supervisor,
respectively). Nevertheless, we tried to decrease the
risks for common method bias by highlighting
the anonymous treatment of the study results to the
participants and by the voluntary character of
the survey (Conway & Lance, 2010). We further
reduced the risk by using internationally used and
validated measures for the outcome variables and by
investigating the construct validity of the study
variables (CFA), with a thorough examination of
the construct validity of the JIS.
Finally, different considerations can be made
regarding the subsamples used in this study. First,
the subsamples were not representative for the
working population in the concerning countries, as
they only covered two sectors of economy (i.e.,
manufacturing and the retail and service sector). This
may question the external validity of the study results
with respect to other sectors of economy. Second, we
found the subsamples to differ along sociodemo-
graphic characteristics. These results notwithstand-
ing, we established invariance of the measurement
parameters of the JIS and the JIS–outcome relation-
ships across subsamples. Third, all samples contained
a relatively high proportion of temporary versus
permanent workers. We may, however, expect that
the relationships between job insecurity and the
outcomes are weaker for temporary workers than
for permanent workers (De Cuyper & De Witte,

2006). Permanent workers expect job security in
return for their loyalty to the organization, and will
perceive a breach of the relational psychological
contract when experiencing job insecurity. This
breach will negatively influence their performance
and attitudes towards the organization. As job
insecurity is part of the employment contract between
temporary workers and the employer, temporary
workers do not experience a breach of the psycholo-
gical contract when feelings of job insecurity occur.
We may therefore reasonably expect that the relation-
ships between job insecurity and the outcomes will be
stronger when using samples with a smaller percen-
tage of temporary workers. Overall, future studies
working with representative samples may overcome
these issues.
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
CONCLUSION
The JIS is a four-item scale that measures job
insecurity, which is conceptualized as the subjectively
perceived and undesired possibility to lose the present
job in the future, as well as the fear or worries related
to this possibility of job loss. The current study
demonstrated the construct validity (i.e., configural
invariance and invariance of the measurement model
parameters), the reliability (internal consistency of
the items), and the criterion validity (with respect to
affective organizational commitment, perceived gen-
eral health, and self-reported performance) of differ-
ent translations of the JIS across five European
countries. These results imply that the different
translations of the JIS can be used in a valid and
reliable way to measure job insecurity and to make
meaningful comparisons across the different coun-
tries and language barriers treated in this study.
Furthermore, the JIS may be used to investigate the
relationship of job insecurity with relevant outcomes
variables.
REFERENCES
Abramis, D. J. (1994). Relationship of job stressors to job-
performance: Linear or inverted-U. Psychological Reports,
75(1), 547–558.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and
consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and
substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 803–
829. doi:10.2307/256569
Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational change
related to workplace bullying? Role conflict and job insecurity
as mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30(3), 348–
371. doi:10.1177/0143831x09336557
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and
other research instruments: Problems and solutions (Vol. 07-131).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benito, A. (2006). Does job insecurity affect household consump-
tion? Oxford Economic Papers—New Series, 58(1), 157–181.
doi:10.1093/oep/gpi041
VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE 377
Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Cuyper, N., Schreurs, B., & De Witte, H.
(2011). Linking job insecurity to well-being and organizational
attitudes in Belgian workers: The role of security expectations
and fairness. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 22(9), 1866–1886. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.573967
Borg, I., & Elizur, D. (1992). Job insecurity: Correlates,
moderators and measurement. International Journal of Man-
power, 13(2), 13–26. doi:10.1108/01437729210010210
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural
equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burchell, B. (2009). Flexicurity as a moderator of the relationship
between job insecurity and psychological well-being. Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2, 365–378.
doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp021
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with Amos:
Basic concepts, application and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Testing for measurement
and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies:
Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of
Testing, 10(2), 107–132. doi:10.1080/15305051003637306
Cheng, G. H. L., & Chan, D. K. S. (2008). Who suffers more from
job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An
International Review/Psychologie Appliquee: Revue Internatio-
nale, 57(2), 272–303. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00312.x
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Chirumbolo, A., & Areni, A. (2010). Job insecurity influence on job
performance and mental health: Testing the moderating effect
of the need for closure. Economic and Industrial Democracy,
31(2), 195–214. doi:10.1177/0143831x09358368
Clinton, M., Guest, D., Budjanovcanin, A., Staynvarts, N., Krausz,
M., Bernhard-Oettel, C., et al. (2005). Investigating individual and
organizational determinants of the psychological contract: Data
collection and analysis. London, UK: King’s College.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should
expect from authors regarding common method bias in
organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25(3), 325–334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measure of measures of
trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfill-
ment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39–52.
Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job
security’s direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 323–349. doi:10.1002/
(sici)1099-1379(199707)18:45323::aid-job80143.3.co;2-r
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecurity
and contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioural
reports: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 395–409.
doi:10.1348/096317905x53660
Dekker, S. W. A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). The effects of job
insecurity on psychological health and withdrawal: A long-
itudinal study. The Australian Psychologist, 30(1), 57–63.
doi:10.1080/00050069508259607
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being:
Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved
issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 8(2), 155–177. doi:10.1080/135943299398302
De Witte, H. (2000). Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: Meting en
gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet op het werk [Work
ethic and job insecurity: Assessment and consequences for well-
being, satisfaction and performance at work]. In R. Bouwen, K.
De Witte, H. De Witte, & T. Taillieu (Eds.), Van groep naar
gemeenschap [From group to community]. Liber Amicorum
Prof. Dr. Leo Lagrou (pp. 325–350). Leuven, Belgium: Garant.
 378 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER
De Witte, H. (2005). Job insecurity: Review of the international
literature on definitions, prevalence, antecedents and conse-
quences. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4),
1–6.
Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Martikainen, P.,
Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith, G. D. (2001). Job insecurity in white-
collar workers: Toward an explanation of associations with
health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 26–42.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.26
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping
processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46(4), 839–852.
Geisinger, K. F. (2003). Testing and assessment in cross-cultural
psychology. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook
of psychology: Assessment psychology (pp. 95–117). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Green, F. (2009). Subjective employment insecurity around the
world. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,
2(3), 343–363. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp003
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438–
448. doi:10.2307/258284
Guest, D. E., Isaksson, K., & De Witte, H. (2010). Employment
contracts, psychological contracts, and employee well-being: an
international study. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Harkness, J. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. Harkness, P.
P. Mohler, & F. Van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey
methods (pp. 35–56). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Heany, C. A., Israel, B. A., & House, J. S. (1994). Chronic job
insecurity among automobile workers: Effects on job satisfac-
tion and health. Social Science and Medicine, 38(10), 1431–
1437. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90281-X
Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional
approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee
attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 179–195. doi:10.1080/
135943299398311
Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural Equation Modeling.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huang, G.-H., Niu, X., Lee, C., & Ashford, S. J. (2012).
Differentiating cognitive and affective job insecurity: Antece-
dents and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33,
752–769. doi:10.1002/job.1815
Jacobson, D. (1991). The conceptual approach to job insecurity. In
J. Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren
(Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 23–39).
London, UK: Sage.
Jacobson, D., & Hartley, J. (1991). Mapping the context. In J.
Hartley, D. Jacobson, B. Klandermans, & T. van Vuuren
(Eds.), Job insecurity: Coping with jobs at risk (pp. 2–22).
London, UK: Sage.
Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & Siltaloppi, M. (2010). Job insecurity,
recovery and well-being at work: Recovery experiences as
moderators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(2), 179–
194. doi:10.1177/0143831x09358366
Klandermans, B., Hesselink, J. K., & van Vuuren, T. (2010).
Employment status and job insecurity: On the
subjective appraisal of an objective status. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 31(4), 557–577. doi:10.1177//
0143831x09358362
Klandermans, B., & van Vuuren, T. (1999). Job
insecurity: Introduction. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 145–153. doi:10.1080/13594
3299398294
König, C. J., Probst, T. M., Staffen, S., & Graso, M. (2011). A
Swiss-US comparison of the correlates of job insecurity.
Applied Psychology: An International Review/Psychologie Ap-
pliquee: Revue Internationale, 60(1), 141–159. doi:10.1111/
j.1464-0597.2010.00430.x
Laszlo, K. D., Pikhart, H., Kopp, M. S., Bobak, M., Pajak, A.,
Malyutina, S., et al. (2010). Job insecurity and health: A study
of 16 European countries. Social Science and Medicine, 70(6),
867–874. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.022
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping.
New York, NY: Springer.
Lee, C., Bobko, P., Ashford, S., Chen, Z. X., & Ren, X. (2008).
Cross-cultural development of an abridged job insecurity
measure. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 373–390.
doi:10.1002/job.513
Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (2002). Perceived job insecurity among
dual-earner couples: Do its antecedents vary according to
gender, economic sector and the measure used? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 295–314.
doi:10.1348/096317902320369721
Mauno, S., Leskinen, E., & Kinnunen, U. (2001). Multi-wave,
multi-variable models of job insecurity: Applying different
scales in studying the stability of job insecurity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22(8), 919–937. doi:10.1002/job.122
Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and
sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement
invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement
invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural re-
search. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1),
111–121.
Muñoz de Bustillo, R., & de Pedraza, P. (2010). Determinants of
job insecurity in five European countries. European Journal of
Industrial Relations, 16(1), 5–20. doi:10.1177/09596801093
55306
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/
0021-9101.88.5.879
Probst, T. (2003). Development and validation of the Job Security
Index and the Job Security Satisfaction scale: A classical test
theory and IRT approach. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76(4), 451–467. doi:10.1348/
096317903322591587
Probst, T. M. (2008). Job insecurity. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior: Vol. 1.
Micro perspectives (pp. 178–195). London, UK: Sage.
Reisel, W. D. (2003). Validation and measurement of perceived
environmental threat as an antecedent to job insecurity.
Psychological Reports, 93(2), 359–364. doi:10.2466/
pr0.93.6.359-364
Reisel, W. D., & Banai, M. (2002). Comparison of a multi-
dimensional and a global measure of job insecurity: Predicting
job attitudes and work behaviors. Psychological Reports, 90(3),
913–922. doi:10.2466/pr0.90.3.913-922
Rigotti, T., Mohr, G., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., Bernhard, C.,
Isaksson, K., et al. (2003). The EU-Psycones Project: Instruction
booklet and blue print for methodology. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Leipzig, Germany. Retrieved from http://
www.uv.es/*psycon/documentacion/WP3.pdf
Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. (2008). A short version of the
Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale: Structural and construct
validity across five countries. Journal of Career Assessment,
16(2), 238–255. doi:10.1177/1069072707305763

Rosenblatt, Z., & Ruvio, A. (1996). A test of a multidimensional
model of job insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17, 587–605. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-
1379(199612)17:1þ5587::aid-job82543.3.co;2-j
Schreurs, B. H. J., Van Emmerik, I. J. H., Gunter, H., & Germeys,
F. (2012). A weekly diary study on the buffering role of social
support in the relationship between job insecurity and employee
performance. Human Resource Management, 51(2), 259–279.
doi:10.1002/hrm.21465
Sora Miana, B., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Caballer, A., & Peiro,
J. M. (2011). Consequences of job insecurity and the moderator
role of occupational group. Spanish Journal of Psychology,
14(2), 820–831. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.29
Staufenbiel, T., & König, K. J. (2011). An evaluation of Borg’s
Cognitive and Affective Job Insecurity scales. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(20), 1–7.
Steenkamp, J., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement
invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90. doi:10.1086/209528
Sverke, M., & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity:
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014
Understanding employment uncertainty on the brink of a new
millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review/
Psychologie Appliquee: Revue Internationale, 51(1), 23–42.
doi:10.1111/1464-0597.0077z
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A
meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 242–264.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Näswall, K., Chirumbolo, A., De Witte,
H., & Goslinga, S. (2004). Job insecurity and union membership:
European unions in the wake of flexible production. Brussels: P. I.
E. Peter Lang.
VALIDATION OF THE JOB INSECURITY SCALE 379
Tilakdharee, N., Ramidial, S., & Parumasur, S. B. (2010). The
relationship between job insecurity and burnout. South African
Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 13(3), 254–271.
Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Toward a further understanding of and
improvement in measurement invariance methods and proce-
dures. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2), 139–158.
doi:10.1177/1094428102005002001
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis
of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, prac-
tices, and recommendations for organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. doi:10.1177/
109442810031002
Vander Elst, T., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). The role of
perceived control in the relationship between job insecurity and
psychosocial outcomes: Moderator or mediator? Stress and
Health, 27(3), E215–E227. doi:10.1002/smi.1371
Virtanen, P., Janlert, U., & Hammarstrom, A. (2011). Exposure to
temporary employment and job insecurity: A longitudinal study
of the health effects. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
68(8), 570–574. doi:10.1136/oem.2010.054890
Ware, J. E. (1999). SF-36 Health Survey. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.),
The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and
outcomes assessment (2nd ed., pp. 1227–1246). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural
equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–
751. doi:10.1177/0011000006286345
Original manuscript received March 2012
Revised manuscript received October 2012
First published online January 2013
 380 VANDER ELST, DE WITTE, DE CUYPER

APPENDIX
Translations of the Job Insecurity Scale (De Witte, 2000; Rigotti et al., 2003)

Flemish Dutch Spanish Swedish English

Item
1. De kans bestaat dat ik De kans bestaat dat ik Existen posibilidades de Det finns en risk att jag Chances are, I will soon
binnenkort mijn job binnenkort mijn baan que pronto pierda mi snart kommer att lose my job.
verlies. verlies. trabajo. förlora arbetet.
2. Ik ben er zeker van dat Ik weet zeker dat ik deze Estoy seguro/a de que Jag är säker på att I am sure I can keep my
ik mijn job zal kunnen baan kan behouden. puedo conservar mi kunna behålla mitt job. (R)
behouden. (R) (R) trabajo. (R) job. (R)
3. Ik voel me onzeker over Ik voel me onzeker over Me siento inseguro Jag är osäker om min I feel insecure about the
de toekomst van mijn de toekomst van mijn sobre el futuro de mi framtida anställning. future of my job.
job. baan. trabajo.
4. Ik denk dat ik mijn job Ik denk dat ik mijn baan Creo que podrı́a perder Jag tror att jag kan I think I might lose my
zal verliezen in de zal verliezen in de mi trabajo en un förlora mitt arbete job in the near future.
nabije toekomst. nabije toekomst. futuro próximo. inom den närmaste
tiden.
Downloaded by [University of Canterbury] at 12:21 25 February 2014

Scale
1. Helemaal niet akkoord Helemaal niet mee eens Muy en desacuerdo Instämmer absolut inte Strongly disagree
2. Eerder niet akkoord Niet mee eens Algo en desacuerdo Instämmer inte Somewhat disagree
3. Deels akkoord, deels Deels eens, deels oneens En parte de acuerdo, en Instämmer delvis Partly agree partly
niet akkoord parte en desacuerdo disagree
4. Eerder akkoord Mee eens Algo de acuerdo Instämmer Somewhat agree
5. Helemaal akkoord Helemaal mee eens Muy de acuerdo Instämmer absolut Strongly agree

View publication stats