Article Sidebar

Accepted
Apr 15, 2026
Published
Apr 15, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 2 Download : 3

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to adapt and examine the construct validity and internal reliability of the Abusive Supervision Scale Short Version (5-item) in the Indonesian context. The background of this research is based on the limited number of studies on abusive supervision in non-Western countries, particularly in Indonesia, which is characterized by high power distance. This study employed a quantitative approach with a cross-sectional survey design involving 252 employees who have direct supervisors in the province of South Sulawesi. The sample was selected purposively, and the scale was administered via an online platform. Data analysis was carried out using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with the WLSMV estimation method. The results show that the unidimensional model of the scale has a very good fit based on CFI (.998), TLI (.996), and SRMR (.019), with an RMSEA value of (.099). All items had factor loading values above 0.89 and were significant (p < .001), as well as an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value of .89. In addition, the overall Omega coefficient value of .94 indicates very high internal reliability. These findings indicate that this scale is proven to be valid and reliable in measuring perceptions of abusive supervision in the Indonesian context. Practically, this short scale is useful for researchers and organizational practitioners because it can be used efficiently without increasing respondent fatigue, while still being able to provide an accurate depiction of the dynamics of abusive supervision.

Keywords

abusive supervision power distance reliability scale adaptation validity

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

In submitting the manuscript to the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL), the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  • That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  • The publication has been approved by the author(s) and by responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.

License and Copyright Agreement

Authors who publish with the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL) agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership (IJEAMaL) published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or edit it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
How to Cite
Fahrezi, R. N., Wirawan, H., Firdaus, F. A. P., Zulkifli, Z. R. Q. M., Nurkholis, U. H., & Asma. (2026). Adaptation and Validation of the Abusive Supervision Scale: A Short Version for the Indonesian Context . International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership, 7(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.51629/ijeamal.v6i2.295

References

  1. Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 14(2), 126–140.
  2. Bah, A. J., Wurie, H. R., Samai, M., Horn, R., & Ager, A. (2025). Developing and validating the Sierra Leone perinatal psychological distress scale through an emic-etic approach. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 19, 100852. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2024.100852
  3. Bajaba, A., Bajaba, S., & Simmering, M. J. (2024). When resilience is not enough: Theoretical development and validation of the antifragility at work scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 231, 112818. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112818
  4. Balci, K., & Salah, A. A. (2015). Automatic analysis and identification of verbal aggression and abusive behaviors for online social games. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 517–526. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.025
  5. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.
  6. Bortolon, C., Lopes, B., Capdevielle, D., Macioce, V., & Raffard, S. (2019). The roles of cognitive avoidance, rumination and negative affect in the association between abusive supervision in the workplace and non-clinical paranoia in a sample of workers working in France. Psychiatry Research, 271, 581–589. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.11.065
  7. Brady, J. M., Hammer, L. B., & Westman, M. (2025). Supervisor resilience promotes employee well-being: The role of resource crossover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 156, 104076. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104076
  8. Chen, H., Alfred, M., & Cohen, E. (2025). Efficient Detection of Stigmatizing Language in Electronic Health Records via In-Context Learning: Comparative Analysis and Validation Study. JMIR Medical Informatics, 13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2196/68955
  9. Dai, Y.-D., Zhuang, W.-L., & Huan, T.-C. (2019). Engage or quit? The moderating role of abusive supervision between resilience, intention to leave and work engagement. Tourism Management, 70, 69–77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.07.014
  10. Fischer, T., Tian, A. W., Lee, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101540.
  11. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
  12. Gallegos, I., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., & Berger, R. (2022). Abusive supervision: a systematic review and new research approaches. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 640908.
  13. Griep, Y., Kraak, J. M., Knol, W. M., Dolislager, J., & Beekman, E. M. (2025). The ripple effect of abusive supervision: A longitudinal examination of psychological contract breach, turnover intentions, and resilience among third parties. Journal of Business Research, 189, 115141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115141
  14. Guo, D., Cheng, J., & Zaigham, G. H. K. (2024). The hidden cost of abusive supervision: rudeness, sabotage, and ethics. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 627.
  15. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). The Results of PLS-SEM Article information. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
  16. Harris, M. L., Gibson, S. G., Barber, D., Wang, C., & Orazov, S. (2011). A multi-country perspective of students’ entrepreneurial attitudes. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 12(3), 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2011.039013
  17. Hashmi, E., Yayilgan, S. Y., Yamin, M. M., Abomhara, M., & Ullah, M. (2025). Self-supervised hate speech detection in Norwegian texts with lexical and semantic augmentations. Expert Systems with Applications, 264, 125843. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125843
  18. Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24.
  19. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.
  20. Hoobler, J. M., & Hu, J. (2013). A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 256–269. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.005
  21. Hussain, I., & Sia, S. K. (2017). Power distance orientation dilutes the effect of abusive supervision on workplace deviance. Management and Labour Studies, 42(4), 293–305.
  22. Jeong, D., Aggarwal, S., Robinson, J., Kumar, N., Spearot, A., & Park, D. S. (2023). Exhaustive or exhausting? Evidence on respondent fatigue in long surveys. Journal of Development Economics, 161, 102992.
  23. Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2005). Emotional Abuse in the Workplace.
  24. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507.
  25. Khan, N. A., & Khan, A. N. (2021). Exploring the impact of abusive supervision on employee’ voice behavior in Chinese construction industry: a moderated mediation analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(8), 3051–3071. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2020-0829
  26. Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512–519. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004
  27. Kirkman, G., Willmott, D., Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (2025). Introduction and validation of the Modern Adolescent Dating Violence Attitude (MADVA) scale: A contemporary tool for assessing adolescent attitudes towards dating violence in offline and online environments. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 80, 100705. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100705
  28. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
  29. Kline, W., & McDermott, K. (2019). Evolutionary stakeholder theory and public utility regulation. Business and Society Review, 124(2), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12172
  30. Li, Z., & Song, L. (2024). Understanding the impact of abusive leadership on third-party observers’ turnover intentions: Insights from organizational identification and authority orientation. Acta Psychologica, 248, 104438. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104438
  31. López-Varela, E., Pascual, N. O., Quezada-Sánchez, J., Oreja-Guevara, C., & Barreira, N. (2025). Efficient semi-supervised hierarchical training for segmenting choroidal vessels and other structures on OCT images of multiple sclerosis patients. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 100, 106937. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2024.106937
  32. Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Subordinate social adaptability and the consequences of abusive supervision perceptions in two samples. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 732–746. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.003
  33. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120–S137.
  34. Mathieu, C., & Babiak, P. (2016). Corporate psychopathy and abusive supervision: Their influence on employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 102–106. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.002
  35. Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle‐down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325–357.
  36. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412.
  37. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159.
  38. Oliveira, L. B., & Najnudel, P. S. (2023). The influence of abusive supervision on employee engagement, stress and turnover intention. Revista de Gestão, 30(1), 78–91.
  39. Ozturk, E., Derin, G., & Erdogan, B. (2025). The development and preliminary validation of the cyber dissociative experiences scale: Its associations with childhood trauma, online dissociative experiences, and social media addiction. European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 9(3), 100545. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2025.100545
  40. Rahman, H., Li, M., Hu, X., & Yen, N. (2025). The development and validation of labor standards perceived by employers scale. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 47(5), 765–796. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2024-0376
  41. Roberge, V., & Boudrias, J.-S. (2025). What is goal blockage, really? A conceptual validation study. European Review of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 101043. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2024.101043
  42. Sarwar, A., Muhammad, L., & Sigala, M. (2021). Unraveling the complex nexus of punitive supervision and deviant work behaviors: findings and implications from hospitality employees in Pakistan. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1437–1460. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2020-0808
  43. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.
  44. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.
  45. Tuarob, S., Satravisut, M., Sangtunchai, P., Nunthavanich, S., & Noraset, T. (2023). FALCoN: Detecting and classifying abusive language in social networks using context features and unlabeled data. Information Processing & Management, 60(4), 103381. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103381
  46. Turek, D. (2022). Does organisational politics always hurt employee performance? Moderating–mediating model. Baltic Journal of Management, 17(6), 19–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2021-0338
  47. Wang, S., Lin, X., & Wu, J. (2023). The effect of abusive supervision variability on work–family conflict: The role of psychological detachment and optimism. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 973634.
  48. Wang, X., & Chu, S. (2025). The generation and influence of colleague-oriented deviant behavior. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 38(2), 361–377. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2023-0158
  49. Wei, Y.-C. (2022). Are satisfied employees less inclined to quit? Moderating effects of human capital and abusive supervision. Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 10(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-07-2021-0141
  50. Ye, X., Cai, S., & Wang, Z. (2021). The effect of abusive supervision on safety behaviour of Chinese underground miners: a multi-level moderated mediation analysis. Chinese Management Studies, 16(5), 1124–1144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-08-2020-0342

Most read articles by the same author(s)