Vol. 7 No. 2 (2019): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal


Assist. Prof. Dr., Yeditepe University

Published 2019-06-26


  • Organizational Inclusion Scale Turkish Form,
  • Reliability And Validity,
  • Confirmatory Factor Analysis
  • Örgütsel İçerme Ölçeği Türkçe Formu,
  • Geçerlilik Ve Güvenirlik,
  • Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi

How to Cite

PALALAR ALKAN, D. (2019). THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF TURKISH FORM OF ORGANIZATIONAL INCLUSION SCALE. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(2), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i2.1017


This study aims to investigate the validity and reliability of the Organizational Inclusion Scale in the Turkish literature. Organizational inclusion is described as the optimal degree of balancing an individual’s group / organizational identification with the need to be distinctive from the others in the literature.  The translation-back translation methodology was utilized to determine the congruency of the Turkish form. The outcome of the reliability test yielded the Cronbach alpha coefficient of the study as α= 0.924. The result of the critical factor analysis of the Turkish form indicates a two-factor structure with factor loading varying from 45,63% to 27,79%, inconsistent with the original scale developed by Sabharwal (2014). After that, the scale was retested conducting a confirmatory factor analysis utilizing structural equation modeling and tested with AMOS 22 and Smart PLS. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the two-factor structure indicate the Turkish form of Organizational Inclusion scale is suitable for assessing individuals’ perception of organizational inclusion in the Turkish context.  


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Bettencourt, B. A., Molix, L., Talley, A. E., & Sheldon, K. M. (2006). Psychological need satisfaction through social roles. In T. Postmes, & J. Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 196–214). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
  2. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
  3. Brewer, M. B. ve Roccas, S. (2001). Individual values, social identity, and optimal distinctiveness. In C. Sedikides, M. B. Brewer, C. Sedikides, & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective self (pp. 219–237). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  4. Correll, J. ve Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(4), 341–359.
  5. Cox, T. H. 1991. The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(1), 34-47.
  6. Cox, T. H., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
  7. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları, Ankara: Pegem.
  8. Daniels, C. (2001). Too diverse for our own good. Fortune, 144(1), 116.
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  10. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263.
  11. Ellemers, N., & Jetten, J. (2013). The many ways to be marginal in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(1), 3–21.
  12. Gonzalez, J.A., & DeNisi, A.S. 2009. Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 21-40.
  13. Hair, J., Black,W., Babin, B.J. ve Anderson, R.E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed., Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
  14. Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publication.
  15. Harvey, B. H. (1999). Technology, diversity and work culture – key trends in the next millennium. HR Magazine, 44, 58-59.
  16. Hays- Thomas, R., Bowen, A. ve Boudreaux, M. (2012).Skills for diversity and inclusion in organizations: a review and preliminary investigation. The psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(1), 128-141.
  17. Hogg, M. A., ve Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty- reduction model of social motivation in groups. In M. A. Hogg, & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 173–190). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  18. Homan, A.C., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D.R., & Van Kleef, G.A. 2008. Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 1204-1222.
  19. Jansen, W.S.; Otten, S.; Van der Zee, K.I.; Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 370 – 385.
  20. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., ... Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self- investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identifica- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.
  21. Leary, M. R., ve Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self- esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 32, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  22. Lirio, P., Lee, M. D., Williams, M. L., Haugen, L. K., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). The inclusion challenge with reduced-load professionals: The role of the manager. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 443–461.
  23. Mehta, S. N. (2000). What minority employees really want. Fortune, 142, 180-186.
  24. Mor-Barak, M. E. (2000). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23, 47–68
  25. Munro B. H. (2005). Statistical Methods, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  26. Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., ve Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617.
  27. Reicher, S. D. (1987). Crowd behaviour as social action. J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J.Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory, Oxford : Blackwell Publishing. 171-202.
  28. Roberson, Q. M. (2004). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion (CAHRS Working Paper #04-05). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
  29. Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizaitonal inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 1-21.
  30. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.
  31. Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli, Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınevi.
  32. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.
  33. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W. ve Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 1008–1022.
  34. Wang J, Wang X. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus: methods and applications, West Susex: John Wiley & Sons.
  35. Wentling, R. M. ve Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Current status of diversity initiatives in selected multinational corporations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 35-60.