As nonessential workers are working from home and connected to colleagues through means of computer technology, cyberbullying, which has only recently been investigated in workplace settings, is likely to become more prevalent. Organizations are also reconsidering work structures that would keep workers remote. Workplace cyberbullying (WCB) can have a detrimental impact on victims' mental health, more than traditional face-to-face bullying. However, there is a dearth of validated assessments to monitor WCB for use in different countries. The Cyberbullying Behavior Questionnaire Short version (CBQ-S) from Jönsson et al. is a validated short scale that seems simple and practical enough to integrate in widely applied multiscale employee surveys. Previously, the CBQ-S has been only validated in Sweden (in the Swedish language) and United States (in English). This study performs a construct validation of the CBQ-S in Spain (in Spanish) and Germany (in German), to equip businesses and organizations operating in those countries with an effective valid tool to measure WCB. Two hundred nine German and 249 Spanish workers (N = 458) participated in a cross-sectional survey. Exploratory and multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses suggested a one-dimensional structure of the scale, supporting configural invariance; metric and partial scalar invariance was also supported. Latent means differences revealed significantly higher mean scores for the Spanish sample (Cohen's d = 0.61). WCB correlated positively with workplace bullying, supporting concurrent convergent validity. WCB also correlated positively with role conflict, role ambiguity, bullying in general, stress, turnover intention, and negatively with job satisfaction, indicating criterion validity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SamnaniAK, SinghP. 20 years of workplace bullying research: a review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2012; 17:581–589.
2.
ILO. Managing work-related psychosocial risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Labour Organization 2020. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/resources-library/publications/WCMS_748638/lang—en/index.htm (accessed Oct.31, 2020).
3.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Calculating the cost of work related stress and psychosocial risks. European Communities 2014. https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/literature_reviews/calculating-the-cost-of-work-related-stress-and-psychosocial-risks/view (accessed Nov.10, 2020).
4.
CoyneI, FarleyS, AxtellC, et al.Understanding the relationship between experiencing workplace cyberbullying, employee mental strain and job satisfaction: a dysempowerment approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2017; 28:945–972.
5.
Eurofound. European Working Conditions Survey 2015; 2018. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2016/working-conditions/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-overview-report (accessed Oct.31, 2020).
6.
Escartín SolanellesJ, VranjesI, BaillienE, et al. (2018) Workplace bullying and cyberbullying scales: an overview. In Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-5334-4_10-1.
7.
De StefanoV, DurriI, StylogiannisC, et al. (2020) “System needs update”: Upgrading protection against cyberbullying and ICT-enabled violence and harassment in the world of work: ILO Working Paper 1. Geneva: ILO.
8.
FarleyS, CoyneI, D'CruzP. (2021) Cyberbullying at work: understanding the influence of technology. In D'Cruz P, Noronha E, Notelaers G, Rayner C, eds. Concepts, approaches and methods. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-0134-6_8
9.
ForssellR.Exploring cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying in working life—prevalence, targets and expressions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 58:454–460.
10.
BaruchY.Bullying on the net: adverse behavior on e-mail and its impact. Information & Management, 2005; 42. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2004.02.001.
11.
PriviteraC, CampbellMA. Cyberbullying: the new face of workplace bullying?. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:395–400.
12.
JenaroC, FloresN, FríasCP. Systematic review of empirical studies on cyberbullying in adults: what we know and what we should investigate. Aggressio and Violent Behavior, 2018; 38:113–122.
13.
JönssonS, MuhonenT, ForssellRC, et al.Assessing exposure to bullying through digital devices in working life: two versions of a cyberbullying questionnaire (CBQ). Psychology, 2017; 08:477–494.
14.
RobinsonM.Using multi-item psychometric scales for research and practice in human resource management. Human Resource Management, 2018; 57:739–750.
15.
BergerR, YepesM, Gómez BenitoJ, et al.Validity of the Human System Audit Transformational Leadership Short Scale (HSA-TFL) in four European countries. Universitas Psychologica, 2011; 10:826–836.
16.
GardnerD, O'DriscollM, Cooper-ThomasHD, et al.Predictors of workplace bullying and cyber-bullying in New Zealand. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2016; 13. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13050448.
17.
LeymannH.The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1996, 5:165–184.
18.
VranjesI, BaillienE, VandeboschH, et al.The dark side of working online: towards a definition and an Emotion Reaction model of workplace cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 69:324–334.
19.
OksanenA, OksaR, SavelaN, et al.Cyberbullying victimization at work: social media identity bubble approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020; 109. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106363.
20.
BowlingNA, BeehrTA. Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006; 91. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998.
21.
SkogstadA, TorsheimT, EinarsenS, et al.Testing the work environment hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: psychosocial factors as precursors of observed workplace bullying. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011; 60:475–495.
22.
LawrenceF. Prevalence and consequences of negative workplace cyber communications in the Australian public sector. Queensland University of Technology, Doctoral Thesis: 2015.
23.
BartlettJE, BartlettME. Workplace bullying: an integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2011; 13:69–84.
24.
WestB, FosterM, LevinA, et al.Cyberbullying at work: in search of effective guidance. Laws, 2014; 3:598–617.
25.
SchaubroeckJ, CottonJL, JenningsKR. Antecedents and consequences of role stress: a covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1989; 10:35–58.
26.
DjurkovicN, MccormackD, CasimirG. The physical and psychological effects of workplace bullying and their relationship to intention to leave: a test of the psychosomatic and disability hypothesis. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 2004; 7:469–497.
27.
RichardEM, WalshJJ, ZhouZE. (2019) Cyberbullying in the workplace: cross-cultural issues. In GiumettiG and KowalskiR, eds. Cyberbullying in schools, workplaces, and romantic relationships: the many lenses and perspectives of electronic mistreatment. Routledge: Taylor Francis, pp. 98–117.
28.
AthanasiouK, MelegkovitsE, AndrieEK, et al.Cross-national aspects of cyberbullying victimization among 14–17-year-old adolescents across seven European countries. BMC Public Health, 2018; 18. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5682-4.
29.
KowalskiRM, TothA, MorganM. Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. Journal of Social Psychology, 2018; 158:64–81.
30.
Hofstede Insights. Country comparison. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/germany,spain (accessed Oct.31, 2020).
31.
SalinD.Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 2003; 56:1213–1232.
32.
Eurofound. Telework and ICT-based mobile work: Flexible working in the digital age, New forms of employment series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/telework-and-ict-based-mobile-work-flexible-working-in-the-digital-age (accessed Mar.26, 2021).
33.
American Psychological Association. (2017) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code (accessed Oct.31, 2020).
34.
World Medical Association. (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 2013; 310:2191–2194.
35.
CammannCC, FichmanM, JenkinsGD, et al. (1979) The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
36.
VaggPR, SpielbergerCD. Occupational stress: measuring job pressure and organizational support in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1998; 3:294–305.
37.
BowlingNA, KhazonS, AlarconGM, et al.Building better measures of role ambiguity and role conflict: the validation of new role stressor scales. Work Stress, 2017; 31:1–23.
38.
GlazerS, BeehrTA. Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four countries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005; 26:467–487.
39.
BarkerE, ArseneaultL, BrendgenM, et al.Joint development of bullying and victimization in adolescence: relations to delinquency and self-harm. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2008; 47. [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1097/CHI.ObO13e31817eec98.
40.
NagyMS.Using a single-item approach to measure fact job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2002; 75:77–86.
41.
EloAL, LeppänenA, JahkolaA. Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 2003; 29:444–451.
42.
LeungSO, XuML. Single-item measures for subjective academic performance, selfesteem, and socioeconomic status. Journal of Social Service Research, 2013; 39:511–520.
43.
International Test Commission. ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second Edition). International Journal of Testing, 2018; 18:101–134.
44.
ByrneBM.Adaptation of assessment scales in cross-national research: issues, guidelines, and caveats. International Perspectives in Psychology, 2016; 5:51–65.
45.
PutnickDL, BornsteinMH. Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 2016; 41:71–90.
46.
BuehnerM.Einführung in die Test-und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Munich, Germany: Pearson, 2011.
47.
HuL, BentlerP. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 1999; 6:1–55.
48.
PodsakoffP, MackenzieSB, PodsakoffNP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 2012; 63:539–569.
49.
TehseenS, RamayahT, SajilanS. Testing and controlling for common method variance: a review of available methods. Management Science, 2017; 4:142–168.
50.
WorthingtonRL, WhittakerTA. Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2006; 34:806–838.
51.
LittleTD. (2013) Methodology in the social sciences. Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
52.
ByrneBM, ShavelsonRJ, MuthénB. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 1989; 105:456–466.
53.
KrugerJ, EpleyN, ParkerJ. Egocentrism over e-mail: can we communicate as well as we think?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005; 89:925–936.
54.
SugarmanDB, WilloughbyT. Technology and violence: conceptual issues raised by the rapidly changing social environment. Psychological Violence, 2013; 3:1–8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
