Industrial and Organizational PsychologyOrganizational BehaviorPsychometrics

Procedural Fairness Scale

A comprehensive psychometric guide to the Procedural Fairness Scale (PFS) by Scarpello and Jones (1996), assessing employee perceptions of organizational fairness in pay determination, pay communication, performance appraisal, and compensation appeals.

Dr. Mohammed Looti An academic and researcher specialized in
PUBLISHED
Scientifically Reviewed · Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim · September 30, 2026
Medically & Scientifically Reviewed Verified: September 30, 2026
Dr. Marwa Abd-Alazim PhD in Psychology
Faculty Member • University of Kerbala
Review Criteria & Clinical Standards

This content undergoes rigorous scientific peer-review and medical editorial standards at Arab Psychology Network to ensure clinical accuracy, validity, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines from leading psychological and healthcare authorities (APA / WHO).

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Abstract

The Procedural Fairness Scale (PFS), developed by organizational justice theory, the scale conceptualizes procedural fairness not as an undifferentiated global attitude, but as a multidimensional construct comprising four interrelated operational dimensions: Pay Determination (six items), Pay Communication (three items), Performance Appraisal (four items), and Appeals / Dispute Resolution (two items). Comprising a total of 15 items, the PFS employs a 5-point Likert-type rating format ranging from 1 (“Very Unfair”) to 5 (“Very Fair”), preceded by the standardized prompt stem: “This is how I feel about the fairness of the procedures for…” Across empirical investigations, the instrument exhibits strong internal consistency, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .83 to .92 and an overall composite reliability coefficient of .93 (Keywords

Procedural Fairness Scale, organizational justice, procedural justice, compensation fairness, pay determination, pay satisfaction, performance appraisal, dispute resolution, psychometrics, industrial and organizational psychology

Authors

The Procedural Fairness Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Vida Scarpello and Foard F. Jones.

  • Vida Scarpello, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Management, Department of Management, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Dr. Scarpello has published extensively in the domains of compensation management, job analysis, human resource strategy, and employee compensation satisfaction.
  • Foard F. Jones, Ph.D.: Professor of Management, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States. Dr. Jones’s scholarship centers on organizational behavior, reward system administration, justice perceptions, and employment relations.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Procedural Fairness Scale (PFS) is to provide human resource professionals, organizational psychologists, and behavioral researchers with an empirically robust diagnostic assessment of employee evaluations concerning the fairness, transparency, and equity of compensation decision-making processes. Prior to the development of the PFS, empirical research on organizational reward systems predominantly focused on distributive justice—the perceived fairness of the absolute or relative amount of compensation received, as articulated in J. Stacy Adams’s classical equity theory. However, contemporary scholarship revealed that employee morale, workplace attitudes, and behavioral intentions are often more profoundly influenced by the systemic procedures used to formulate, execute, and communicate those compensation allocations than by the numerical pay outcome alone.

In applied settings, human resource leaders utilize the PFS to conduct compensation climate audits, evaluate the perceived legitimacy of performance appraisal metrics, and diagnose systemic causes of pay dissatisfaction, low affective commitment, or elevated turnover intentions. Rather than assuming that employee dissatisfaction with pay stems solely from monetary constraints or uncompetitive wage tiers, the PFS enables organizations to determine whether perceived inequity originates in ambiguous job evaluation methodologies, deficient administrative communication, opaque performance evaluations, or the absence of legitimate recourse mechanisms for appealing compensation disputes.

In academic research, the instrument provides an operational framework for examining structural models of organizational justice, workplace trust, leader-member exchange (LMX), and citizenship behavior. By segmenting procedural fairness into granular, process-specific components, the PFS allows investigators to delineate how distinct systemic mechanisms—such as supervisory performance ratings or administrative dispute procedures—interact with personal, organizational, and structural variables over time.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the PFS is procedural fairness in compensation systems, defined as an employee’s cognitive and evaluative perception that the administrative rules, criteria, feedback loops, and governance systems used to determine reward allocations are equitable, transparent, unbiased, and compliant with accepted standards of organizational justice. Rather than representing an abstract moral sentiment, the construct operationalizes cognitive appraisals across four concrete structural facets:

1. Pay Determination

This dimension encompasses employee assessments regarding the structural integrity and technical validity of the methods used to establish base wage levels and distribute salary increments. It captures whether the employer relies on systematic, objective methods—such as formal job analysis, benchmark market evaluations, and transparent performance-to-pay criteria—or arbitrary, opaque decision rules. Prototypical evaluative questions address how base wages are set relative to higher and lower tier roles within the structural hierarchy, how performance is translated into financial adjustments, and the systemic regularity of pay reviews.

2. Pay Communication

Pay communication evaluates the communicative transparency, informational adequacy, and accessibility of administrative reasoning regarding compensation policies. Drawing upon informational and interactional justice frameworks, this construct reflects the extent to which organizational leadership actively and candidly disseminates wage policies, explains the underlying rationale behind budgetary decisions, and maintains accessible channels for answering worker inquiries regarding individual pay determination.

3. Performance Appraisal

The performance appraisal subscale assesses the perceived validity, consistency, and impartiality of the mechanisms deployed to measure and evaluate individual employee contributions. Because performance appraisal metrics serve as the operational bridge connecting human effort to financial reward, fairness perceptions within this domain depend on the accuracy of data collection, the objectivity of supervisor appraisals, safeguards against managerial bias, and the formal availability of procedural avenues to appeal performance ratings.

4. Appeal / Dispute Resolution

This facet assesses the presence, viability, and impartiality of administrative due-process mechanisms available to employees when disagreements arise regarding compensation outcomes. The appeal construct captures whether workers believe the organization provides genuine voice and bilateral grievance avenues to adjudicate disputed pay decisions, or whether compensation determinations are unilateral, non-negotiable managerial fiats.

Theoretical Framework

The Procedural Fairness Scale is firmly grounded in the conceptual foundations of organizational justice theory, synthesized from foundational developments in legal dispute resolution, social psychology, and behavioral economics:

Thibaut and Walker’s Process Control Model

The earliest formalization of procedural justice was advanced by John Thibaut and Laurens Walker (1975) in their seminal work on legal dispute resolution. They differentiated between outcome control (the capacity to influence the final verdict or settlement) and process control (the capacity to present information, articulate evidence, and voice arguments prior to a determination). Thibaut and Walker demonstrated that individuals perceive adjudicative systems as fundamentally fairer and exhibit greater institutional acceptance when process control is present—frequently designated as the “fair process effect” or “voice effect”—even when the distributive outcome is unfavorable.

Leventhal’s Six Procedural Rules

Gerald S. Leventhal (1980) extended procedural justice concepts into organizational and non-legal social structures by formulating six procedural criteria. According to Leventhal, allocation procedures are perceived as fair to the extent that they adhere to:

  • Consistency: Applied consistently across individuals and across temporal intervals.
  • Bias Suppression: Free from personal self-interest, favoritism, or perceptual distortion by decision-makers.
  • Accuracy: Founded on high-quality, comprehensive, and verifiably accurate information.
  • Correctability: Incorporating mechanisms for challenging, modifying, or reversing erroneous allocation decisions.
  • Representativeness: Ensuring that all stakeholders affected by the decision have their needs and concerns represented.
  • Ethicality: Adhering to fundamental moral standards and prevailing societal values.

Scarpello and Jones (1996) operationalized these exact theoretical tenets within the specific organizational context of salary administration. For example, their Pay Determination subscale maps directly onto consistency and accuracy; Pay Communication operationalizes representativeness and ethical transparency; Performance Appraisal reflects bias suppression and accuracy of information; and the Appeal subscale embodies Leventhal’s principle of correctability.

Group-Value and Relational Models

The theoretical framework of the PFS is further augmented by the Group-Value Model of Lind and Tyler (1988) and Tyler’s Relational Model of Authority (1989). These frameworks posit that procedures communicate critical symbolic information regarding an individual’s standing, inclusion, and dignity within an organization. When management institutes transparent compensation communication, objective performance assessments, and functional dispute channels, it conveys institutional respect and recognition, thereby fostering psychological safety, organizational citizenship behaviors, and organizational commitment.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Procedural Fairness Scale has been verified across diverse samples of professional, managerial, and blue-collar employees in varied manufacturing, educational, and service institutions.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was established through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses by Scarpello and Jones (1996) and further corroborated in follow-up empirical investigations (Reliability

The Procedural Fairness Scale demonstrates high internal consistency across empirical studies, meeting and exceeding standard psychometric criteria for both research and applied diagnostic applications (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the seminal cross-validation investigation conducted by Jones, Scarpello, and Bergmann (1999), internal consistency evaluations yielded the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficients across the four subscales:

  • Pay Determination (6 items): $\alpha = .88$
  • Pay Communication (3 items): $\alpha = .92$
  • Performance Appraisal (4 items): $\alpha = .87$
  • Appeal / Dispute Resolution (2 items): $\alpha = .83$
  • Total Composite Scale (15 items): $\alpha = .93$

These values demonstrate that all four subscales possess high internal consistency. The particularly strong alpha for the total composite score ($lpha = .93$) validates the practice of computing an overarching composite procedural fairness index when researchers require a single global indicator of compensation procedural justice.

Measurement Stability

While the PFS is sensitive to structural changes within organizational compensation designs—such as the implementation of new merit-pay systems or revised job evaluation schemes—the instrument exhibits high short-to-medium term test-retest reliability under stable organizational conditions, supporting its utility for longitudinal and pre-test/post-test organizational intervention designs.

Factor Analysis

The factorial integrity of the Procedural Fairness Scale was established by Scarpello and Jones (1996) utilizing exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations, followed by confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) modeling in subsequent samples (Jones et al., 1999).

Factor Extraction and Loadings

Factor analysis of the 15 items extracted four clean factors corresponding to the hypothesized dimensions, with eigenvalues exceeding unity (Kaiser’s criterion) and the scree plot confirming a four-factor solution:

  • Factor 1: Pay Determination: Items assessing job pay rates, pay raise structures, cross-job wage parity, performance-to-pay linkages, and raise frequency loaded predominantly on this factor, with primary factor loadings typically exceeding .65 and negligible cross-loadings (< .25).
  • Factor 2: Pay Communication: Items measuring policy dissemination, communication of personal pay concerns, and administrative inquiry responsiveness loaded strongly onto this factor (loadings > .75).
  • Factor 3: Performance Appraisal: Items evaluating performance information gathering, rating validity, evaluation appeals, and administrative oversight loaded coherently (loadings > .60).
  • Factor 4: Appeal: The two items measuring the capacity to appeal pay decisions and resolve compensation disputes loaded cleanly onto a distinct dispute resolution factor (loadings > .70).

Inter-Factor Correlations

The four extracted factors demonstrate moderate-to-strong positive intercorrelations (typically ranging between $r = .42$ and $r = .65$). This pattern confirms that while the four subscales capture unique, identifiable administrative processes, they simultaneously coalesce under a higher-order overarching latent construct of organizational procedural fairness.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

  • Instrument Name: Procedural Fairness Scale (PFS)
  • Alternative Title: Scarpello and Jones Procedural Justice Compensation Scale
  • Authors: Vida Scarpello, Ph.D., and Foard F. Jones, Ph.D. (1996)
  • Construct Measured: Perceived procedural justice in organizational compensation and pay determination systems
  • Number of Items: 15 items total
    • Pay Determination: 6 items
    • Pay Communication: 3 items
    • Performance Appraisal: 4 items
    • Appeal: 2 items
  • Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil self-report inventory, computerized survey, or integrated organizational culture audit tool
  • Completion Time: Approximately 4 to 7 minutes
  • Standard Item Prompt Stem: “This is how I feel about the fairness of the procedures for…”
  • Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response format:
    • 1 = Very Unfair
    • 2 = Unfair
    • 3 = Neutral / Neither Fair nor Unfair
    • 4 = Fair
    • 5 = Very Fair
  • Scoring Protocol:
    • All items are scored positively (1 to 5). There are no reverse-coded items.
    • Subscale Scores: Computed by calculating the arithmetic mean or the sum of items within each respective domain (Pay Determination: items 1–6; Pay Communication: items 7–9; Performance Appraisal: items 10–13; Appeal: items 14–15).
    • Total Composite Score: Computed by summing all 15 items (range: 15 to 75) or taking the global average across all items (range: 1.00 to 5.00).
    • Higher numerical scores reflect greater perceived procedural fairness in compensation governance.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Procedural Fairness Scale was first published in 1996 in the Journal of Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17, Iss. 3, pp. 285–299). The original scale items were documented in Table I (p. 291). The copyright for the original article and its contents is held by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

For non-commercial, academic research, and educational purposes, the scale items are widely utilized within the academic community under standard fair-use scholarly conventions, with appropriate citation of Scarpello and Jones (1996). For commercial applications, widespread organizational compensation consulting diagnostics, or inclusion within proprietary psychometric test batteries, permission should be sought from the copyright holder (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) via the RightsLink® permissions clearinghouse or through corresponding communication with the authors.

References

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)

Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability:
1

Determining the pay for my job
2

Determining pay raises
3

How my pay raises are determined
4

Determining the pay for my job relative to higher and lower level jobs than mine
5

The way performance is reflected in my pay
6

The frequency of pay raises

Rate This Scale

Be the first to rate this

Cite This Article

Looti, M. (2026, September 30). Procedural Fairness Scale. ASHA PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. https://ashadocs.org/?psych_scale=procedural-fairness-scale
Looti, Mohammed. “Procedural Fairness Scale.” ASHA PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE, 30 September 2026, https://ashadocs.org/?psych_scale=procedural-fairness-scale.
Looti, Mohammed. “Procedural Fairness Scale.” ASHA PSYCHOLOGICAL DATABASE. September 30, 2026. https://ashadocs.org/?psych_scale=procedural-fairness-scale.