Psychometric Properties of the Psychological Safety Scale in a Sample of Working Adults in Puerto Rico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37226/rcp.v10i1.11469Keywords:
psychometric, psychological safety, Puerto RicoAbstract
The purpose of this research was to analyze and update the psychometric properties of the General Psychological Safety Scale in Working Adults. This study employed a quantitative method, with an instrumental design. A total of 291 people were recruited who completed all the measures and fully met the inclusion criteria. The results show that the final version of the General Psychological Safety scale consists of four factors (inclusion safety, learning safety, contribution safety, challenge safety) with adequate psychometric properties to be used in the Puerto Rican work context. This study revealed that psychological safety is reflected in human behaviors, which makes it relevant to reconsider how we allow ourselves and others to socialize in the work environment to maximize its benefits. Therefore, the use of this study will allow us to study psychological safety with other variables, to identify antecedents and consequences at the individual level.
References
Alami, A., Zahedi, M., & Krancher, O. (2023). Antecedents of psycho-logical safety in agile software development teams. Information and Software Technology, 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107267
Ato, M., López, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasifica-ción de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psico-logía, 29(3), 1038-1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Bateman, T. S, & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Bulbul, S., Isiacik, S., & Aytac, S. (2022). Measurement of perceived psychological safety: ıntegration, review and evidences for the scale in the context of Turkiye. Journal of Economy Culture and Soci-ety, 65, 15-28. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-974757
Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why "bureaucratic" teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21, 609– 624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0483
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Champion, D. J. (1981). Basic statistics for social research (2nd ed.). MacMillan.
Clark, T. M. (Ed. 1). (2023). Las 4 etapas de la seguridad psicológica: El camino de la innovación a través de la inclusión. Harper Collins Lea-dership.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183
Doornik, J. A., & Hansen, H. (2008). An omnibus test for univariate and multivariate normality. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statis-tics, 70, 927–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00537.x.
Durán-Terrádez, L., & Baviera, T. (2023). Speaking without hurting: Assertiveness and psychological safety in receiving criticism. Re-vista Empresa y Humanismo, 26(2), 9-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.15581/015.XXVI.2.9-32
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Re-view of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Edmondson, A. C., & Bransby, D. P. (2023). Psychological safety comes of age: Observed themes in an established literature. Annual Re-view of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39–50.
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vra-cheva, V. (2017). Psychological Safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70, 113-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Gaskin, J. (2016). Stats Tools Package. http://statwiki.gaskination.com
Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety per-spectives. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1611–1633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380250
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organi-zations. En M. S. Pallak & R. O. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment, 89- 136. Washington, D.G.: American Psychological Association.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: the mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 785–804. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.571
Liang, J., Farh, C., & Farh J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of pro-motive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7(3), 847–862.
Morton, L., Cogan, N., Kolacz, J., Calderwood, C., Nikolic, M., Bacon, T., Pathe, E., Williams, D., & Porges, S. W. (2024). A new measure of feeling safe: Developing psychometric properties of the neuro-ception of psychological safety scale (NPSS). Psychological trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 16(4), 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001313
Plouffe, R. A., Ein, N., Liu, J. J. W., Cyr, K., Baker, C., Nazarov, A., & Richardson, J. (2023). Feeling safe at work: Development and val-idation of the psychological safety inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 31, 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12434
Rodríguez-Santos, J. (2024). Desarrollo y Validación de la Escala de Segu-ridad Psicológica en una Muestra de Adultos Trabajadores en Puerto Rico. [Manuscrito presentado para su publicación]. Universidad Albizu, San Juan Puerto Rico.
Roy, D. (2019). Development and validation of a scale for psychologi-cal safety in school among high school students in India. Manage-ment and Labour Studies, 44(4), 394-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042X19870330
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
Schaubroeck, J., Lam S. S. K., & Peng A. C. Y. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022625
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods. New York: Wiley.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to struc-tural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., Balasubramanian, S., & Anand, G. (2009) The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 11(3), 429-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.1080.0233
Singh, B., Shaffer, M. A., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2018). Antecedents of organizational and community embeddedness: The roles of sup-port, psychological safety, and need to belong. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 39(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2223
Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological safety and upward communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 223-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02119.x
Volevakha, I., Kolomiiets, N., & Kukhar, T. (2021). Organizational factors of psychological safety in the workplace. Wiadomości Le-karskie, 24(11). https://doi.org10.36740/WLek202111119
Van-Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256902
Wolf, E., Harrington, K., Clark, S., & Miller, M. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas, 76(6), 913–934. https://doi:10.1177/0013164413495237
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jaileene Rodríguez-Santos, Brenda Vélez-Hernández, Adam Rosario-Rodríguez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
