Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association. Inc.

1991, Vol. 76, No. 5,637-643 0021-9010/91/S3.00

A Construct Validity Study of the Survey

of Perceived Organizational Support

Lynn McFarlane Shore Lois E. Tetrick

Department of Management and Wayne State University
W T. Beebe Institute of Personnel and Employment Relations
Georgia State University

Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986) recently conducted a study focused on a
measure of perceived employer commitment that they called the Survey of Perceived Organiza-
tional Support (SPOS). In the present study, confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the
dimensionality of the SPOS and to determine the distinctiveness of this construct from other
similar constructs. Participants were 330 employees in a large corporation headquartered in the
southeastern United States. The results support the SPOS as a unidimensional scale that is distin-
guishable from affective and continuance commitment. However, the data raise some question as
to the empirical distinction between the SPOS and satisfaction.

A great deal of research has been conducted on the concept
of organizational commitment (Mowday, Porter, & Steers,
1982). Many other commitment concepts have been proposed
and researched as well (Morrow, 1983), such as job involvement
(Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Kanungo, 1979), career salience
(Greenhaus, 1971), union commitment (Gordon, Philpot, Burt,
Thompson, & Spiller, 1980), and occupational commitment
(Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1988). Each of these attitudes focuses
on the individual's attachment to a particular aspect of the work
situation, such as a job, union, or organization. What has been
less thoroughly studied are employee perceptions of employer
commitment to the individual (i.e., perceived organizational
support).
Recently, Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa
(1986) suggested that perceived organizational support is an
antecedent of organizational commitment and offered a mea-
sure of perceived employer commitment, which they called the
Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS). They used
a social exchange view to explain the relationship between
these two forms of commitment. Essentially, this view suggests
that an employee's inferences about the organization's commit-
ment to him or her contributes to the employee's subsequent
commitment to the organization. Eisenberger et al.'s (1986) re-
sults strongly supported this social exchange perspective of the
commitment process.
The notion that an employee's commitment to the organiza-
tion develops as a result of an exchange relationship is not new
in the commitment literature (Gouldner, 1960; Scholl, 1981).
According to Etzioni (1961), employees become attached to an
organization because they see a beneficial or equitable ex-
change relationship between their contributions to the organiza-
tion and the rewards they receive for service. Consistent with
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Lynn M. Shore, Department of Management, Georgia State Univer-
sity, P.O. Box 4014, Atlanta, Georgia 30302-4014.
637
this perspective is Becker's (1960) notion of side bets: invest-
ments in the organization serve to bind the employee to the
organization. Thus, attachment to an organization is seen as a
state that can arise not necessarily through some crucial act on
the part of the employee but rather through the accumulation
of a series of relatively small side bets. Kanter (1968) also sug-
gested that investment was an important mechanism for pro-
ducing member continuance. To the extent that such invest-
ments are seen as irreversible, they provide employees with a
personal stake in the fate of the organization, as well as making
leaving costly.
The social-exchange literature hence suggests that organiza-
tional commitment reflects employees' perceptions about the
nature of the relationship that exists between themselves and
the employing organization. However, this perspective appears
to be very similar to the construct of perceived organizational
support. According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), "employees de-
velop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organiza-
tion values their contributions and cares about their well-be-
ing" (p. 501). Whereas measures of organizational commitment
tend to focus on employees' attitudes toward the organization
(e.g., "I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organiza-
tion"), the SPOS focuses on the employees' perceptions of the
organization's attitude toward them (e.g., "The organization
fails to appreciate any extra effort from me"). In fact, research
shows that perceived organizational support is significantly as-
sociated with organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al.,
1986) and affective and calculative attachment to the organiza-
tion (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Given the
conceptual similarity between organizational commitment and
perceived organizational support, it is critical to investigate the
distinctiveness of measures of these constructs.
Another conceptual issue pertaining to the SPOS is whether
employees have developed perceptions of organizational sup-
port that are distinct from their satisfaction with various
aspects of their work experience. Much research has explored
the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational
638 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND LOIS E. TETRICK
commitment (e.g., Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Vandenberg & Lance,
in press). Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) argued
that the two constructs are distinct because commitment repre-
sents a global reaction to the organization as a whole whereas
satisfaction is an affective reaction to various facets of the work
situation. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that satisfac-
tion and commitment are distinct (Brooke, Russell, & Price,
1988).
Like organizational commitment, perceived organizational
support represents an attitudinal response to the organization
as a whole. It could therefore be argued that this new construct
should also be distinct from satisfaction. In addition, because
organizational commitment is correlated with both perceived
organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and job satis-
faction (e.g., Farkas & Tetrick, 1989), it could also be logically
inferred that perceived organizational support and satisfaction
should be related. However, because of a lack of empirical evi-
dence, the extent to which the individual really distinguishes
satisfaction from perceived organizational support and the na-
ture of the relationship between these two constructs is unclear.
Thus, a comparison of the SPOS with work satisfaction would
assess the degree of independence that perceived organiza-
tional support has from satisfaction with a number of facets of
work, such as the supervisor, co-workers, pay, opportunities for
growth, job security, the job itself, and the organization.
Although initial research on the psychometric properties of
the SPOS appears promising (e.g., Eisenberger et al., 1986;
Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988), little evidence has accrued about
the construct that underlies this scale. In particular, there has
been no systematic study of the distinctiveness and redundancy
of the SPOS in relation to other similar constructs, which is one
means of establishing the construct validity of a scale (Cron-
bach & Meehl, 1955). Therefore, the purpose of the present
study was to evaluate the construct validity of the SPOS by
using confirmatory factor analysis techniques. The SPOS was
compared with the Organizational Commitment Question-
naire (OCQ; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) and the Affective
Commitment Scale (ACS) and Continuance Commitment
Scale (CCS; Meyer & Allen, 1984). In addition, the SPOS was
compared with the Specific Satisfactions Scale from the Job
Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) and the Overall
Job Satisfaction Scale (Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, & Cammann,
1982) because much controversy exists in the literature on the
nature of the relationship between satisfaction and commit-
ment (Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Scholl, 1981).
Method
Sample
Participants were 330 employees holding a variety of job positions
(e.g., mechanics, secretaries, and supervisors) in a large multinational
firm headquartered in the southeastern United States. There were 272
male and 58 female employees, and the average age of the employees
was 47.39 years. Average organizational tenure for participants was
22.48 years.
Data Collection Procedures and Measures
The present research was part of a larger organizational survey with
several purposes. A stratified random sample (by age and tenure) of
1,071 employees were contacted by mail and asked to participate in a
longitudinal study of employee attitudes. Three hundred and eight of
those contacted were newly hired and were not included in the present
study. Of the remaining employees who agreed to participate (N = 348),
95% (7V= 330) returned their surveys. Thus, 43% of the employees who
were asked to participate in the present study (N= 763) actually did so.
The survey consisted of a series of questions on employee work atti-
tudes, ratings of job performance, employee development experiences,
and demographic information. Only measures used in the present
study are described. These included the SPOS (Eisenberger et al.,
1986); the short form of the OCQ (Mowday et al., 1979); the ACS and
CCS (Meyer & Allen, 1984); the Specific Satisfactions Scale, which
includes measures of satisfaction with security, pay, growth, co-
workers, and supervision (Hackman & Oldham, 1975); the Overall Job
Satisfaction Scale (Seashore et al., 1982); and a single item asking re-
spondents how satisfied they were with the organization. Attitude mea-
sures on the employee survey utilized 5-point scales and were scored
such that higher values reflected a higher degree of support, commit-
ment, or satisfaction. For the Specific Satisfactions Scale, anchors
ranged from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5), and for the other
attitude measures the anchors ranged from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). Items were grouped by scale in the questionnaire
(i.e., they were not randomly intermixed).
Analysis
Data were analyzed in a two-step process. First, using LISREL-PC,
Version 7 (Jbreskog & Sorbom, 1988), we assessed the covariance ma-
trix of the items for each measure against a one-factor model to deter-
mine whether the scale was unidimensional. Then, four manifest indi-
cators of each commitment construct, represented by the scales, were
formed to test the distinctiveness of perceived organizational support,
organizational commitment, affective commitment, continuance
commitment, and satisfaction. This procedure was elected to avoid the
use of item-level factor analysis as well as to enhance the subject-to-de-
grees-of-freedom ratio for testing the relations of interest (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988).
The indices of fit provided by LISREL-PC that were used to assess
the goodness of fit of the models estimated were the ratio of chi-square
to degrees of freedom, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted
goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and the root-mean-square residual
(rmsr). In addition, the normed fit index (NFI; Bentler& Bonett, 1980)
and the parsimonious fit index (PFI; Mulaik et al., 1989) were used on
the basis of a null model of complete independence. Although Bentler
and Bonett suggested that a NFI of .90 or greater signifies that the
model estimated has accounted for the sample covariance matrix, Tan-
aka (1987) reported that this may be overly severe. Therefore, for this
study, a criterion of .80 for the NFI in conjunction with the PFI was
used to assess the adequacy of fit for the models estimated.
Results
Prior to examining the relations among the SPOS, OCQ,
ACS, CCS, and satisfaction, we submitted each scale to confir-
matory factor analysis to establish its unidimensionality (An-
derson & Gerbing, 1988). The results of these confirmatory
factor analyses are shown in Table 1 along with the means,
standard deviations, and coefficient alpha estimates of internal
consistency. A single-factor model was found to adequately ac-
 SURVEY OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 639

Table 1
Results of Tests ofUnidimensionality for the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support
(SPOS), Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), Affective Commitment Scale
(ACS), Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS), and Satisfaction
Fit indices
No. of
Scale items M SD a x2 df on AGFI rmsr NFI PFI
SPOS 17 3.44 0.72 .95 364.68 119 .874 .838 .037 .906 .791
OCQ 9 4.06 0.61 .88 119.10 27 .927 .878 .028 .917 .688
ACS 8 3.96 0.78 .90 158.76 20 .873 .722 .057 .887 .633
CCS 8 3.47 0.76 .83 119.21 20 .906 .831 .091 .870 .621
Satisfaction 18 4.04 0.64 .92 1,163.48 135 .702 .622 .102 .663 .585
Facets of satisfaction 320.56 122 .899 .859 .045 .907 .723
Security 2 4.58 0.64 .56
Pay 2 4.02 0.98 .88
Growth 4 3.87 0.91 .87
Co-workers 3 4.13 0.67 .68
Supervision 3 3.76 1.06 .90
Job 3 4.16 0.72 .82
Organization 1 3.95 0.89 —
Note. All chi-square values were significant, p < .001. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted
goodness-of-fit index; rmsr = root-mean-square residual; NFI = normed fit index; PFI = parsimonious fit
index.

count for the covariance matrices among the SPOS, OCQ, ACS,
and CCS items (NFI = .906, .917, .887, and .870, respectively).
Therefore, having obtained evidence of the unidimensionality
of these scales, we followed Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) rec-
ommendation against using single items as indicators by form-
ing composites of the items within each scale to serve as indica-
tors of perceived organizational support, organizational
commitment, affective commitment, and continuance com-
mitment. That is, each item from a given scale was randomly
assigned to one of four composites, which served as an indicator
of that respective construct. The means and standard devia-
tions of the resulting indicators for each construct are shown in
Table 2. The single-factor model for the 14 items of the Specific
Satisfactions Scale plus the 3 items of the Overall Job Satisfac-
tion Scale and the Organizational Satisfaction item did not ade-
quately account for the covariance matrix (NFI = .663). Subse-
quently, a seven-factor model was estimated, which did receive
support (NFI = .907). Therefore, the data indicated that each
facet of satisfaction should be treated as a separate variable.
However, because there were, at most, only 4 items to measure
a specific satisfaction, a single composite indicator for each
facet of satisfaction was formed as shown in Table 2. Thus, the
covariance matrix among the 23 manifest indicators (4 mani-
fest indicators each for SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and CCS plus the 7
manifest indicators of satisfaction with security, pay, growth,
co-workers, supervision, job, and organization) was computed
and submitted to further analyses.
Examination of the correlation matrix among the manifest
indicators (see Table 2) reveals that the indicators of a given
construct were generally more strongly correlated with each
other than with the indicators of the other constructs. However,
there were moderate to strong correlations among all of the
indicators of perceived organizational support, organizational
commitment, affective commitment, and satisfaction. Only the
indicators of continuance commitment appeared to be indepen-
dent of the other variables. On the basis of this pattern of corre-
lations, a two-factor model was estimated in which the indica-
tors of the SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and satisfaction scales loaded on
one factor and the indicators of the CCS loaded on a second
factor. This model did not attain adequate fit, x2(229) = 1420.22
(GFI = .627, AGFI = .551, rmsr = .036, NFI = .765, PFI =
.693), signifying that perceived organizational support, organi-
zational commitment, affective commitment, and satisfaction
were differentiable, at least in part.
Next, an 11 -factor model was estimated in which the underly-
ing, correlated dimensions were perceived organizational sup-
port, organizational commitment, affective commitment, con-
tinuance commitment, and seven specific facets of satisfaction
(security, pay, growth, co-workers, supervision, job, and organi-
zation). On the basis of the overall fit indices (NFI = .940, PFI =
.702) and the difference in the chi-square, Ax2(40) = 1,054.39,
p < .001, this model represented substantial improvement in fit
over the two-factor model. The standardized factor loadings
were all above .60 but are not reported here to conserve space.
Examination of the factor correlations presented in Table 3
indicated that the OCQ and the ACS were strongly correlated
with each other (r = .89). This is consistent with prior research,
which has suggested that the OCQ and the ACS both measure
affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Furthermore, the
SPOS was strongly correlated with both of these measures of
commitment (r= .71 and .70, respectively). When the correla-
tions with the specific facets of satisfaction differed for the
SPOS, OCQ, or ACS, the SPOS appeared to be more strongly
correlated (i.e., satisfaction with supervision correlated .65 with
SPOS and only .44 and .45 for the OCQ and ACS, respectively).
One exception was that the OCQ was correlated .71 with overall
job satisfaction whereas the SPOS correlated only .61 with over-
all job satisfaction. This pattern of correlations raises questions
640 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND LOIS E. TETRICK

Table 2
Zero-Order Correlations Among Manifest Indicators of the Survey of Perceived Organizational
Scale (ACS), Continuance Commitment Scale (CCS), and Specific Satisfactions (Security, Pay,
Indicator M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. SPOS1 3.40 0.75
2. SPOS2 3.50 0.82 .81* —
3. SPOS3 3.49 0.75 .85* .80*
4. SPOS4 3.36 0.79 .87* .83* .85* —
5. OCQ1 4.19 0.64 .55* .55* .49* .56* —
6. OCQ2 4.42 0.53 .49* .53* .44* .52* .79*
7. OCQ3 3.48 0.90 .67* .59* .57* .65* .67* —
.58* —
8. OCQ4 4.11 0.66 .61* .58* .55* .61* .75* .68* .62*
9. ACS1 4.21 0.79 .62* .61* .59* .63* .68* .63* .58* —
.67* —
10. ACS2 4.10 0.86 .54* .57* .50* .56* .71* .69* .56* .68* .78*
11. ACS3 3.86 0.95 .51* .54* .47* .54* .69* .64* .58* .67* .68*
12. ACS4 3.67 0.93 .55* .59* .53* .58* .62* .59* .57* .62* .69*
13. CCS1 3.54 0.94 -.08 -.13 -.10 -.08 -.04 -.10 -.01 -.08 -.06
14. CCS2 3.64 0.93 -.05 -.12 -.06 -.05 -.06 -.08 .04 -.05 .01
15. CCS3 3.29 0.87 -.06 -.08 -.08 -.05 .02 -.01 .08 -.05 .03
16. CCS4 3.40 0.91 -.01 -.06 -.01 -.02 -.02 -.08 .10 -.09 -.01
17. Security 4.58 0.64 .47* .47* .48* .49* .40* .30* .44* .44* .42*
18. Pay 4.02 0.98 .43* .40* .37* .42* .34* .25* .42* .41* .30*
19. Growth 3.87 0.91 .64* .56* .61* .65* .58* .50* .57* .55* .59*
20. Co-workers 4.13 0.67 .58* .48* .54* .57* .42* .44* .44* .47* .48*
21. Supervision 3.76 1.06 .63* .53* .60* .61* .35* .31* .46* .41* .44*
22. Job 4.16 0.75 .55* .56* .55* .58* .65* .58* .58* .57* .63*
23. Organization 3.95 0.89 .66* .63* .60* .63* .60* .49* .61* .56* .61*
* p<.05.

as to the distinctiveness of the SPOS, OCQ, ACS, and the facets
of satisfaction.
A number of additional models were developed and tested to
further explore the distinctiveness of the SPOS, OCQ, ACS,
and the facets of satisfaction. A 5-factor model was estimated in
which all facets of satisfaction were collapsed onto a single fac-
tor. This resulted in a considerable increase in the PFI over the
11 -factor model shown in Table 2 (PFI = .789 vs. .709), although
the chi-square difference was significant, Ax2(31) = 192.12, p <
.01. The major change in the factor correlations was that the
SPOS, OCQ, and ACS were all strongly correlated with satisfac-
tion (r = .86, .82, and .77, respectively), which was partially due
to the correction for attenuation resulting from the presence of
multiple indicators for satisfaction. Because the largest correla-
tion was still between the OCQ and ACS, a 4-factor model was
fit to the data. The change in chi-square was significant,
Ax2(4)= 116.43, p < .01. However, the PFI reflected only a
negligible decrement (see Table 3; NFI = .889, PFI = .787),
suggesting that the ACS and OCQ were not distinguishable.
To test whether the SPOS could be differentiated from either
satisfaction or affective commitment as measured by the OCQ
and ACS, we estimated two 3-factor models. The fit indices and
factor correlations are presented in Table 3. When perceived
organizational support was combined with satisfaction, the PFI
dropped from .787 to .772, A*;2(3) = 167.90, p < .01, and when
perceived organizational support was combined with affective
commitment, the PFI dropped to .698, Ax2(3) = 672.90, p < .01.
In addition, for this latter model, the NFI dropped below .80 to
.777, suggesting that this model did not adequately account for
the data. Therefore, these analyses suggest that perceived orga-
nizational support as measured by the SPOS is empirically dis-
tinct from affective commitment as measured by the ACS and
OCQ; however, there is some question as to whether perceived
organizational support is distinguishable from satisfaction, at
least as measured here.
Discussion
Given the popularity of commitment measures among re-
searchers, it is critical to carefully evaluate the construct valid-
ity of each new measure prior to its extensive use. An important
first step in the establishment of construct validity is to exam-
ine the factor structure of a scale. Consistent with Kottke and
Sharafinski (1988), the present results have provided support
for the unidimensionality of the SPOS as a measure of per-
ceived organizational support. Furthermore, we have provided
evidence that the SPOS is empirically distinct, as well as con-
ceptually distinct, from affective and continuance commit-
ment. Thus, the present study suggests that employees are able
to distinguish their own commitment levels to the organization
from their perceptions of the organization's commitment to
them. This is important in light of Morrow's (1983) review of
the literature, which showed a plethora of commitment-related
concepts and measures, many of which appeared to be redun-
dant.
The data did confirm that perceived organizational support
is strongly correlated with affective commitment, as would be
expected on the basis of the social exchange theory expressed
by Eisenberger et al. (1986,1990) because organizational com-
mitment is purported to develop as a result of perceived organi-
zational support. What remains unclear is the relative lack of a
relation between perceived organizational support and continu-
 SURVEY OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 641

Support (SPOS), Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), Affective Commitment

Growth, Co-workers, Supervision, Job, and Organization)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

.81*
.71* .66*
-.15* -.08 -.17*
-.15* -.08 -.13 .68*
-.10 -.08 -.11 .58* .63* —
-.11 -.06 -.09 .53* .55 .59* —
.42* .35* .39* -.19* -.10 -.11 -.07
—
.28* .24* .29* -.04 .07 .10 .05 .39*
-.12 -.07 -.06 -.01 —
.41*
.55* .48* .50* .45* —
.48* .43* .44* -.14* -.12 -.13 -.08 .38* .26* .66*
.34* .41* -.00 .03 -.03 .03 .59* —
.59* —
.38* .39* .36*
.56* .51* .48* -.08 -.04 .03 .02 .39* .38* .68* .49* .45* —
.57* .51 .53* -.02 .05 .06 .06 .46* .41* .52* .41* .49* .66* —

ance commitment, especially in light of Eisenberger et al.'s
(1990) finding that perceived organizational support was posi-
tively related to calculative involvement in the organization.
One possible explanation, drawn from an examination of the
items of the CCS, is that exchange ideology moderates the rela-
tion between perceived organizational support and continu-
ance much as it was found to moderate the relation between
perceived organizational support and absences (Eisenberger et
al., 1986). Another explanation is that positive organizational
experiences may lead to perceptions of organizational caring
(perceived organizational support) and subsequent affective
commitment, whereas perceptions of being treated poorly by
the organization (e.g., lack of promotions or a demotion) may
lead to the more negative form of commitment that is reflected
in the CCS.
The results also show that affective commitment, as mea-
sured by the ACS and OCQ, is empirically distinct from satisfac-
tion. However, the empirical distinction between satisfaction
and perceived organizational support as measured by the SPOS
received less support. Perhaps both satisfaction and perceived
organizational support reflect a global belief about the "person-
ified" organization. This interpretation is consistent with the-
ories of work adjustment and turnover (e.g., Wanous's [1980]
matching model), which suggest that employees expect their
needs to be fulfilled by the organization and that unfulfilled
needs lead to lowered job satisfaction, lowered organizational
commitment, and increased turnover. This notion of the per-
sonified organization is also similar to reciprocity, an element
of organizational commitment suggested by Scholl (1981) and
Gouldner (1960). Gouldner described reciprocity as a universal
belief that (a) people should help those who have helped them
and (b) people should not harm those who have helped them.
According to Scholl (198J), reciprocity is the notion that an
employee should repay benefits or opportunities provided by
the organization through future performance. Thus, prior re-
search linking satisfaction and organizational commitment
may represent an employee belief system that caring organiza-
tions meet the needs of employees, such as the need for a satisfy-
ing and fulfilling job, and that this caring deserves commit-
ment in return.
This study raises the question as to whether individuals per-
ceive that the organization is supportive because they are satis-
fied with their situation or whether perceived organizational
support may be antecedent to satisfaction. In addition, it is not
clear from the present results whether perceived organizational
support and satisfaction should be treated as distinct concepts.
In our view, perceived organizational support and satisfaction
are different from one another in a number of ways. First, per-
ceived organizational support is a global measure of employer
commitment whereas satisfaction is focused on various facets
of work. Second, although perceived organizational support is a
cognitive assessment (i.e., set of beliefs) about organizational
caring, satisfaction is an affective reaction to different elements
of the work situation. We suspect that perceived organizational
support may directly affect satisfaction, resulting in the lack of
empirical independence found in the present study. Interest-
ingly, the distinction between these constructs has not been
studied previously. Clearly, further research is needed to ad-
dress the relationship between perceived organizational sup-
port and satisfaction as well as differential antecedents and con-
sequences of these two constructs.
The present study provides evidence for the distinctiveness of
the SPOS with affective and continuance commitment but
shows less support for a lack of redundancy with satisfaction.
642 LYNN McFARLANE SHORE AND LOIS E. TETRICK

Table 3
Factor Correlations

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
8
11 -factor model
1. SPOS
2. OCQ .71*
.70* —
3. ACS .89* —
4. CCS -.09 -.05 -.13*
5. Security .52* .46* .46* —
-.15* —
6. Pay .45* .41* .32* .06 . 39* —
7. Growth .68* .65* .62* -.09 . 45* .41* _
8. Co-workers .60* .52* .54* -.16* .38* .26* .66* —
9. Supervision .65* .44* .45* .01 . 39* .36* .59* .59* —
10. Job .61* .71* .63* -.03 .39* .38* .68* .49* .45* —
11. Organization .69* .67* .64* .05 .46* .41* .52* .41* .49* .66* —
5-factor model combining specific satisfactions'"
1. SPOS —
2. OCQ ,71*
3. .70* —
.89*
ACS —
4. CCS -.09 -.05 -.13 —
5. Satisfaction .86* .82* .77* .06 —
4-factor model combining the OCQ and ACS'
1. SPOS —
2. OCQ + ACS .74*
3. -.09 —
CCS -.10 —
4. Satisfaction .86* .82* -.06 —
3-factor model combining SPOS and satisfaction11
1. SPOS + satisfaction
2. OCQ + ACS .78* —
3. CCS -.09 -.10 —

3-factor model combining SPOS with affective commitment1

1. SPOS + OCQ + ACS —
2. CCS -.10 —
3. Satisfaction .91* -.06

Note. SPOS = Survey of Perceived Organizational Support; OCQ = Organizational Commitment Ques-
tionnaire; ACS = Aifective Commitment Scale; CCS = Continuance Commitment Scale.
a 2
X (189) = 365.83; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .911; adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .870;
root-mean-square residual (rmsr) = .042; normed fit index (NFI) = .940; parsimonious fit index (PFI) =
.702.
b 2
% (220) = 557.95; GFI = .857; AGFI = .821; rmsr = .055; NFI = .908; PFI = .789.
c 2
x (224) = 674.38; GFI = .837; AGFI = .799; rmsr = .056; NFI = .889; PFI = .787.
d 2
X (227) = 842.28; GFI = .799; AGFI = .756; rmsr = .034; NFI = .861; PFI = .772.
" x2(227) = 1,347.28; GFI = .633; AGFI = .554; rmsr = .068; NFI = .777; PFI = .698.
*p<.05.

This was an important first step in the establishment of the
construct validity of the SPOS. Further studies are needed to
address several unanswered questions. The fundamental nature
of perceived organizational support is not yet clear. Greater
construct explication is needed, particularly given the present
findings with regard to satisfaction. Though research suggests
positive performance outcomes of perceived organizational
support (Eisenberger et al., 1990), little is known about factors
that create these perceptions. Particularly needed are studies
that track the development of these perceptions among new
employees. When the construct that underlies the SPOS is
more fully understood, the real utility of this scale relative to
other similar scales can be assessed.
References
Anderson, J. C, & Gerbing, D. W (1988). Structural equation modeling
in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American
Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness
 SURVEY OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT 643

of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin
88, 588-606.
Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W, & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant
validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and orga-
nizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,139-145.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychologi-
cal tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V (1990). Perceived orga-
nizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and inno-
vation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986).
Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71
500-507.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations.
New York: Free Press.
Farkas, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis
of the causal ordering of satisfaction and commitment on turnover
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 855-868.
Gordon, M. E., Philpot, J. W, Burt, R. E., Thompson, C. A., &Spiller,
W E. (1980). Commitment to the union: Development of a measure
and an examination of its correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology,
65, 479-499.
Gouldner, H. P. (1960). Dimensions of organizational commitment.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 468-490.
Greenhaus, J. H. (1971). An investigation of the role of career salience
in vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 209-216.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job
Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,159-170.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1983). LISREL 7. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of
commitment mechanisms in Utopian communities. American Socio-
logical Review, 33, 499-517.
Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement
revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86,119-138.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervi-
sory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 48,1075-1079.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement
of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the "side-bet theory" of
organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research:
The case of worker commitment. Academy of Management Review,
8, 486-500.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W, & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organi-
zation linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and
turnover. New \brk: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W (1979). The measurement
of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14,
224-247.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., &
Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-to-fit indices for struc-
tural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
Porter, L. W, Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
Scholl, R. W (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from
expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review,
6, 589-599.
Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.). (1982).
Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field
practice. New \fork: Wiley.
Tanaka, J. S. (1987). "How big is big enough": Sample size and goodness
of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child Devel-
opment, 58,134-136.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. (in press). On the causal order of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Manage-
ment.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V (1988). A longitudinal assessment of
the determinant relationship between employee commitment to the
occupation and the organization. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia
State University, Atlanta.
Wanous, J. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and
socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Received January 23,1991
Revision received May 8,1991
Accepted May 9,1991 •

Correction to Edwards and Baglioni

In the article "Relationship Between Type A Behavior Pattern and Mental and Physical Symp-
toms: A Comparison of Global and Component Measures," by Jeffrey R. Edwards and A. J.
Baglioni, Jr. (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp. 276-290), the sentence
"Items with negative loadings were reversed" should be deleted from the note to Table 3. The
original scoring procedures were used for all TABP measures for the analyses reported in
Table 3.