Psychometric Properties of the Brazilian Short Scale of Perceived Feedback at Work

Propriedades Psicométricas da Escala Brasileira Reduzida de Percepção de Feedback no Trabalho

Propiedades Psicométricas de la Escala Brasileña Reducida de Percepción de Feedback Laboral

Abstract:

Feedback at work refers to the amount and availability of positive and negative feedback at work. The objective was to propose a short version and seek evidence of validity for the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale (FES) in the Brazilian context. The sample consisted of 552 Brazilian workers of both sexes. The results obtained indicated that the 14-item structure, divided equally into two correlated factors (supervisor and coworkers), showed adequate fit indices and was invariant between the groups divided in terms of modality and organizational sector. Supervisor feedback showed a positive correlation with support from the supervisor, and feedback from colleagues with social support at work. There was also evidence of discriminant validity between the constructs. It is concluded that the proposed version presents adequate psychometric evidence.

Keywords:
feedback; statistical measures; psychological assessment; psychometrics

Resumo:

O feedback no trabalho diz respeito a quantidade e disponibilidade de feedback positivo e negativo no trabalho. O objetivo deste estudo foi propor uma versão reduzida e buscar evidências de validade da Perceived Feedback at Work Scale (FES), no contexto brasileiro. A amostra foi composta por 552 trabalhadores brasileiros de ambos os sexos. Os resultados obtidos indicaram que a estrutura de 14 itens, divididos igualmente em dois fatores correlacionados (supervisor e colegas de trabalho), apresentou índices de ajuste adequados e era invariante entre os grupos divididos em termos de modalidade o setor organizacional. O feedback do supervisor apresentou correlação positiva com o suporte do supervisor, e o feedback dos colegas com o suporte social no trabalho. Ademais, obteve-se evidências de validade discriminante entre os construtos. Conclui-se que a versão proposta apresenta evidências psicométricas adequadas.

Palavras-chave:
feedback; medidas estatísticas; avaliação psicológica; psicometria

Resumen:

El feedback en el trabajo se refiere a la cantidad y disponibilidad de feedback positivo y negativo en el trabajo. El objetivo fue proponer una versión reducida y buscar evidencias de validez de la Escala de Percepción de Feedback en el Trabajo (FES) en el contexto brasileño. La muestra fue de 552 trabajadores brasileños de ambos sexos. Los resultados obtenidos indicaron que la estructura de 14 ítems, dividida equitativamente en dos factores correlacionados (supervisor y compañeros de trabajo), mostró índices de ajuste adecuados y fue invariante entre los grupos divididos en términos de modalidad y sector organizacional. El feedback del supervisor mostró correlación positiva con el apoyo del supervisor, y el feedback de los compañeros con el apoyo social en el trabajo. También se observaron indicios de validez discriminante entre los constructos. Concluimos que la versión propuesta presenta evidencias psicométricas adecuadas.

Palabras clave:
feedback; medidas estadísticas; evaluación psicológica; psicometría

The concept of feedback, originally called “retro-feedback”, emerged in the 18th century during the Industrial Revolution to describe the return of mechanical production processes (Stone & Heen, 2015 ). Over time, this concept came to be used in labor relations and was interpreted in different ways. Some researchers saw it as third-party evaluations, while others saw it as an attribute of the job, influenced by beliefs of what would be best for a particular group, rather than just a boss-subordinate relationship (Hackman & Oldham, 1975 ).

Subsequently, feedback was understood as a characteristic of interpersonal interaction that impacted professional development, social relations, and job satisfaction. In this sense, feedback was conceptualized as the delivery of direct and clear evaluations of performance. In this way, workers would understand more transparently the connection between their efforts and the results obtained (Hackman & Oldham, 1975 ).

The evolution of the concept of feedback has led to its current understanding as a multifaceted, dynamic, and continuous process that provides information on the performance achieved. It is now considered a useful method for improving tasks, processes, and interactions at work. Feedback is therefore no longer a one-way process. It now extends its applicability in all directions, i.e. top-down, and bottom-up, incorporating evaluations from managers, subordinates, and self-assessments, also known as 360-degree feedback (Berridge & Ostrich, 2023 ; Fleenor et al., 2020 ).

Early empirical studies focused their analyses on the amount and type of feedback dimensions capable of discriminating between environments, such as positive/negative feedback from supervisors, colleagues, self-perception, and tasks. In addition, they also investigated perceptions of the use of feedback in performance evaluation and career advancement (Greller & Herold, 1975 ). However, more recent approaches have focused on interpreting how the feedback environment or culture can favor the interactions and dynamics present in the organizational environment (Radu, 2023 ; Steelman et al., 2004 ).

In the organizational context, empirical evidence points to the significant influence of feedback at work on other variables, in both negative and positive ways. For example, the study by Peng et al. ( 2011 ) shows a negative correlation between feedback and factors related to stress at work, such as role ambiguity and conflict, and deviant behavior. Conversely, positive correlations have been observed with job satisfaction, feedback environment relationships, positive performance outcomes, seeking feedback from co-workers, organizational commitment, and employee retention (De Stobbeleir et al., 2020 ; Katz et al., 2023 ; Krasman & Kotlyar, 2019 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ).

Concerning measuring the construct, Linderbaum and Levy ( 2010 ) produced a multidimensional measure of feedback orientation, the aim of which was to assess general receptiveness to feedback. The scale has four dimensions that measure: the tendency to believe that feedback is a means of achieving goals and expected results (usefulness); the tendency to have a sense of duty to act on the feedback received (responsibility); the tendency to make use of feedback to understand how others see you and to be sensitive to these perceptions (social awareness); and the tendency to feel secure and capable of dealing with feedback situations and with the feedback itself (self-efficacy).

Researchers Steelman et al. ( 2004 ) emphasize the importance of the feedback environment as being characterized by the contextual dynamics of feedback processes between superiors and subordinates and between co-workers. For them, the feedback environment plays an essential role in the way workers seek, absorb, decipher, welcome, and employ feedback. Steelman et al. ( 2004 ) developed a scale called “The Feedback Environment Scale - FES”. This scale is the measure of interest for the present study and has been translated as the “Perceived Feedback at Work Scale”.

The research by Steelman et al. ( 2004 ) was conducted in an American organization with a sample of 405 participants. The authors proposed an instrument with a third-order factor (Feedback in the workplace), two second-order factors (Supervisor and Colleagues), and fourteen first-order factors. In this way, the instrument would be made up of sixty-three items (32 for the ‘Referent supervisor’ factor and 31 for the ‘Referent coworker’ factor) parallel to each other. The first-order factors measure workers’ perceptions of the feedback environment in seven different ways: credibility of the source (reliability of the feedback source); quality of the feedback (consistency and usefulness of the feedback); delivery of feedback (intentions to give feedback); favorable and unfavorable feedback (perceptions and reflections of positive and negative feedback); availability of the source (perceived amount of contact with sources and ease of obtaining feedback); and promotion in seeking feedback (incentive to seek feedback information). A seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used to measure the responses.

Unlike what was proposed a priori, the internal structure was analyzed by means of Confirmatory Factor Analysis performed for each second-order factor, i.e. Steelman et al. ( 2004 ) tested two distinct structures of seven first-order factors, and not the complete model with 63 items. The authors found the following results: Supervisor factor: χ ² (DF) = 101.48(56); p < 0.001; CFI = 0.97; SRMSR = 0.04; Coworkers factor: χ ² (DF) = 141.48(56); p < 0.001; CFI = 0.93; SRMSR = 0.05. The findings also indicated good internal consistency in the two factors analyzed. Specifically, for the Supervisor factor, the internal consistency reliability interval ranged from 0.82 to 0.92. For the Coworkers factor, the range was between 0.74 and 0.92. Overall, the scores for the Supervisor factor showed an internal consistency of 0.96, and for the Coworker factor, 0.95.

With regard to research into measuring instruments capable of assessing the feedback environment at work, some aspects are worth noting. A search of the national databases SciELO and PePSIC, carried out in December 2023, with the descriptors “feedback”, “environment”, “work”, “validation” and “scale” showed that there were no national studies aimed at evaluating feedback in the workplace. When consulting the PsycInfo database, with the same descriptors in English, the only two studies on this subject were by Steelman et al. ( 2004 ), followed by a validation for the Japanese context by Momotani and Otsuka ( 2019 ), which reveals the scarcity of measuring instruments that assess the feedback environment at work, even at the international level.

In this respect, the FES scale by Steelman et al. ( 2004 ) has been available to researchers for almost two decades and has originally been used repeatedly. This gap in the literature encourages researchers to use the two different factors, just one of them, or even just some facets of the scale that they consider to be more pertinent or appropriate to their research contexts. For example, since its development, several empirical studies in different cultural contexts have used the scale to study the feedback environment and its relationship with job satisfaction, career adaptability, creative performance, engagement, and burnout (Giesbers et al., 2021 ; Gong et al., 2020 ).

In the search for data on evidence of validity in other contexts, only the Japanese version of the instrument was found. Momotani and Otsuka ( 2019 ) applied the instrument to a sample of 416 workers. The Supervisor and Coworker factors were analyzed separately using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The results pointed to a seven-factor model. The Supervisor model obtained a reasonable fit of χ ² (417) = 1,396.655 ( p < 0.001), AIC = 1,618.655, CFI = 0.900 and RMSEA = 0.075. In contrast, the Coworkers model showed inappropriate results χ2(391) = 1,859.302 ( p < 0.001), AIC = 2,069.302, CFI = 0.839, and RMSEA = 0.095. However, the authors opted to keep the coworkers’ model. The internal consistencies, calculated by Cronbach’s Alpha, of the seven-factor Supervisor model ranged from 0.68 to 0.92 and 0.66 to 0.88 for the seven-factor Coworker model. The overall Alpha coefficient was 0.96. The study, according to the authors, reveals that the scale is appropriate for measuring the feedback environment in the Japanese work context.

The principle of parsimony argues that between two theoretically equivalent explanations, preference should be given to the simpler one. A reduced version of the scale is therefore justified in terms of practicality for researchers and participants. The reduced version of the proposed scale is a more simplified measure, with a shorter response time, which is easy to collect data on, whether on a large scale or in contexts where time is limited.

The adaptation and validation of this scale makes a general contribution to diagnosing the feedback environment and, consequently, to understanding the quality of workers’ well-being with their peers and the organization. In addition, the instrument corroborates a new study on feedback in the context of work in Brazilian samples, favoring an increase in the construct’s nomological network. Specifically, Brazilian researchers in the field of organizational research, in possession of a simpler version of the scale, can deepen their investigations into the dynamics of feedback, in order to have a broad view of the variables that can influence its effectiveness and thus propose the development of more appropriate strategies aimed at people management. In practical terms, an understanding of these dynamics, especially by Human Resources managers, can help to build a more productive and integrated work environment, using feedback as a means of leading workers to higher levels of engagement and professional development.

Based on these considerations, the aim of this study was to propose a reduced version and seek evidence of the validity of the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale (FES) in the Brazilian context. The proposal considered the idea of the model proposed a priori, as presented in the original research, but in a reduced version with a new approach that incorporates the principle of parsimony. This version is believed to be effective in explaining the dynamics of feedback in the workplace between supervisors and coworkers. For the reduced version, the intention is to select one item from each factor in order to cover feedback more fully. In this way, the structure is expected to consist of fourteen items and two distinct factors and maintain the psychometric properties of validity, reliability, and accuracy of the original instrument, but in a more simplified structure (H1).

With regard to invariance, this study investigated whether the psychometric properties of feedback at work are consistent between different types of work (hybrid, remote, face-to-face) and sectoral modalities (public, private, and third sector). As for the different types of work, with the growing integration of technologies into the organizational environment, companies are increasingly adopting hybrid or remote working modalities (Feliciano et al., 2023 ). However, in the remote modality, there can be a feeling of isolation and lack of support, despite the audiovisual communication facilitated by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). The absence of personal interactions, non-verbal elements, and emotions expressed through looks and gestures contribute to the perception of isolation and can hinder the development of feedback (Gauriau, 2022 ).

With regard to sectoral modalities, Robbins and Coulter ( 2017 ) suggest that in public companies, bureaucracy, and accountability to the government play crucial roles, which can make feedback more oriented towards achieving government goals and process efficiency. In the private sector, on the other hand, feedback often focuses on individual performance and the achievement of organizational goals, as competition and business goals are predominant. Finally, in third-sector organizations, feedback is often related to the organization’s social mission, emphasizing social impact and effectiveness in service delivery (Drucker, 1990 ). Despite these differences, we would expect the scale structure to be the same in these different groups (H2).

In the relationship with external variables, the constructs of social support at work and perceived support from the supervisor were used. Social support at work is related to workers’ perception of the accessibility and availability of social support, as well as the quality of interpersonal relationships with superiors and coworkers (Tamayo & Trócolli, 2002 ). Thus, social support at work can increase positive affect and the feeling of social belonging, particularly when positive feedback is received. At the same time, feedback from coworkers acts as a rewarding mechanism that stimulates sharing behavior among peers and encourages the establishment of social ties (Brudner et al., 2023 ). In this sense, we would expect a moderate to strong positive correlation between peer feedback and social support at work (H3).

Perceived supervisor support refers to workers’ beliefs about how much the supervisor cares about promoting well-being at work. Perceived supervisor support and supervisor feedback can act together as motivational factors, boosting worker productivity and improving the quality of interpersonal relationships, as well as job satisfaction (Hamzah et al., 2021 ). Based on these aspects, we would also expect a moderate to strong positive correlation between supervisor feedback and perceived supervisor support (H4).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 552 Brazilian workers from various professions (teachers, technicians, assistants, analysts, managers, coordinators, etc.) and of both sexes (60.3% women), from 21 states in the country, with the majority concentrated in the state of Rio de Janeiro (67%). Of the total sample, 50.4% were married, 50.7% had no children and 23.4% had completed higher education. With regard to schooling, the answers that stood out were: complete higher education (23.4%), postgraduate latu sensu (22.5%), and postgraduate stricto sensu (21.9%). The main salary ranges were 1 to 3 minimum wages (49.1%) and 3 to 5 minimum wages (25.4%). The organizational sector that stood out was the service provider sector (75.5%). In terms of sector, 52.7% said they belonged to the private sector, 42.2% to the public sector, and 5.1% to the third sector. With regard to working methods, the following responses were obtained: face-to-face (70.8%), hybrid (20.7%), and remote (8.5%). The respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 86 ( M = 38; SD = 12.6). Working time in the current job ranged from 1 to 56 years ( M = 7.53; SD = 8.58) and total working time from 1 to 67 years ( M = 16.8; SD = 12.2). For inclusion in the study, the criteria were that the participant was working, was at least 18 years old, and had at least one year’s experience in their respective job.

Instruments

Feedback Environment Scale (FES), by Steelman et al. ( 2004 ). The scale consists of 63 items answered on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Of these items, 32 assess the supervisor’s perceptions, and 31 focus on the perceptions of coworkers. Examples of items: “I trust my supervisor’s feedback” and “When I do a good job, my coworkers praise my performance”. The ‘Supervisor Source’ and ‘Co-worker Source’ factors measure seven different facets of the feedback environment (credibility of the source, quality of the feedback, return of feedback, favorable feedback, unfavorable feedback, availability of the source, and encouragement to seek feedback). In the American study, the instrument showed adequate internal consistency (Supervisor Source, α = 0.96; Coworker Source, α = 0.95).

The scale was first adapted from English into Brazilian Portuguese by a bilingual professional/translator. This was followed by back-translation, i.e. reverse translation from Portuguese into English, by another bilingual professional/translator. After these two initial stages, the versions were submitted to a focus group of psychology specialists for a final consensus to check that the instructions were clear and that the terms in the items were appropriate .

Perceived Organizational Support Scale ( Escala de Suporte Organizacional Percebido [ESOP]), in its Social Support at Work factor, was used by Tamayo and Tróccoli ( 2002 ). The factor is made up of five items answered on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Example item: “Colleagues collaborate with each other to get the job done”. In the original validation study, the Social Support at Work factor showed adequate internal consistency, α = 0.85. In this study, the internal consistency indices, Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega, were α = 0.91 and Ω = 0.90, respectively.

Organizational Support Perception Scale (Escala de Percepção de Suporte do Organizacional [EPSO]) , in Siqueira and Gomide ( 2008 ). As the aim was to assess the perception of support from the supervisor, the expression “this organization” was replaced by the expression “my supervisor” in all the items. The single-factor instrument consists of nine items answered on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Example item: “My supervisor really cares about my well-being”. In the original validation study, the instrument obtained an internal consistency index of α = 0.86. In this study, the internal consistency indices, Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega, were α = 0.91 and Ω = 0.88 .

In addition to these scales, this study included a sociodemographic questionnaire which aimed to provide a personal, occupational, and organizational characterization of the sample. Questions were asked about sex, age, marital status, children, schooling, salary range, profession, Brazilian state in which they work, branch, type, and type of work, length of time working in their current job, and total working time.

Procedures

Data collection. Data was collected entirely online using a questionnaire available on Google Forms. The workers were contacted via social networks (WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn) and also by email. The questionnaires took approximately 20 minutes to complete.

Data analysis. Descriptive analyses were carried out using Jamovi statistical software (version 2.3.24). The internal structure of the Feedback at Work Scale was analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling. R software and the Lavaan (Latent Variable Analysis) package were used, with the WLSMV (Weighted Least Squares Mean-and Variance-adjusted) estimator adopted. The invariance of the item parameters was tested using Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MCFA), in which models were tested in which the number of items and factors (configural invariance), factor loadings (metric invariance), and intercepts (scalar invariance) were fixed.

The following indicators were used to assess the fit of the model to the data: chi-square (χ²), Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). Values below 0.10 for RMSEA and greater than 0.95 for CFI and TLI were adopted as good fit indices (Broc & Gana, 2019 ). The instrument’s internal consistency was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s Omega coefficient. Factorial correlations were conducted using Structural Equation Modeling to determine the relationship between feedback and external variables. Finally, evidence of discriminant validity was calculated in order to check whether the constructs, although correlated, are minimally different from each other. To this end, the model obtained was compared with a model in which the correlations were set at 1, to check whether these models were significantly different ( p < 0.05).

Ethical Considerations

The study was previously submitted to and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Salgado de Oliveira, CAAE No. 64026322.8.0000.5289. Participants were assured that there were no right or wrong answers. In the Free and Informed Consent Term (FICT) they were given online access to all the information relevant to the research. After opting to take part, they accepted the FICT and then began to fill in the answers to the questionnaires. The confidentiality of the information provided was guaranteed to everyone.

Results

Initially, in order to check which items in each of the factors had the highest factor loadings on the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale (FES), Confirmatory Factor Analyses were performed for each dimension (supervisor and colleagues), each consisting of seven factors. The results were as follows: Supervisor Source with seven facets and 32 items χ² (DF) = 2655.69 (443); CFI = 0.936; TLI = 0.928; RMSEA = 0.095 (0.092-0.099); and Coworker Source with seven facets of 31 items χ² (DF) = 3700.64 (413); CFI = 0.889; TLI = 0.871; RMSEA = 0.120 (0.117-0.124). Based on these results, the item from each factor with the highest factor loading was selected in order to propose the reduced version of the scale. Items 5, 7, 11, 18, 23, 24, 31, 37, 39, 43, 48, 53, 56, and 62 were selected.

Based on the selection of these 14 items, two different models were tested: one-factor and two-factor, obtaining the following results: one-factor - χ² (DF) = 1912.215 (77); CFI = 0.779; TLI = 0.739; RMSEA = 0.208 (0.200-0.216); two-factor - χ² (DF) = 371.203 (75); CFI = 0.964; TLI = 0.957; RMSEA = 0.085 (0.076-0.093). Thus, the two-factor model (Supervisor Source and Coworker Source) was chosen to represent the internal structure of the instrument. The factors showed a moderate correlation ( r = 0.46) and adequate internal consistency indices, calculated by Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega, namely: Supervisor Source, α = 0.90 and Ω = 0.90; Coworker Source, α = 0.85 and Ω = 0.87.

Therefore, the results showed that the reduced Brazilian version of the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale consisted of 14 items, divided equally into two factors, which made it possible to confirm Hypothesis 1. The standardized factor loadings of the two-factor model are shown in Table 1 , and it can be seen that all were significant ( p < 0.001) and above 0.50.

Table 1
Standardized Factor Loadings of the Items in the Reduced Version of the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale

Items	Source: Supervisor	Source: Coworkers
I have confidence in the feedback my supervisor gives me. / Tenho confiança no feedback do meu supervisor.	0.84
The performance feedback I receive from my supervisor is helpful. / O feedback de desempenho que recebo do meu supervisor é útil.	0.83
My supervisor is supportive when giving me feedback about my job performance. / O meu supervisor me dá suporte quando fornece feedback sobre meu desempenho no trabalho	0.85
My supervisor generally lets me know when I do a good job at work. / Em geral, meu supervisor me diz quando faço um bom trabalho.	0.82
On those occasions when I make a mistake at work, my supervisor tells me. / O meu supervisor me alerta quando cometo um erro no trabalho	0.55
My supervisor is usually available when I want performance information. / O meu supervisor está sempre disponível quando quero saber a respeito do meu desempenho.	0.77
I feel comfortable asking my supervisor for feedback about my work performance. / Sinto-me à vontade para pedir feedback ao meu supervisor sobre meu desempenho no trabalho.	0.77
I have confidence in the feedback my coworkers give me. / Tenho confiança no feedback dos meus colegas de trabalho.		0.78
The performance feedback I receive from my coworkers is helpful. / O feedback de desempenho que recebo dos meus colegas de trabalho é útil.		0.82
My coworkers are supportive when giving me feedback about my job performance. / Os meus colegas de trabalho me dão suporte quando fornece feedback sobre meu desempenho no trabalho.		0.79
When I do a good job at work, my coworkers praise my performance. / Quando faço um bom trabalho, meus colegas de trabalho elogiam meu desempenho.		0.74
My coworkers tell me when my work performance does not meet organizational standards. / Os meus colegas de trabalho me avisam quando meu desempenho no trabalho não atende aos padrões organizacionais.		0.55
My coworkers are usually available when I want performance information. / Os meus colegas de trabalho estão sempre disponíveis quando quero saber a respeito do meu desempenho		0.74
I feel comfortable asking my coworkers for feedback about my work performance. / Sinto-me à vontade para pedir feedback aos colegas de trabalho sobre meu desempenho no trabalho.		0.73

Next, considering the first-order two-dimensional structure model found, the invariance of the item parameters between the groups formed in terms of work modality (hybrid, remote, or face-to-face) and type of work (public, private, or third sector) was assessed using Multigroup Factor Analysis (MFA). Analysis of the data obtained ( Table 2 ) revealed small and practically negligible differences in the indicators analyzed, i.e. the differences in CFI and RMSEA were less than 0.01. These results indicate that, for the two-factor model, the factor loadings, thresholds, and scalars were invariant between the groups analyzed, which allowed Hypothesis 2 to be corroborated.

Table 2
Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MCFA)

Modality of work	χ 2 (DF)	Δχ2(DF)	CFI	ΔCFI	TLI	ΔTLI	RMSEA	ΔRMSEA
Configural	479.31(225)	-	0.934	-	0.920	-	0.078	-
Metric	497.77(249)	18.46(24)	0.936	0.001	0.930	0.009	0.074	0.005
Scalar	527.43(273)	29.67(24)	0.934	0.001	0.934	0.005	0.071	0.003
Types of work	χ 2 (DF)	Δχ 2 (DF)	CFI	ΔCFI	TLI	ΔTLI	RMSEA	ΔRMSEA
Configural	479.97(225)	-	0.935	-	0.921	-	0.078	-
Metric	520.68(249)	40.72(24)	0.931	0.004	0.924	0.003	0.077	0.001
Scalar	564.41(273)	43.73(24)	0.926	0.005	0.926	0.002	0.076	0.001

• Note . χ ² = chi-square; Δχ2 = chi-square difference CFI = Comparative Fix Index; ΔCFI = CFI difference; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; ΔRMSEA = RMSEA difference; Configural = factor structure fixed between groups; Metric = factor structure and factor loadings fixed between groups; Scalar = factor structure, factor loadings, thresholds and scalars fixed between groups.

To check the relationship between the instrument and external variables, the correlations between the different scales in the study were calculated ( Table 3 ). The data obtained showed a strong positive correlation ( r = 0.87; p < 0.001) between the Supervisor Source factor and the Perceived Supervisor Support factor. It was also observed that the Work Colleague Source factor showed a strong positive correlation ( r = 0.75; p < 0.001) with social support at work, confirming Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Table 3
Correlations between Study Variables

Variables	1	2	3
1. Supervisor’s source	-	-	-
2. Coworker’s source	0.46	-	-
3. Social Support at Work	0.47	0.75	-
4. Perceived Supervisor Support	0.87	0.41	0.49

• Note. All correlations were at significance level p < 0.001.

Due to the high correlations found between the feedback factors and the external variables, we tried to compare the model with four distinct and correlated factors (supervisor source feedback, colleague source feedback, perceived supervisor support, and social support at work) with other alternative models: a model of two distinct factors (Supervisor and Colleagues), in which the items of the supervisor source factor were inserted together with the items of perceived supervisor support, and the items of the coworkers’ source factor were placed together with the items of social support at work; a model of four first-order factors and one second-order factor; and a bifactor model, with four estimated factors and one general factor. The results of this analysis showed that the model with four distinct and correlated factors obtained better fit indices when compared to the other models ( Table 4 ), thus indicating that despite being correlated, feedback and support are distinct variables.

Table 4
Results of the Models Tested in the Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Models	χ 2 (DF)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90%CI)	SRMR
Four correlated factors	2082.380 (349)	0.925	0.918	0.095 (0.091-0.099)	0.068
Second order	2985.851 (346)	0.885	0.875	0.118 (0.114-0.122)	0.099
Bi-factor	3002.360 (322)	0.884	0.863	0.123 (0.119-0.127)	0.097

• Note. χ ² = chi-square; DF= Degrees of Freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual.

Furthermore, this difference was also observed in the calculation of the discriminant analysis. The results of this analysis showed evidence of discriminant validity between supervisor source and perceived supervisor support (χ ² diff = 5.23; DF diff = 1; p < 0.05), as well as between coworker source and social support at work (χ ² diff = 47.75; DF diff = 1; p < 0.001). This means that, despite high correlations, these constructs can be considered minimally different.

Discussion

Feedback plays an important role in the workplace by providing a transparent understanding of individual responsibilities and organizational expectations. In addition, exchanging perceptions about work can generate a more trusting feedback environment, improving engagement and work performance, as well as encouraging the pursuit of improving personal and professional skills (Katz et al., 2023 ; Radu, 2023 ). Given this importance, this study aimed to adapt and gather initial evidence of the validity of the internal structure and relationships with external variables of the reduced version of the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale in a sample of Brazilian workers. After confirmatory factor analysis, it was observed that the model of two distinct and correlated factors (Supervisor Source and Coworker Source), made up of fourteen items representing each of the seven dimensions of the original scale, showed adequate fit indices.

The scale’s internal consistency indicators, both Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega, showed good reliability. These results may be indicative of satisfactory reliability, indicating that the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale, in its reduced version, showed initial evidence of internal structure validity, which allows it to be used in future studies dealing with the subject of feedback at work.

The results of the Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analyses (MCFA) showed that the scale did not present any response bias between the work modality (hybrid, remote, or face-to-face) and type of work (public, private, or third sector) groups. It can therefore be said that the work feedback scores obtained using the instrument are invariant for these groups and can therefore be compared with each other. These results can also be seen as an indicator that the parameters of the scale items are stable in samples with different response groups.

With regard to the relationship with external variables, it was possible to verify that the co-worker source factor showed a positive correlation with social support at work, empirically supporting Hypothesis 3 of the research. In this sense, workers who perceive social support at work tend to feel more supported and have positive experiences associated with well-being, justified, for example, by collaboration in carrying out the work, concern for their colleagues, and support in solving problems (Zhang et al., 2022 ). These findings are consistent with those of Brudner et al. ( 2023 ) regarding sharing behavior and the strengthening of social ties.

Hypothesis 4 was also empirically supported since a positive correlation was observed between the supervisor source factor and perceived supervisor support. The data obtained shows that as workers perceive support from their supervisor, they tend to feel valued and recognize feedback practices as beneficial means of communication and possibilities for continuous career improvement (De Stobbeleir et al., 2020 ). This result is in line with the position of Steelman et al. ( 2004 ) in highlighting the importance of an organizational feedback environment that promotes an encouraging feedback culture with mutual support among peers.

The results of the correlations obtained between feedback at work and the external variables related to it therefore indicate that the scale is reliable. These results constitute evidence of the scale’s relationship with external variables, which, together with the results on the validity of its internal structure, reaffirm the possibilities of using the instrument to assess perceptions of feedback at work.

Concerning the limitations of this study, it is worth highlighting the use of self-report instruments, which can lead to problems associated with the common variance of the method. In addition, due to the cross-sectional nature of the study, the findings do not allow causal inferences to be made from the results found in the relationships. Another limitation concerns the difficulties of generalizing the results, since the sample was mostly concentrated in the state of Rio de Janeiro, and it is not possible to say that it represents the entire Brazilian population.

With regard to a future research agenda, it would be interesting for future studies to investigate whether the two-factor structure of the reduced version of the scale remains invariant in other cultures and in specific occupational groups. Other studies could also verify the correlations of perceptions of feedback at work with variables involving productive organizational energy and the worker’s emotional state of fear of being disconnected from work, constructs that have recently been studied in the literature. Such future studies could adopt a longitudinal approach in order to facilitate a deeper understanding of these relationships and the functioning of affective states in work environments.

In any case, the results of this study indicate that the Perceived Feedback at Work Scale showed initial evidence of the validity of internal structure and relationships with external variables in a Brazilian sample. The confirmation of a factor structure of two distinct and correlated factors reinforces the theoretical understanding of the multifaceted nature of the construct. From a practical point of view, the validated scale is more functional, as it is reduced in size and does not overload respondents, making it easier to apply in various organizational contexts. In addition, it is a reliable measure for evaluating sources of feedback (supervisor and co-workers), which allows organizations to identify where to apply improvements in their management in order to strengthen the culture of positive feedback and promote more engaging and productive work environments (Katz et al., 2023 ). It can therefore be considered an appropriate measure for assessing perceptions of feedback in the workplace, which recommends its future use in research and organizational diagnostics.

References

• Berridge, P., & Ostrich, J. (2023). Feedback reimagined: Transform your organization through positive psychology and social support. Modern Wisdom.
• Broc, G., & Gana, K. (2019). Structural equation modeling with Lavaan. Wiley.
• Brudner, E. G., Fareri, D. S., Shehata, S. G., & Delgado, M. R. (2023). Social feedback promotes positive social sharing, trust, and closeness. Emotion, 23(6), 1536-1548. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001182
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001182
• De Stobbeleir, K., Ashford, S., & Zhang, C. (2020). Shifting focus: Antecedents and outcomes of proactive feedback seeking from peers. Human Relations, 73(3), 303-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719828448
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719828448
• Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles. Harper Collins.
• Feliciano, S. R. D., Barbosa, M. A. C., Roda, F., & Costa, C. E. (2023). As tendências para o trabalho no pós-pandemia: O que mostra a literatura? [Trends for work in the post-pandemic: What does the literature show?]. Revista da Faculdade de Administração e Economia, 12(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.15603/2176-9583/refae.v12n1p55-74
  » https://doi.org/10.15603/2176-9583/refae.v12n1p55-74
• Fleenor, J., Taylor, S., & Chappelow, C. (2020). Leveraging the impact of 360-degree feedback (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
• Gauriau, R. (2022). Riscos profissionais no trabalho a distância: Teletrabalho, trabalho remoto e trabalho via plataformas digitais. Riscos novos, emergentes ou intensificados? [Workplace hazards and psychosocial risks & digital workers: New, emerging or intensified risks?]. Revista Direito das Relações Sociais e Trabalhistas, 8(2), 140–164. https://publicacoes.udf.edu.br/index.php/relacoes-sociais-trabalhista/article/view/399/174
  » https://publicacoes.udf.edu.br/index.php/relacoes-sociais-trabalhista/article/view/399/174
• Giesbers, A. P. M., Schouteten, R. L. J., Poutsma, E., van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & van Achterberg, T. (2021). Towards a better understanding of the relationship between feedback and nurses’ work engagement and burnout: A convergent mixed-methods study on nurses’ attributions about the ‘why’ of feedback. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 117, 103889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103889
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103889
• Gong, Z., Xu, Z., Van Swol, L., Zhang, T., & Xu, J. (2020). Proactive feedback seeking has a positive effect on career adaptability. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8441
  » https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8441
• Greller, M. M., & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary investigation. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(2), 244-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90048-3
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90048-3
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
• Hamzah, H., Nordin, N. S., Dwiyanti, R., Na’imah, T., & Mawi, N. (2021). The role of well-being, supervisor support and positive feedback on lecturers’ work engagement. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 16(1), 73-84. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/IJBS/article/view/245504
  » https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/IJBS/article/view/245504
• Katz, I. M., Moughan, C. M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2023). Feedback orientation: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 33(4), 100986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100986
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100986
• Krasman, J., & Kotlyar, I. (2019). The impact of feedback-seeking on sources’ job satisfaction: A study of Canadian supervisors. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v19i2.2052
  » https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v19i2.2052
• Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the feedback orientation scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372-1405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310373145
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310373145
• Momotani, H., & Otsuka, Y. (2019). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Feedback Environment Scale (FES-J) for workers. Industrial Health, 57(3), 326-341. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2018-0019
  » https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2018-0019
• Peng, J.-C., Tseng, M.-M., & Lee, Y.-L. (2011). Relationships among supervisor feedback environment, work-related stressors, and employee deviance. Journal of Nursing Research, 19(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.0b013e31820b0fe5
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.0b013e31820b0fe5
• Radu, C. (2023). Fostering a positive workplace culture: Impacts on performance and agility. In A. A. Vilas Boas (Ed.), Human resource management - an update (pp. 1-18). IntechOpen.
• Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2017). Management (14th ed.). Pearson.
• Siqueira, M. M. M., & Gomide, S., Júnior (2008). Suporte no trabalho [Support at work]. In M. M. M. Siqueira (Org.), Novas medidas do comportamento organizacional (pp. 147-156) [Measures of organizational behavior]. Artmed.
• Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165-184.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258440
• Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2015). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well. Penguin.
• Tamayo, M. R., & Tróccoli, B. T. (2002). Exaustão emocional: Relações com a percepção de suporte organizacional e com as estratégias de coping no trabalho [Emotional exhaustion: Relationships with the perceived organizational support and coping strategies in the work place]. Estudos de Psicologia, 7(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2002000100005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2002000100005
• Zhang, W., Qian, J., & Yu, H. (2022). How and when seeking feedback from coworkers pays off? The mixed role of coworker relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 938699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.938699
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.938699

• How to cite this article:
  Louro, E. S., & Gabardo-Martins, L. M. D. (2024). Psychometric properties of the Brazilian short scale of perceived feedback at work. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 34 , e3421. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327e3421
• Article derived from the doctoral thesis of the first author under the supervision of the second, to be defended in July 2026, in the Postgraduate Program in Psychology at the Universidade Salgado de Oliveira. This research was supported by CAPES (Brazil, Process Number 88887.711803/2022-00).

Edited by

• Associate editor:
  Cícero Roberto Pereira

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  04 Nov 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  23 Feb 2024
• Accepted
  18 June 2024
• Reviewed
  27 May 2024