Skip to main content
Log in

Assessment of Organizational Trust: Italian Adaptation and Factorial Validity of the Organizational Trust Inventory

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trust influences interactions among individuals and organizations but has been an elusive concept to define and measure. The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI) measures three dimensions of organizational trust, as defined by Cummings and Bromiley (in: Kramer and Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations, 1996), believing or feeling that others: keep commitments, negotiate honestly, and do not take excessive advantage. This research presents an original adaptation of the OTI for the Italian people. It can now be used to evaluate trust regarding colleagues, managers, suppliers, subordinates, clients, and organizations. Using a sample of 490 employees and structural equation modeling, we consider the validity of the questionnaire and the theoretical model articulation both across different counterpart and countries. Besides, we develop a new reduced-form of the questionnaire (OTI/R), which offers better psychometric properties than the long form.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1989). Multigroup comparisons and the assumption of equivalent construct validity across groups: Methodological and substantive issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24 (4), 503–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A., & ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district. Industry & Innovation, 14 (2), 177–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Transactions costs in organizations with trust. In R. Bies, R. Lewicki, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 219–247). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castaldo, S. (2002). Fiducia e relazioni di mercato. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, A. M., Chau, J. P. C., & Holroyd, E. (1999). Translation of questionnaires and issues of equivalent. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29 (2), 316–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbetta, G. (1995). Patterns of development of family business. Family Business Review, 8 (4), 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive proprieties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (6), 619–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The Organizational Trust Inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 302–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, S. P. (1996). The impact of ethical climate types on facets of job satisfaction: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15 (6), 655–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 611–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisemberger, R., Fasolo, P. M., & Davis-LaMastro (1990). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 853, 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust? In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 213–217). New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27 (3), 321–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. A. (1992). Testing whether correlation matrices are different from each other. Developmental Psychology, 28 (2), 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2000). On the concept of trust. Decision Support Systems, 33 (3), 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G., & Teo, A. (2005). Organizational restructuring: Impact on trust and work satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22 (1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Shoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as a foundation for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, D., & Chervany, N. (2000). The meanings of trust. Working paper No. 96–04. Carlson School of Management, MIS Research Center, University of Minnesota.

  • McKnight, D., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce. Information Systems Research, 13 (3), 334–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41 (1), 49–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulder B. C., & Algina, J. (2002). Comparison of methods for estimating and testing latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentz, M. A., & Choud, C. (1994). Measurement invariance in longitudinal clinical research assuming change from development and intervention. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 62 (3), 450–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), 23–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (3), 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Winograd, G. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization Development Journal, 18 (4), 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., & Kramer, R. (1996). Whither trust? In R. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, D. (1989). The role of confirmatory factor analysis in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 685–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Massimo Marchesin, Riccardo Cicuttin, and Francesca Dal Corso for their collaboration in the translation of the questionnaire. We would also like to thank Paola Reppele and Rechel Rodgers for their support in the translation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Vicentini.

 Appendix A

 Appendix A

 The English versions of the instrument, in the “We” formulation of the questionnaire items

Item#

 

1

We think the people in _____ are fair in their negotiations with us.

2

We think that—fairly represents its capabilities.

3

We intend to monitor changes in situations because _____ will take advantage of such changes.

4

We feel that ____takes advantage of our ____.

5

We feel that ____takes advantage of us.

6

We intend to check whether _____ meets its obligations to our _____.

7

We think _____ misrepresents its demands during negotiations.

8

We think that the people in _____ manipulate others to gain a personal advantage.

9

We think _____ keeps commitments.

10

We plan to monitor _____ ‘s compliance with our agreement.

11

We think _____ misrepresents its capabilities in negotiations.

12

We intend to monitor _____ closely so that they do not take advantage of us.

13

We think that _____ takes advantage of ambiguous situations.

14

We think _____ behaves according to its commitments.

15

We feel we can depend on _____ to negotiate with us honestly.

16

We think _____ tries to take advantage of us.

17

We intend to negotiate cautiously with ____.

18

We feel we can depend on _____ to move our joint projects forward.

19

We think that the people in _____ use confidential information to their own advantage.

20

We think that _____ takes advantage of a changed situation.

21

We think that _____ is dependable.

22

We feel we cannot depend on _____ to fulfil its commitments to us.

23

We don’t plan on checking on _____.

24

We intend to check on _____’s progress with our project.

25

We think that _____ negotiates agreements fairly.

26

We intend to question ______’s statements regarding their capabilities.

27

We intend to watch for misleading information from _____ in our negotiations.

28

We intend to misrepresent our capabilities in negotiations with _____.

29

We feel that—is straight with us.

30

We think the people in ____ tell the truth in negotiations.

31

We think that ______ meets its negotiated obligations to our _____.

32

In our opinion, _____ is reliable.

33

We think the people in _____ keep their promises.

34

We worry about the success of joint projects with _____.

35

We think that the people in—succeed by stepping on other people.

36

We think _____ keeps the spirit of an agreement.

37

We think _____ negotiates important project details fairly.

38

We feel that ____tries to get the upper hand.

39

We think that _____ takes advantage of our problems.

40

We feel that _____ negotiates with us honesty.

41

We think that people in _____ interpret ambiguous information in their own favour.

42

We feel that _____ will keep its word.

43

We feel confident that ____won’t take advantage of us.

44

We feel uncomfortable about _____’s willingness to stick to the schedule.

45

We think _____ is open in describing its strengths and weaknesses in negotiating joint projects.

46

We think _____ negotiates realistically.

47

We think _____ does not mislead us.

48

We intend to speak openly in our negotiations with _____.

49

We think that _____ takes advantage of our weaknesses.

50

We intend to check on the reasoning given by _____ during negotiations.

51

We intend to monitor _____’s behaviour for timeliness.

52

We feel that ______ tries to get out of its commitments.

53

We think that commitments made to our _____will be honoured by the people in _____.

54

We feel that—negotiates joint expectations fairly.

55

We think _____ lets us down.

56

We worry about _____ ‘s commitment to agreed upon goals.

57

We intend to work openly with _____ because they will not take advantage of us.

58

We intend to share information cautiously with _____ to avoid having them use it to their advantage.

59

We plan to share information openly with _____ because they do not take advantage of us.

60

We plan to document all aspects of our negotiations with _____.

61

We intend to check _____’s actions to avoid being taken advantage of.

62

We feel that _____ takes advantage of people who are vulnerable.

  1. Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, and 62 are to be inverted
  2. To measure the (a) dimension of trust (Keep Commitments) one would use questions 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 36, 42, 44, 51, 52, 53, 55, and 56; to measure the (b) dimension of trust (Negotiate honestly) one would use questions 1, 2, 7, 11, 15, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, and 54; to measure the (c) dimension of trust (Avoid taking excessive advantage) one would use questions 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 49, 57, 58, 59, 61 and 62. To obtain the global measure of the organizational trust one would summarize the scores obtained from the 3 dimensions of trust
  3. To obtain the revised OTI/R Reduced Form score one would use questions 5, 15, 22, 25, 29, 35, 36, 42, 47, 49, 53 and 62

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vidotto, G., Vicentini, M., Argentero, P. et al. Assessment of Organizational Trust: Italian Adaptation and Factorial Validity of the Organizational Trust Inventory. Soc Indic Res 88, 563–575 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9219-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9219-y

Keywords

Navigation