Social Indicators Research

, Volume 88, Issue 3, pp 563–575 | Cite as

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

  • Giulio Vidotto
  • Marco VicentiniEmail author
  • Piergiorgio Argentero
  • Philip Bromiley


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.


Trust Organization Inventory Structural equation modeling 



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.


  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Boschma, R. A., & ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district. Industry & Innovation, 14 (2), 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Castaldo, S. (2002). Fiducia e relazioni di mercato. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbetta, G. (1995). Patterns of development of family business. Family Business Review, 8 (4), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisemberger, R., Fasolo, P. M., & Davis-LaMastro (1990). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 853, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27 (3), 321–338.Google Scholar
  17. Green, J. A. (1992). Testing whether correlation matrices are different from each other. Developmental Psychology, 28 (2), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones, A. (2000). On the concept of trust. Decision Support Systems, 33 (3), 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, G., & Teo, A. (2005). Organizational restructuring: Impact on trust and work satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22 (1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Shoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McAllister, D. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as a foundation for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKnight, D., & Chervany, N. (2000). The meanings of trust. Working paper No. 96–04. Carlson School of Management, MIS Research Center, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  24. McKnight, D., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce. Information Systems Research, 13 (3), 334–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moulder B. C., & Algina, J. (2002). Comparison of methods for estimating and testing latent variable interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Watkins, D. (1989). The role of confirmatory factor analysis in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 685–701.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulio Vidotto
    • 1
  • Marco Vicentini
    • 2
    Email author
  • Piergiorgio Argentero
    • 3
  • Philip Bromiley
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly
  4. 4.School of BusinessUniversity of California IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations