\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T2A]{fontenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,polish,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Psychometrics of the Persian Version of the Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal}



\author[1]{naeimeh sarkhani}%
\author[1]{Zhila Abed-Saeedi}%
\author[1]{Hamid Alavi-Majd}%
\author[1]{Eznollah  Azargashb}%
\author[2]{Nasrin Nikpeyma }%
\affil[1]{Affiliation not available}%
\affil[2]{Tehran University of Medical Sciences}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 26, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Background: Measuring the nurses' perception of justice in the
performance appraisal system is important in achieving effective
performance appraisal results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate
the psychometrics of the Persian version of the Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal (JPPA)instrument. Methods: In this methodological
study, 301 clinical nurses working in the hospitals affiliated to Shahid
Beheshti University of Medical Sciences were selected based on purposive
sampling. The translation and validation of the justice perception of
the performance appraisal framework were sought according to the
instructions proposed by the University of Incarnate Word in the United
States. The psychometric characteristics of the instrument including
construct validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) and
reliability were evaluated using internal consistency based on
Cronbach's alpha index and intra-class correlation (ICC). In the present
study, SPSS version 17 and LISREL software version 8.8 were used for
confirmatory factor analysis. Results: The results of the exploratory
factor analysis indicated the establishment of these four factors:
procedural justice, distributive justice, interpersonal justice and
informational justice which covered 57.71\% of the total variance. The
results of the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the
appropriateness of the four-factor construct of the justice perception
of performance appraisal (p = 0.000, X2 = 4184.26, df = 1478, GFI = 0.67
\& AGFI = 0.64, RMR = 0.11, SRMR = 0.078, \&RMSEA = 0.078, NFI = 0.95\&
NNFI = 0.97, and CFI = 0.97). The internal consistency of the instrument
was also confirmed according to the Cronbach's alpha index of 0.97 and
the intra-class correlation index of 0.95. Conclusion: The Persian
version of the Justice Perception of Performance Appraisal can be used
as a valid and reliable instrument to measure the level of nurses
`perception of justice in the performance appraisal.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Psychometrics of the Persian Version of the Justice Perception
of Performance Appraisal}

\textbf{Abstract}

\textbf{Background:} Measuring the nurses' perception of justice in the
performance appraisal system is important in achieving effective
performance appraisal results. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate
the psychometrics of the Persian version of the Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal (JPPA)instrument.

\textbf{Methods:} In this methodological study, 301 clinical nurses
working in the hospitals affiliated to Shahid Beheshti University of
Medical Sciences were selected based on purposive sampling. The
translation and validation of the justice perception of the performance
appraisal framework were sought according to the instructions proposed
by the University of Incarnate Word in the United States. The
psychometric characteristics of the instrument including construct
validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) and reliability
were evaluated using internal consistency based on Cronbach's alpha
index and intra-class correlation (ICC). In the present study, SPSS
version 17 and LISREL software version 8.8 were used for confirmatory
factor analysis.

\textbf{Results:} The results of the exploratory factor analysis
indicated the establishment of these four factors: procedural justice,
distributive justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice
which covered 57.71\% of the total variance. The results of the
confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the appropriateness of the
four-factor construct of the justice perception of performance appraisal
(p = 0.000, X\textsuperscript{2} = 4184.26, df = 1478, GFI = 0.67 \&
AGFI = 0.64, RMR = 0.11, SRMR = 0.078, \&RMSEA = 0.078, NFI = 0.95\&
NNFI = 0.97, and CFI = 0.97). The internal consistency of the instrument
was also confirmed according to the Cronbach's alpha index of 0.97 and
the intra-class correlation index of 0.95.

\textbf{Conclusion:} The Persian version of the Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal can be used as a valid and reliable instrument to
measure the level of nurses `perception of justice in the performance
appraisal.

\textbf{Keywords:} \emph{Justice Perception, Performance Appraisal,
Nurses, Psychometrics}

\textbf{Background}

Performance appraisal is considered as one of the main tasks of managers
to achieve organizational goals and improve the quality of services. In
this regard, nursing managers, especially first-class nursing managers,
can play an important role in the implementation of performance
appraisal in hospitals (1). Performance appraisal in nursing refers to
an assessment of the nurses' efficiency and skills as well as the
effectiveness of the nursing process and the activities performed by the
nurses while providing care for the clients (2).

Organizational researchers have proposed fair performance appraisal in
the form of organizational justice. Organizational justice refers to the
employees' perception of the fairness of the organizational procedures
and consequences (3). In other words, employees consider an activity
fair if only they have a reasonable perception of that activity (4).
Therefore, justice perception of performance appraisal is a very
important issue in organizations (5), which means that the individuals
or groups perceive justice regarding the procedures and consequences of
performance appraisal (3,6). On the other hand, the World Health
Organization (WHO) has identified justice as one of the main goals of
the healthcare system (7). The pioneering research on justice in
organizations dates back to the early 1960s. However, a new chapter
began in empirical studies about organizational justice after 1990 and
then Greenberg proposed a four-factor model of justice for performance
appraisal including1) the distributive justice which refers to justice
in the consequences of performance appraisal;2) the procedural justice
which is related to individuals' perceptions of the standards used in
methods and processes of performance appraisal;3) the interpersonal
justice which refers to the perception of the clients of the executives
or supervisors' behavior; and 4) the informational justice which means
that all information related to the decisions and evaluation processes
should be available to the evaluators (8,9).

Employees' perception of justice in performance appraisal will have a
significant effect on the acceptance of the assessment scores,
satisfaction with the appraisal process, and organizational commitment.
If an organization indicates that justice has been observed in
performance appraisal, it will lead to an increase in employees'
motivation and productivity. Fair performance appraisal can motivate the
employees to strive to revise and improve their performance and to
develop the belief that their performance is perceived and appreciated
by the organization (3).

Rakhshany Zabol et al. conducted a study on 298 nurses and concluded
that there is a direct relationship between distributive and
interpersonal justice and stay in the nursing profession (10). Besides,
the results of Mohamed's study showed that a high perception of
procedural justice is associated with high quality of nurses'
performance (11). Cao et al. also reported that the nurses' perception
of justice is a result of fair organizational behaviors which leads to
an increase in occupational commitment among nurses as well as an
increase in the quality of healthcare delivery (12). In other words, if
nurses' perception of performance appraisal is unfair, it may be a
potential source of job dissatisfaction and will consequently result in
a lack of professional commitment, violent behavior, and leaving the job
(13,14). Also, the justice perception of performance appraisal and its
consequences affect the effectiveness costs (15). Therefore, it is
necessary to measure the justice perception of performance appraisal
through a valid scale.

In this regard, Thurston developed a framework to measure the justice
perception of performance appraisal and then conducted a psychometric
analysis respectively (8). This self-report scale is claimed to have
high validity and reliability and, based on Greenberg's proposed model,
is specifically designed to monitor the organizational justice of
appraisal (16). This instrument has been used for the administrative
employees of governmental and non-governmental organizations (3,8).
Given the importance of the results of performance appraisal on nurses'
professional development, the quality of patient care, and the
development of healthcare organizations, it is necessary to use a valid
instrument to measure nurses' perception of justice in performance
appraisal.

Assessing the justice perception of performance appraisal using a
reliable and valid instrument allows nursing managers to understand the
reasons for nurses' dissatisfaction with the performance appraisal
system. It also helps them use reliable and fair methods to conduct the
appraisal, ask competent people to evaluate nurses' performance and
provide accurate information about nurses' job requirements as well as
the expectations of the healthcare system before assessment. Moreover,
justice is not just limited to a specific time and the continuity of the
assessment of justice is very important. The previous review studies
have not reported sufficient and relevant evidence about the
psychometric properties of the perception of justice in performance
appraisal in Iran. Therefore, the present study aimed at conducting
psychometric analysis on the nurses' perception of justice in
performance appraisal.

\textbf{Justice Perception of Performance Appraisal}

In 2010, Thurston developed the frame work to assess the justice
perception of performance appraisal based on Greenberg's proposed model
for organizational justice of performance appraisal in the United
States. This questionnaire includes 56 items in four main areas:
procedural justice (17 items), distributive justice (12 items),
interpersonal justice (10 items), and informational justice (17 items).
It is also rated based on a 5-point Likert scale (from 5 = strongly
agree to 1 = strongly disagree) with a total score of 280 where higher
scores indicate higher perception of justice. Besides, any mean score
above 3 (or a total score of 168-280) is interpreted as high perception,
any mean score between 2 and 3 (or a total score of 112-168) is
interpreted as average perception, and any mean score below 2 (or a
total score below 112) is interpreted as low perception (8) (Table 1).

\textbf{Method}

The present study is methodological in nature. The study population
includes all the nurses working in the educational hospitals affiliated
with Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran. The
following inclusion criteria were taken into account for this study:
holding, at least, a bachelor's degree in nursing as well as having more
than one year of related experience provided that these nurses had been
evaluated at least once a year and were willing to participate in the
study. The minimum acceptable sample size for factor analysis is
calculated according to the number of items given that 5 people are
considered necessary for each item (17). Since the instrument which was
used in this study includes 56 items, the minimum sample size was
calculated as 280 people; besides, considering the probability that 10\%
of the participants may not answer the questionnaires, the ultimate
sample size in this study was estimated to include 300 people.

After correspondence with the developer of the instrument and obtaining
the required permissions, the translation and validation of the Justice
Perception of Performance Appraisal were performed according to the
instructions proposed by the University of Incarnate Word in the United
States. Therefore, the following 8 steps were taken for the translation
and psychometric analysis of the questionnaire:

1. Primary translation of the scale by a committee consisting of the
experts who were familiar with both Persian and English languages;

2. Evaluation of the translated instrument by the team members to reduce
the probable errors and mistakes in translation;

3. Preliminary research with 20 to 50 participants from the target
population to determine the stability (reliability) of the scale;

4. Application of the research scale to the entire target population;

5. Determining the internal consistency of the scale using Cronbach's
alpha coefficient;

6. Application of exploratory factor analysis and determination of
factor loading for each of the subscales;

7. Elimination of the items with inappropriate Cronbach's alpha
coefficient and low factor loading; and

8. Application of confirmatory Factor Analysis to determine the
construct validity of the scale.

\textbf{Steps 1 and 2: primary translation of the Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal into Persian}

At first, the questionnaire was translated from English to Persian by a
team of 4 experts in the field of management who were fluent in both
Persian and English languages, and then the four independent
translations were put into a single questionnaire in a joint meeting.
Afterward, a copy of the translated scale was sent to an English
language professor to be translated into English; moreover, to monitor
the compatibility of the translated scale with the original version, it
was sent to the developer so that he could share his valuable comments.
At this stage, the translation of the instrument was approved.

\textbf{Steps 3, 4, and 5: Conducting preliminary research to observe
the reliability of the translated instrument}

In the third step, 20 clinical nurses were selected to respond to the
questionnaire in two stages with a two-week interval. Then, the
researchers attempted to determine the stability of this instrument
using the test-retest method and based on an intra-class correlation
(ICC) report. Besides, the internal consistency of the instrument was
also evaluated using Cranach's alpha coefficient.

\textbf{Steps 6, 7, and 8: Performing construct validity through
exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis}

At first, exploratory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the
construct validity of the Persian version of Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal. During exploratory factor analysis, Bartlett's
test of sphericity was used to justify the need for factor analysis, and
also Varimax rotation was used to simplify and interpret the construct.
Also, the eigenvalue method was applied to determine the number of
components in the instrument. Furthermore, the adequacy of the sampling
was evaluated through the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy value. Bartlett's test of sphericity was also utilized to
determine whether the obtained correlation matrix has a significant
difference with the value of 0 and if the application of factor analysis
is justified accordingly. Also, SPSS version 17was used for exploratory
factor analysis. Multivariate techniques were also used to perform
confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the relationships. The fitted
model would be applied if the fit indices include the following
conditions: a ratio of chi-square to the degree of freedom of below 3,
the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) between -1 and 0, low or near 0 root
mean square residual (RMR) index, the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) index of below or equal to 0.08, root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) index of below 0.06 to 0.08, three Bentler-Bont
indices or normed fit index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis index or non-normed fit
index (NNFI), and comparative fit index of above 0.95. Moreover, LISREL
software version 8.8 was used for confirmatory factor analysis.

After obtaining the required permissions to conduct the research, the
study participants were informed of the purpose and method of the study
and were assured that the information would be kept confidential. Then,
the data were collected after obtaining informed written consent and
providing the necessary explanations on how to complete the
questionnaire. Demographic information of the sample participants was
collected using the demographic information form (age, sex, the latest
educational degree, work experience, position, type of employment, and
the name of the working ward).

All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and
regulations. This research has been done with the opinion of the ethics
committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran in
2017-2018. After the purposes of the study were explained to the
participants, written informed consent was obtained from the
participants who wished to participate in the study, and all the
principles of confidentiality of information were observed.

\textbf{Findings}

In this study, 301 nurses completed the research tools. Their average
age was 33 years with the range of 24 to 52 years. There were 273 female
samples (90\%) with an average work experience of 9 years ranging
between 2 and 29 years. 283 samples (94\%) held a bachelor's degree in
nursing and the rest of the participants held a master's degree.
Besides, 128 participants (42.5\%) were employed in governmental
organizations.

The findings from exploratory factor analysis of the Justice Perception
of Performance Appraisal showed that the Bartlett sphericity test could
justify the need for factor analysis and the Kaiser Meyer-Olkin index
also confirmed the adequacy of sampling (Table 2). Moreover, the Varimax
rotation was used to simplify and interpret the construct, so any
eigenvalues greater than 1 were used to reduce the number of factors,
and it was attempted to preserve the items with a factor loading of
above 0.3. The Varimax rotation index determined a 57.71\% variance for
factor loading and the construct of Justice Perception of Performance
Appraisal was classified into four factors of ''procedural justice'',
''distributive justice'', ''interpersonal justice'' and ''informational
justice''. Also, none of the items were removed.

\textbf{KMO and Bartlett's Test}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. & Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy. & 0.953\tabularnewline
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity & Approx. Chi-Square &
13302.37\tabularnewline
& Df & 1540\tabularnewline
& Sig. & 0.000\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Table 2. The results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's tests

Furthermore, the results obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis
according to the fit indicators helped confirm the 4-factor construct of
the Persian version of the questionnaire in this study.

The results of analytical fitted statistics reported a good estimate
based on the general indicators of the fitted model: chi-square value of
4184.26 (p = 0.000) with a degree of freedom (df) of 1478 and a ratio of
2.83. Given that the significance of the chi-square value can be
attributed to the sample size and the robustness, the fitted model
statistics suggest that this pattern has provided the best fit for the
data because all the statistical values are desirable; in other words,
x\textsuperscript{2}/df = 2.23 (which is below 3), GFI = 0.67 and AGFI =
0.64 (which are within the acceptable range of 0 to 1), RMR = 0.11 and
SRMR = 0.078 (which are small and near 0), RMSEA = 0.078 (which is
within the acceptable range of 0.06 to 0.08), and NFI = 0.95, NNFI =
0.97 and CFI = 0.97 (which are greater than or equal to 0.95).

Pearson correlation coefficient which was obtained from the test-retest
statistical method was also calculated at this stage to determine the
reliability of the instrument and the intra-class correlation value was
reported to be 0.95 (p \textless{}0.05). Also, the internal consistency
(based on Cronbach's alpha coefficient) of this instrument was
calculated to be 0.97.

\textbf{Discussion}

This study aimed to investigate the different psychometric properties of
the Justice Perception of Performance Appraisal among the Iranian nurses
according to the guidelines proposed by Incarnate Word University. The
results of the present study showed that the Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluation
of this variable in the socio-cultural context of Iran.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
were used to determine the construct validity of the Justice Perception
of Performance Appraisal. The main purpose of factor analysis is to
summarize a large number of variables into a limited number of factors
so that there is the least amount of missed data (18). In this study,
the same four factors which were introduced in the main framework were
also obtained with acceptable factor loading values. The purpose of
exploratory factor analysis is to discover the dimensions of the
variable to determine the dimensions of the scale, standardizing the
instruments or tests, reducing the dimensions, and evaluating the
homogeneity and diversity regarding the construct validity. In this
study, the results of exploratory factor analysis indicated the
establishment of the four factors of procedural justice, distributive
justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice covering
57.71\% of the variance.

Confirmatory factor analysis was also applied to answer the following
question: ''can the data in this study confirm the theoretical model
which was proposed by the developers of the instrument?''(19). As a
result, all the 56 items of the instrument were used as the variables in
this study. Given that x\textsuperscript{2}/df = 2.23, the quality of
the model was confirmed to allow the assignment of the 56 items to the
four theoretically determining factors. Moreover, chi-square,
goodness-of-fit index, root mean square residual, root mean square error
of approximation, three Bentler-Bont indices, Tucker-Lewis's index, and
comparative fit index were used to evaluate the fitting factor.
Accordingly, all these values were indicative of optimal fit. Fit
indices of confirmatory factor analysis in the original study which was
conducted by the developers of the scale were as follows: RMSEA = 0.13,
RMR = 0.049, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.86, and Chi-Square(df) = 29.2 (29) (8).

Cranach's alpha values of 0.7 or above indicate internal stability. In
the present study, the Cranach's alpha coefficient and the intra-class
correlation of the instrument were 0.97 and 0.95, respectively, which
indicates that the questionnaire understudy has acceptable internal
stability for Iranian nurses. Nevertheless, Cranach's alpha coefficient
was reported above 0.87 for all the subscales by the original
developers, indicating acceptable reliability of the original
questionnaire (8). According to the results of the present study, it can
be stated that the Justice Perception of Performance Appraisal is a
reliable, repeatable, and adequately stable instrument.

In addition to the desired reliability, the Justice Perception of
Performance Appraisal provides multidimensionality which includes four
areas of procedural or systemic justice, distributive justice,
interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Compared to the
organizational justice framework which was developed by Niehoff\&Moorman
(20), this questionnaire has proposed four main dimensions and more
items that indicate higher validity of the instrument.

Although the primary version of this instrument has been used in
previous studies (5,21). in Iran, the researchers have only provided
some information about the dimensions and the number of items. In other
words, they provided insufficient information regarding the analysis of
the validity and reliability of Justice Perception of Performance
Appraisal (5,21).

Rakhshany Zabol et al. also examined the organizational justice among
nurses using Niehoffand Moorman's proposed scale which helps evaluate
organizational justice in 20 items and 3 dimensions (10). The authors
had calculated the reliability of this scale in their previous study on
a sample of nurses with a Cranach's alpha coefficient of 0.96.
Researchers have only reported the content validity of the instrument
based on the opinions of 10 experts but provided no information about
the process of assessing the content validity (22). In another study by
Mohamed, the relationship between organizational justice and quality of
performance among healthcare providers was examined using a
researcher-made questionnaire. However, since there is not enough
information about the development and psychometric properties of this
instrument, it is not possible to have an accurate opinion about its
scientific validity and reliability (11).

The majority of the studies related to measuring the nurses' perception
of justice in Iran provide little knowledge about the validity and
reliability of research instruments. The validity and internal stability
of the Justice Perception of Performance Appraisal showed that the
instrument has been translated appropriately and fluently and also the
nurses did not face any ambiguity while answering the questions.
Besides, the items of the questionnaire were racially and culturally
insensitive which can be considered as a distinctive feature for this
questionnaire. Although the present study confirms the psychometric
properties of the instrument, it is necessary to conduct similar studies
using this instrument in the Iranian context to increase the
generalizability of the findings. This is the first time that such a
scale is validated for nurses' performance appraisal; hence, it is
suggested to investigate the invariance of the factors in this
instrument between different groups of respondents in future researches.

\textbf{Conclusion}

Given that nurses are considered as the main group of healthcare
providers, a better perception of the concept of justice in different
stages of the appraisal system will lead to higher occupational
satisfaction and motivation. This would also result in professional
improvement and provision of high-quality healthcare to the patients.
Therefore, the findings of the present study are important and valuable
accordingly. This instrument can be used to assess the Justice
Perception of Performance Appraisal among Iranian nurses; thus, it can
help identify the barriers to the development of the nurses' Justice
Perception and implement the necessary planning and interventions to
improve it.

\textbf{Acknowledgments}

The authors are grateful for the sincere cooperation of the nurses who
participated in the present research and also the management of the
selected hospital affiliated with SBUMS.

\textbf{Declarations}

\textbf{Ethics approval and consent to participate}

This research was carried out with the approval of the ethics committee
of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and written informed
consent was obtained from all participants.

\textbf{Availability of data and materials}

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available
from the corresponding author on request.

\textbf{Competing interests}

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

\textbf{Funding}

No specific funding has been received from any individual or institution
for this research.

\textbf{References}

1. Fatma A, Fatma S, Mohamed T. Impact of Organizational Justice on
Performance Appraisal Process and Commitment among Staff Nurses at an
Oncology Hospital. The Medical Journal of Cairo University.
2020;88(2):939-945.

2. Nikpeyma N, Abed\_Saeedi Z, Azargashb E, Alavi\_Majd H. Problems of
clinical nurse performance appraisal system: A qualitative study. Asian
Nursing Research. 2014;8(1):15-22.

3. Ikramullah M, Shah B, Hassan FS, Zaman T, Shah IA. Performance
appraisal fairness perceptions in supervisory and non--supervisory
employees: A case of civil servants in district Dera Ismail Khan,
Pakistan. Business and Management Review. 2011;1(7):37-45.

4. Nair MS, Salleh R. Linking performance appraisal justice, trust, and
employee engagement: A conceptual framework. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 2015;211:1155-62.

5. Abbasnezhad MH, Asadpour M. The Relationship between Justice
Perception of Performance Appraisal System and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment among Nurses. Iranian
Journal of Medical Education. 2015;15(31):240-50.

6. \selectlanguage{ngerman}Özsoy Z, Ekici D. Perception of Nurses Regarding Organizational
Justice and Ethical Behavior; Organ\selectlanguage{polish}ı\selectlanguage{english}zational Culture in Hospitals.
Hospital practices and research. 2017;2(2):41-6.

7. World Health Organization. Making fair choices on the path to
universal health coverage: Final report of the WHO Consultative Group on
Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Available
from:https://www.who.int/choice/documents/making\_fair\_choices/en/

8. Thurston PW, McNall L. Justice perceptions of performance appraisal
practices. Journal of managerial psychology. 2010; 25(3): 201-228.

9. Hashish EA. Nurses' perception of organizational justice and its
relationship to their workplace deviance. Nursing ethics.
2020;27(1):273-88.

10. RakhshanyZabol F, Akbari O, Kiani F, Sarhadi F. Correlations of
Organizational Justice and Professional Commitment with the Demographic
Variables of Nurses. Iran Journal of Nursing. 2019 ;31(116):28-39.

11. Mohamed SA. The relationship between organizational justice and
quality performance among healthcare workers: a pilot study. The
Scientific World Journal. 2014 ;doi.org/10.1155/2014/757425

12. Cao T, Huang X, Wang L, Li B, Dong X, Lu H, Wan Q, Shang S. Effects
of organisational justice, work engagement and nurses' perception of
care quality on turnover intention among newly licensed registered
nurses: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of clinical
nursing. 2020;29(13-14):2626-37.

13. Kaul S, Singh A. Organisational justice as an enhancer of
organisational commitment. The International Journal of Indian
Psychology. 2017;4(2/89):52-70.

14. Seyrek H, Ekici D. Nurses' perception of Organisational justice and
its effect on bullying behaviour in the hospitals of Turkey. Hospital
Practices and Research. 2017;2(3):72-78.

15. Hatam N, Fardid M, Kavosi Z. Perceptions of organizational justice
among nurses working in university hospitals of shiraz: a comparison
between general and specialty settings. Nursing and midwifery studies.
2013;2(4):77-82.

16. Malik MS, Chishti SZ. Perception of Justice in Performance
Appraisal; A Comparative Study of Public And Private Institutions of
Pakistan. International Journal of Human Resource Studies.
2018;8(4):152-168.

17. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Generating and assessing
evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott Williams \& Wilkins; 2008.

18. Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural
equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual review of clinical psychology.
2014;10:85-110.

19. Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability
testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches.
Nigerian Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2015 ;22(4):195-201.

20. Niehoff BP, Moorman RH. Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior.
Academy of Management journal. 1993;36(3):527-56.

21. Rahmani H, NasrolahBeigi F, Nikan S, RajabiVasoukalaei G. The
Relationship Between Justice Perception of Performance Appraisal System
and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Among Nurses in Tehran
University of Medical Sciences Hospitals. Journal of School of Public
Health and Institute of Public Health Research. 2019 ;17(3):269-80.

22. Akbari O, Vagharseyyedin SA, Farajzadeh Z. The Relationship of
organizational justice with nurses' professional commitment. Mod Care J.
2015 Jan 1;12(1):31-38.

\textbf{Table 1. Justice Perception of Performance Appraisal, Thurston
Scale, modified by Walsh}

\textbf{Setting Performance Expectations}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}ll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
The PPR (Performance Planning and Review System) process requires that
performance expectations be set for me during a Planning Session at the
start of a rating period.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
The PPR process makes sure that my performance expectations measure what
I do for the organization.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
3\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
The expectations set during the Performance Planning Session reflect the
most important factors in my job.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
The PPR process allows me to help set the standards that my supervisor
will use to rate my performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My performance standards set in the A Planning Session can be changed if
what I do at work changes.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
6\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My performance standards set for me during the Planning Session will
remain the same until my rater and I change them\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Rater Confidence}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Rater Confidence}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My organization makes sure that I am assigned a rater who is qualified
to evaluate my work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
8\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My organization ensures that I am assigned a rater who knows what I am
supposed to be doing.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
9\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My organization makes sure that I am assigned a rater who understands
the requirements and difficulties of my work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
10\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My organization makes sure that my rater is familiar with the PPR rating
procedures and rating format.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
11\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My organization makes sure that I am assigned a rater that knows how to
evaluate my performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Seeking Appeals}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Seeking Appeals}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
12\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
I have ways to appeal a performance rating that I think is biased or
inaccurate.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
13\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
I know I can get a fair review of my performance rating if I request
one\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
14\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
I can challenge a performance rating if I think it is unfair.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
15\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
I am comfortable in communicating my feelings of disagreement about my
rating to my supervisor.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
16\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
A process to appeal a rating is available to me anytime I may need
it.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
17\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My performance rating can be changed if I can show that it is incorrect
or unfair.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Accuracy of Ratings}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Accuracy of Ratings}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
18\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.48\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My performance rating is based on how well I do my work. am responsible
for at work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
19\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My performance rating reflects how much work I do.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
20\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My performance rating is based on the many things I do that help at
work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
21\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My most recent performance rating is based on the effort I put into the
job.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
22\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
The most recent performance rating I received is based on the many
things I am responsible for at work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Concern over Ratings}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Concern over Ratings}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
23\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater gives me the rating that I earn even when it might upset
me.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
24\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rating is not the result of my rater trying to avoid bad feelings
among his or her employees.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
25\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
The rating I get is a result of my rater applying performance-rating
standards consistently across employees.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
26\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
The performance rating I get is not higher than one I should earn based
on my effort and contributions.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
27\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My performance appraisal is based on the quality and quantity of my work
and not my personality or position.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
28\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Supervisors give performance ratings that reflect, in part, their likes
or dislike of employees.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
29\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Supervisors give the same ratings to all their subordinates to avoid
resentment and rivalries among them.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Respect in Supervision}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Respect in Supervision}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
30\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater is rarely rude to me.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
31\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater is almost always polite.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
32\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater treats me with dignity.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
33\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater treats me with respect.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
34\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater is courteous to me.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Sensitivity in Supervision}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Sensitivity in Supervision}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
35\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater does not invade my privacy.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
36\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater does not make hurtful statements to me.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
37\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My supervisor is sensitive to my feelings.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
38\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My supervisor shows concern for my rights as an employee.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
39\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My supervisor treats me with kindness.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Clarifying Expectations and Standards}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Clarifying Expectations and Standards}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
40\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater clearly explains to me what he or she expects for my
performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
41\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater clearly explains to me the standards that will be used to
evaluate my work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
42\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater explains how I can improve my performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
43\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater gives me a chance to question how I should meet my performance
expectations.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
44\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater regularly explains to me what he or she expects of my
performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
45\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
As a result of the Performance Planning Session, I better understand my
supervisor's expectations of my performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Providing Feedback}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Providing Feedback}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
46\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater frequently lets me know how I am doing.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
47\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater reviews my performance expectations from the Performance a
Planning Session at least every three months in unofficial rating
sessions.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
48\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater routinely gives me information or help that I can use to
improve my performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
49\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater lets me know how I can improve my performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
50\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater routinely gives me feedback that is important to the things I
do at work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
51\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater reviews with me my progress towards my goals.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Explaining Rating Decisions}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Explaining Rating Decisions}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
52\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater gives me clear and real examples to justify his or her rating
of my work.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
53\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater helps me to understand the process used to evaluate and rate my
Performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
54\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater takes the time to explain decisions that concern me.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
55\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater lets me ask him or her questions about my performance
rating.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
56\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My rater helps me understand what I need to do to improve my
performance.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

