Individual accountability in organizations: Scale development and validation

Full text

17855
1
Individual Accountability in
Organizations: Scale
Development
Frink, D. D., Baur, J., Hall, A., & Buckley, M. R. (2018, July).
Individual accountability in organizations: Scale development
and validation. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol.
2018, No. 1, p. 17855). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of
Management.

17855
2
Individual Accountability in Organizations: Scale Development and Validation
Abstract
The present multi-study research investigation was designed to examine the conceptualization
and measurement of the accountability construct, and to provide scale development and
validation evidence for the Individual Accountability in Organizations Scale (IAOS). The results
of the studies are reported that demonstrate consistency of the factor structure across studies,
construct validity, and criterion-related validity of the IAOS. As hypothesized, a three-factor
structure emerged from factor analyses to reflect the multidimensional nature of the IAOS in
Study 1. In Study 2, the convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated for the IAOS by
showing that it was positively related to political skill, core self-evaluations, internal locus of
control, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion, as well as negatively related to trait
and state anxiety and negative affect. Implications of these findings and directions for future
research are provided.

17855
3
Individual Accountability in Organizations: Scale Development and Validation
Requiring people to account or answer for their behavior represents the essence of
accountability, and it forms the very foundation of organizations. Maximizing goal
accomplishment and organizational effectiveness through designing, shaping, and channeling
work behavior in organizationally-prescribed directions is what accountability systems are
supposed to do, and as such, they serve as organizational control mechanisms. Unfortunately, the
importance of accountability in organizations has surpassed our scientific understanding of these
phenomena, leaving the field in need of serious theory and research examining the very nature of
accountability in organizations (e.g., Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004; Frink, Hall, Perryman,
Ranft, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Royle, 2008).
Historically, scholars have differed in their perspectives on accountability in
organizations. Some have suggested that accountability is an objective phenomenon, so that all
individuals exposed to such accountability conditions will perceive and react to them in the same
manner. Others argued that accountability conditions can be interpreted quite differently across
individuals, subscribing to the Lewinian perspective that people operate on the basis of their
perceptions of reality, not necessarily reality per se (Lewin, 1936). Therefore, Tetlock (1985,
1992) and others have advocated a phenomenological approach to accountability, which
embraces the perceptual differences that can occur across individuals who are experiencing the
same ‘objective’ conditions’ (Carnevale, 1985).
Frink and Klimoski (1998, 2004) expanded upon accountability’s phenomenological
perspective by advancing an organizational accountability framework that considered internal
and external, objective and subjective, and formal and informal features of the phenomenon.
They argued that such a state-of-mind (i.e., subjective/interpretive), as opposed to merely state of

17855
4
affairs (i.e., more objective mechanisms) perspective should serve to meaningfully advance our
comprehension and understanding of accountability in organizations.
Some initial attempts have been made to measure individual accountability in
organizations, with the Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Ferris (2003) measure being the most
frequently employed scale (Hall, Frink, & Buckley, 2017). Although their scale was an initial
effort to develop a concise, unidimensional measure of individual (or, what they referred to as
‘felt accountability’) accountability in organizations, with sound psychometric properties, they
(and the field) called for the development of a more comprehensive attempt to fully explore the
potential multidimensional implications of individual accountability through a more extensive
investigation of its content domain (Hall et al., 2017).
The purpose of the present research is to report the results of two studies designed to
develop and validate a measure of individual accountability in organizations. Additionally, this
multi-study research investigation offers a more explicit delineation of the underlying
dimensions of accountability, confirmatory validation of the factor structure of the construct, and
strong evidence of both construct (i.e., convergent and discriminant) and criterion-related
validity.
ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW
Accountability in Organizations
The seminal work in accountability research has stemmed from a triumvirate of
approaches as put forth by Schlenker (e.g., Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty,
1994; Schlenker & Weigold, 1989), Tetlock (1985, 1992, 1999), and Frink and Klimoski (1998,
2004).

17855
5
The pyramid model of accountability proposed by Schlenker and colleagues suggested
that “responsibility is a necessary component of the process of holding people accountable for
their conduct” (Schlenker et al., 1994, p. 634). As such, they argued that an evaluative reckoning
based on responsibility lies at the heart of accountability (Schlenker & Weigold, 1989; Stryker,
1981). When required to provide justifications and explanations for their actions, under
accountability conditions, individuals tend to develop standards of conduct, they then evaluate
their performance against those standards, and expect others to dole out punishments and
rewards based on such judgments. Schlenker et al.’s (1994) pyramid model provides linkages
among specific circumstances (i.e., events), standards of conduct (i.e., prescriptions for such
events), and individuals’ roles and values (i.e., the identity of an actor in that event). Thus, when
an evaluative audience is added to this perspective, Schlenker et al.’s model of responsibility
becomes the pyramid model of accountability. Schlenker et al. highlighted the key accountability
dimensions of intensity, focus, and salience. These dimensions have also been suggested by Hall,
Bowen, Ferris, Royle, and Fitzgibbons (2007).
Tetlock’s (1985) model of social judgment and choice (originally called the “social
contingency model”) has stimulated considerable research across content domains, and it was
generated from Tetlock’s (1992) recognition that contextual effects had been neglected in
previous accountability models. Furthermore, Tetlock’s (1985) model implies that individuals
are motivated primarily to maintain and protect their identity and social image as viewed by
important others, which he suggested as reflecting an “intuitive politician” metaphor. Although
Tetlock does not directly address the underlying dimensions of accountability, he does imply
support for audience characteristics and process/outcome differences. Later Lerner and Tetlock
(1999) suggested that accountability was not a “unitary phenomenon” and that any accountability

17855
6
manipulation would include “submanipulations” that would include mere presence (Guerin,
1993), identifiability (Price, 1987), and evaluation (Geen, 1991) (p., 255).
Frink and Klimoski’s (1998, 2004) role theory perspective on accountability addresses
the conceptual overlap between accountability and roles constructs, suggesting that both
inherently possess behavioral expectations, underscore the outcomes of compliance, emphasize
interpersonal relationships, and connect individuals to particular tasks for evaluation (Cummings
& Anton, 1990). This theoretical perspective has generated considerable organizational science
research (Cropanzano, Chrobot-Mason, Rupp, & Prehar, 2004; Hochwarter, Perrewé, Hall,
Ferris, 2005).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
SCALE (IAOS)
In the sections below, we describe the development and validation of a new measure of
individual accountability in organizations.
Definition and construct domain specification of accountability
Characterizations of individual-level accountability presented in the literature generally
have included assessments of a pending evaluation and need to answer for decisions, behaviors,
actions, decisions, or outcomes by some individuals to others who possess some capability to
reward or sanction the focal individuals’ behavior (Lerner & Tetlock, 2003; Scholten, van
Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2007). Additionally, specific accountability conditions may
be either subjectively or objectively measured, as can be the reinforcements and/or punishments
(Pennington & Schlenker, 1999). Building upon previous theory and research in the field (e.g.,
Frink & Klimoski, 1998, 2004), we adopt the following definition of individual-level
accountability taken from Hall and Ferris (2011, p. 134) – “Accountability refers to an implicit

17855
7
or explicit expectation that one's decisions or actions will be subject to evaluation by some
salient audience(s) with the belief that there exists the potential for one to receive either rewards
or sanctions based on this expected evaluation.”
Felt Accountability versus Responsibility
From this definition, it would appear that accountability and responsibility represent
constructs that share almost complete conceptual overlap. In fact, definitions of each construct
report the other as a synonym (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1989). In terms of
substantive research, we warn against their interchangeable use because a number of distinctions
exist. Accountability denotes instrumentality and external controls whereas responsibility
typically represents morality and inner controls (Lindkvist & Llewellyn, 2003). In support,
accountability concerns arise from role specialization and task uniqueness (MacIntyre, 1967),
whereas responsibility more often crosses role and task considerations. Consequently, an
individual may be adhering to accountability requirements (i.e., increasing the effectiveness of
the unit) while simultaneously disregarding responsibility (i.e., acting ethically). Llewellyn
(1998) indicated that the extent of responsibility is more comprehensive, incorporates a concern
for a wider array of activities, and is linked closely with the exercise of discretion rather than
participation in discrete duties.
Existing measures of individual accountability
To date, the most prolific measure of accountability in the organizational literature has
been the scale developed by Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Ferris (2003) (Hall et al., 2017). This
measure consists of eight items on a seven-point response scale and includes the items: “I am
held very accountable for my actions at work,” “I often have to explain why I do certain things at
work,” “Top management holds me accountable for all of my decisions,” “If things at work do

17855
8
not go the way that they should, I will hear about it from top management,” “To a great extent,
the success of my immediate work group rests on my shoulders,” “The jobs of many people at
work depend on my success or failures,” “In the grand scheme of things, my efforts at work are
very important,” and “Co-workers, subordinates, and bosses closely scrutinize my efforts at
work.” Studies have repeatedly found this measure to be unidimensional (Hall et al., 2017, Hall
& Ferris, 2011). Although the measure has been used for many well-cited papers in top journals
(e.g., Hochwarter et al., 2007), the scale does not fully tap into the prevalent theoretical
conceptualizations of accountability, which include not only answerability, but the notion of
internal and external audiences, and formal and informal expectations (Frink & Klimoski, 2004;
Hall et al., 2017). Moreover, this measure has an item that is related to contact from top
management. While it is reasonable that some organizational members may receive feedback
directly (or indirectly) from top management, it may be unlikely that rank and file may have such
regular contact with these managers.
Need and rationale for a new measure and underlying dimensions
Careful examination of the accountability literature indicates several important aspects
that should be included in any representative measure of the individual accountability construct.
Indeed, we draw extensively from both Schlenker et al.’s (1994) theoretical work, as well as
previous theory and research by Hall, Bowen, Ferris, Royle, and Fitzgibbons (2007).
Hall et al. 2007 suggested that there are features of the accountability environment that
affect feelings of accountability, but which are not in themselves dimensions of felt
accountability. These features consist of accountability intensity (i.e., the extent to which one is
accountable for multiple outcome or things), accountability focus (i.e., the extent to which one is
accountable for either processes or outcomes), and accountability salience (i.e., the extent to

17855
9
which an individual is important for important outcomes or things),. To date, the proposed
relationships between and among these features of the accountability environment have not been
empirically tested.
Conceptual Foundations of Accountability Measurement
As discussed earlier, Schlenker and colleagues (1994) developed the Triangle Model of
Responsibility, which became a pyramid with the inclusion of an evaluative audience. Together,
the four elements of the actor, the event, the prescriptions for the event, and the evaluative
audience give us a starting point for measurable facets of an accountability episode. The
prescriptions for what might be expected in a given event suggest specific factors that might
influence perceptions of accountability because they serve as potential guidelines for the
evaluators to consider. It is important to note that the prescriptions may be subjective or
objective, and formal or informal. They also may vary in interpretation and application by
various audiences and focal individuals. Furthermore, these prescriptions may be established by
codified job descriptions or emergent as roles develop. Thus, the prescriptions may indeed vary
across individuals holding different positions of the same job in a given work group. Herein is
the key conceptual argument in favor of the phenomenological argument for accountability as
perceived by the focal individual as the critical influence in responding to accountability
conditions.
Some characteristics of event prescriptions may include things like the level of
complexity of the prescriptions, or how many different issues the prescriptions include. This is
referred to as intensity. Whether the prescriptions as understood by the focal individual
emphasize the processes engaged in a given episode versus the outcomes attributed to the focal

17855
10
individual is termed focus, and it delineates process from outcome accountabilities. Also, the
level of importance of the actor’s role and related prescriptions is referred to as salience.
This approach can inform how a scale is constructed by suggesting a number of
dimensions, as noted. In particular, we include intensity, focus of standards, and salience as
dimensions of the proposed scale. These also are referenced in previous works discussing
accountability dimensions (Hall et al., 2007).
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Assessment
Following the delineation of facets of a scale to assess perceptions of accountability,
evaluating how it differs from other constructs is the next objective. As a scale to measure
individual perceptions about how one understands and responds to contextual features, there are
a number of specific constructs that may be related, but should be distinct from accountability
perceptions. These constructs fall into two categories: reading and responding to social contexts,
and personality/cognitive ability.
Political skill (Ferris et al., 2007) is a construct related to self-monitoring in that it
concerns an individual’s capability for, and engagement in, reading and responding appropriately
to social dynamics in organization, in particular as regards the political domain. Because
accountability includes answering for oneself, it inherently is a political event. Indeed, Tetlock
(1985, 1992) introduced his social contingency model of judgment of choice as dependent on
one’s accountabilities as the driving determinant of one’s decisions and actions. The
foundational metaphor he proposed was the individual as an intuitive politician, as opposed to
previous social metaphors of the person as intuitive economists, and later as intuitive
psychologists.

17855
11
Similarly, core self-evaluation concerns beliefs about people’s self-identity, capabilities,
and capacity to control themselves and their environments. Because subfactors include locus of
control, emotional stability, self-efficacy, and self-esteem (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), a
moderately positive correlation is expected between core self-evaluations and perceptions of
accountability.
External versus internal locus of control indicates people’s beliefs about the level of
influence held regarding reinforcement of their behaviors. Considering the potential implications
of answerability and internal locus of control’s sense of managing external systems, a moderately
positive relation is expected between internal locus of control and accountability perceptions.
Personality factors affect our perceptions and reactions to our worlds. It seems likely that
they also affect how we perceive and respond to accountabilities (e.g., Frink & Ferris, 1999,
Yarnold, Mueser, & Lyons, 1988). Frink and Ferris found accountability and conscientiousness
interacted to affect performance on a complex task. Yarnold, Mueser, and Lyons found Type A
personality to interact with accountability conditions in work rates. Building from these
foundations, we expect conscientiousness and other Big Five factors to be related to
accountability perceptions, and therefore be useful for convergent and discriminant validity.
Conscientiousness is related to individual’s attentiveness to details and particularity in
responding to situations. We would therefore expect a moderately positive relation between
conscientiousness and accountability perceptions. Agreeableness indicates one’s propensity to
work toward a harmonious environment. As a social context variable related to interactions
among people, we expect a moderately positive relation between agreeableness and
accountability perceptions. Openness to experience suggests individuals are more receptive to
novel events in their lives. Accountability is intrinsically neither novel nor mundane, therefore

17855
12
no relation between openness to experience and accountability perceptions. Because emotional
stability relates to one’s tendencies regarding internal states, there should be no relation between
emotional stability and perceptions of accountability. Finally, extraversion concerns one’s
engagement with environmental circumstances, therefore a moderately positive relation between
accountability perceptions and extraversion is expected.
Anxiety levels have been shown to be related to perceptions of accountability (Hall et al.,
2006). We might also expect that there may be a causal linkage between them, perhaps both
ways. Accountability can increase stress (Perrewe et al., 2004), but we do not know if stress can
increase perceptions of accountability. In either case, the relations are sufficient to warrant
including anxiety in convergent and discriminant analyses. There also are other dispositional
factors that we might expect to be correlated with perceptions of accountability.
Positive and negative affect (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen; 1988) is a construct
that involves one’s general state of mind in terms of predisposed toward positive or negative
moods. Such a state of mind may influence one’s perceptions of the nature of the social
environment, including accountability.
Hypothesis 1: The measure of individual-level accountability is a multidimensional
construct, which consists of three underlying dimensions – intensity, focus, and salience –
which emerge from an exploratory factor analysis as modestly correlated, yet distinctive,
dimensions.
Hypothesis 2: The measure of individual-level accountability will demonstrate moderately
positive correlations with political skill, core self-evaluations, internal locus of control,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion and negative correlations with trait and
state anxiety and negative affect.

17855
13
Plan of Research
The present research investigation involves two studies designed to develop, and
establish the psychometric properties of, Individual Accountability in Organizations Scale
(IAOS). Study 1 focuses on creating the IAOS, assessing its dimensionality. Study 2 seeks to
confirm and replicate the factor structure of the IAOS, and provide evidence of its convergent
and discriminant validity.
Study 1
Participants and Procedure
In order to pursue high internal validity via a broad sample, students in undergraduate
management classes at a mid-sized Southern university, and in graduate courses at a large
Midwestern university were asked to solicit three individuals each to complete online surveys for
course credit. Alternative assignments were offered in lieu of this assignment, but no students
requested the alternative assignment. Survey respondents were required to be working adults, at
least 21 years of age with at least three years full time work experience. Because less than half of
the students came from the two states housing the universities, the sample was a national one
with respondents from across the breadth of the United States and included international
representatives as well. The strongest representation was from the southeastern and midwestern
US.
Sixty-six undergraduate and 23 graduate students participated, resulting in 242 surveys
submitted. The average age of respondents was 42 years (s.d. = 13.56), average years of work
experience was 20 (s.d. = 12.89), and years with current employer was 11 (s.d. = 12.04). The
sample was 57% female. Sixty-five percent had at least an undergraduate college degree, and 6%
had high school diploma or less. Regarding industry representation, 8.6% were in manufacturing,

17855
14
17% in service, 3.4% in construction, 16.8% in education, 10.8% in financial services, 7.3% in
marketing, 7.8% in public sector, and 28% in other industries. Regarding race, 79% reported
being white, 10.8% black/African American, and 5.6% Asian, with the balance reporting “Other”
or not responding. Regarding the respondents’ level in the organization, 13.4% were
professionals, 10.4% were top-level, 20% were upper level, 36% were mid-level, 16.5% were
non-supervisory staff, and 3.5% were entry level employees. Respondents in the sample
supervised an average of 14 people (s.d. = 20.39, range = 0-100, median = 7).
Items in the surveys were drawn from several sources. Using the theoretical framework
above (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Schlenker et al., 1994) items were selected to represent the
expected dimensionality. Sources of items included Hochwarter, Kacmar, and Ferris (2003) and
Frink and Ferris (1998). Other items were drafted by the authors and solicited from subject
matter experts. Further perspectives for specific items were drawn from Dubnick’s (2011)
discussion of “accountability space” and a culture of accountability. Items were reviewed by at
least two authors before including in the surveys. Scales by Mero, Guidice, and Werner (2014)
(which focused on practices) and Rosenblatt and Shimoni (2001) (which focused on dispositions)
were included to provide initial information toward construct validity.
The underlying issue is the capture of perceptions of requirements for answerability
within a given context, including the events, prescriptions, and audiences relevant to an
accountability episode. Therefore, items address individuals’ perceptions about intensity, focus,
and salience of accountability requirements. The final items are provided in Table 1.
------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------
Results

17855
15
In order to examine the hypothesized three-dimension measure for the IAOS scale, we
conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the 13-items that were developed for the scale.
Because we hypothesized that there will be some correlation between the three dimensions, we
conducted the EFA using principal axis factor analysis with oblique factor rotation (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2009) in order to allow for such correlations to emerge. To determine the
appropriate number of factors to retain, Kaiser’s criterion (Kaiser, 1960) was examined and
further substantiated upon inspection of the scree plot (Cattell, 1966). A three-factor solution
emerged which explained 56.68% of the variance. Further, all items loaded onto their intended
factor greater than the .5 cutoff (Kaiser, 1974). The results were in the good to great ratings
(Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999) of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
(KMO) (Kaiser, 1970). Finally, the results were significant (p<.001) in Bartlett’s test of
spherecity. Taken together then, we found initial support for the creation of the scale with the 13
items loading onto the three subdimensions (intensity, focus, and salience), as hypothesized. The
reliability estimates for the overall scale (α = .86) as well as the individual dimensions of
intensity (α = .81), focus (α = .84), and salience (α = .87) were found to be appropriate and
greater than the traditional .7 cutoff (Nunnally, 1978).
To provide a visual demonstration of the results and to assess the significance of the
pathways and fit of the model, we then ran a confirmatory factor analysis. All pathways were
shown to be significant (p < .001) and the model fit the data well (χ²/df = 1.49, RMSEA = .05,
CFI = .98, TLI = .97, SRMR = .06) even when abiding by the more rigorous recommended
cutoffs by suggested by methodologists (Bagozzi, 2010; Bagozzi & Yi, 2012; Hu & Bentler,
1998, 1999). As such, we found support for Hypothesis 1 such that a correlated three-dimension

17855
16
measure emerged for the IAOS scale. A visual depiction of the results are shown in Figure 1 and
the correlations among the dimensions are provided in Table 2.
----------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 and Table 2 about here
----------------------------------------------
Discussion
The results of the first study provide support for the first hypothesis and the development
of the Individual Accountability in Organizations Scale. In doing so, we find the workplace
accountability is a multidimensional construct, as has been posited by prior scholars (e.g., Hall et al.,
2007; Schlenker et al., 1994). Specifically, workplace accountability appears to be comprised of the
dimensions of intensity, focus, and salience. Yet these results are only preliminary findings and thus
require a second study in order to confirm the appropriateness of the items and dimensions via replication
as well as an examination of the correlational relationships of related and unrelated variables to examine
the convergent and discriminant validity. Taken together, these extensions seek to test the second
hypothesis, and are explored in the second study.
Study 2
Participants and Procedure
As in Study 1, it is beneficial for a wide representation of employees in a sample for scale
development. Thus, similar to Study 1, a snowball method of sampling was used. Students in
undergraduate management classes at a mid-sized southeastern university, undergraduate
management courses in a mid-sized Southwestern university, and in graduate courses at a large
Midwestern university were asked to solicit three individuals each to complete online surveys for
course credit. Alternative assignments were offered in lieu of this assignment, but no students
requested the alternative assignment. Survey respondents were required to be working adults, at
least 21 years of age with at least three years full time work experience. Because less than half of

17855
17
the students came from the two states housing the universities, the sample was a national one
with respondents from across the breadth of the United States and included international
representatives as well. The strongest representation was from the Southeastern and Midwestern
US.
Because of the number of items needed for a comprehensive assessment of convergent
and discriminant validity, three separate surveys were used. All three contained the perceptions
of accountability scale and, with other scales distributed across the three.
One hundred seventy-six undergraduate and 2 graduate students participated, resulting in
387 surveys submitted. The average age of respondents was 40 years (s.d. = 14.92), average
years of work experience was 17.5 (s.d. = 13.12), and years with current employer was 10 (s.d. =
10.54). The sample was 46% female. Seventy-six percent had at least an undergraduate college
degree, and 6.3% had high school diploma or less. Regarding industry representation, 6% were
in manufacturing, 16.3% in service, 3.1% in construction, 9.4% in education, 10.2% in financial
services, 6.8% in marketing, 8.1% in public sector, and 40% in other industries. Regarding race,
52% reported being white, 33.8% black/African American, and 5.6% Asian, with the balance
reporting other affiliations or not responding. Regarding the respondents’ level in the
organization, 19% were professionals, 15.9% were top-level, 15.7% were upper level, 22.6%
were mid-level, 12.8% were non-supervisory staff, and 9.9% were entry level employees.
The scales in the three surveys differed, with all three including the 13-item IAOS scale.
The first survey (N = 143) included the 18-item Political Skill Inventory (Ferris et al., 1998),
Rosenblatt and Shimoni’s accountability dispositions scales (2001), and the 60-item NEO PI-R
Form S to assess the Big Five personality factors (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The second survey (N
= 120) core self-evaluations (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997) accompanied the 13 item

17855
18
accountability scale. The third survey (N = 124) included Rotter’s (1966) locus of control scale,
the State-Trait Anxiety Scale (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), and the
PANAS affectivity scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
Results
In seeking to replicate the factor structure from the first study, we conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis to examine whether the items would load the same in the second
sample. We found that the 13 items again loaded onto the three dimensions (intensity, focus, and
salience) as expected all of which with significant pathways (p < .001) and the overall model
once again fit the data well (χ²/df = 2.10, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, SRMR = .05). As
shown in Figure 2, the supported from the second study mirrors that of the prior study. Further,
the reliability estimates for the full 13-item scale (α = .86) as well as the dimensions of intensity
(α = .78), focus (α = .81), and salience (α = .76) suggested the appropriateness of the considering
the items as representative of an overall latent construct. Descriptive statistics and correlations
among the dimensions are provided in Table 3.
----------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 and Table 3 about here
----------------------------------------------
After confirming the replicability of the scale, we then sought to examine the
relationships between the IAOS measure with variables that are expected to be related yet
distinct. A complete correlation matrix along with descriptive statistics is provided in Table 4.
Importantly, we found that the IAOS measure is positively and significantly correlated with prior
accountability scales by Mero et al. (2014) (.52, p < .01) who measured applied accountability
and Rosenblatt (2017) who developed separate scales for work performance accountability (.39,
p < .01) and dispositional accountability (.65, p < .01). Additionally, we found the measure to be
positively correlated with political skill (.52, p < .01) and core self-evaluation (.46, p < .01) as

17855
19
well as employee conscientiousness (.43, p < .01), agreeableness (.23, p < .01), and extraversion
(.19, p = .02). Finally, we find the measure to be negatively related to both trait (-.51, p < .01) as
well as state (-.41, p < .01) anxiety as well as negative affect (-.44, p < .01). Taken together,
these correlations provide support for Hypothesis 2.
------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
------------------------------
Discussion
The results of the second study provide additional credibility to those of the first study by
replicating the same three-dimension model of workplace accountability in the IAOS measure.
Additionally, the pattern of correlations offer validity for the new measure in being related to yet
distinct from variables that have been suggested to be related to workplace accountability.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Theory and research in accountability in organizations has been gaining momentum since
the mid 1970’s when Klimoski and colleagues began investigating effects in decision,
negotiation, and evaluation contexts (Haccoun & Klimoski, 1975; Klimoski, 1972; Klimoski &
Ash, 1974; Klimoski & Inks, 1990). A decade later, Tetlock (1985) offered a solid conceptual
foundation for further developing our understanding of accountability in organizations, and
Schlenker and colleagues (Schlenker & Weigold, 1989; Schlenker, Weigold, & Doherty, 1991)
cast accountability in terms of self-identity and social context. These efforts spawned a
burgeoning body of literature on the topic, with a recent study noting over 200 studies on
accountability in organizations, most of which have been published in the past 15 years (Frink,
Hall, Guzman, & Wikhamn, 2014).
The vast majority of empirical accountability studies is experimental, with conditions of
accountability being manipulated. While the stream of experimental research has made

17855
20
substantial contributions to our understanding of the phenomenon, two important factors indicate
the importance of a validated measure of perceptions of accountability conditions. First,
accountability primarily occurs in organizational contexts, and generalizability to those contexts
is critically important for the body of research. Second, accountability is a social psychological
phenomenon. From that perspective we know that attitudes, behaviors, cognitions, and decisions
are driven by the perceptions people hold, therefore it is important to understand the nature of
those perceptions and how they affect individuals. In the small proportion of accountability
research that has measured perceptions, the measures have not been entirely satisfactory because
there has been no systematic effort to develop and validate a measure informed by contemporary
theory and research. Thus, while there are useful findings from studies where accountability was
measured, they are focused on broad main or moderated effects, and are somewhat course in the
information gained from them.
The current research is intended to address this shortfall by developing and validating a
measure of accountability perceptions based on theory and research, and further beginning to
assess its psychometric properties. The increased attention that workplace accountability has
received in the last several years has led to the construct being further developed and evolved
over time while its measurement has not kept up with this progress. In order to continue to
advance insight, there is a need for both the conceptualization as well as the measurement to
experience a similar evolution. In this way, while researchers have suggested a multi-faceted
conceptualization (e.g., Hall et al., 2007; Schlenker et al., 1994), to date a measure reflecting this
advancement has not been available.
The plan of research was to build a scale from contemporary theory and research, assess
the internal validity of the scale and its subfactors, and then assess construct validity using

17855
21
related social psychological and dispositional constructs using convergent and discriminant
analyses. The authors followed an iterative process for developing the scale items in order to
develop the new Individual Accountability in Organizations Scale (IAOS).
The conceptual basis was drawn from the pyramid model of accountability (Schlenker et
al., 1994) because it offers specific elements germane to accountability episodes, including the
focal person, the event, the prescriptions for the event, and the audience. These elements each
hold potential for a spectrum of influencing variables, and thereby offer a valuable model to
inform scale development. Based on research, a scale was developed that includes items
capturing the intensity, focus, and salience of accountability demands.
Authors reviewed prior research using measures of accountability perceptions for items
that may be adapted for use in the current scale. They then independently compiled items, and
submitted them to co-authors for review. The scale items used in the first survey were agreed on
by the authors after collaborating together.
In Study 1, the dimensionality was examined, and support was found for the
hypothesized three-factor structure. In Study 2, we replicated the factorial structure of the IAOS,
and established evidence in support of its convergent and discriminant validity, finding moderate
correlations with other social context and with specific dispositional constructs that were
hypothesized to relate to accountability perceptions.
Contributions to Theory and Research
An underlying three-factor dimensionality of the IAOS was established in Study 1 and
confirmed in Study 2, with acceptable fit statistics. The correlations among the dimensions of
accountability were expected to be significant, but only modest in magnitude, and that was found
to be the case. Study 2 focused on establishing the construct validity (i.e., convergent and

17855
22
discriminant validity) of the IAOS, and the results of this study provided strong support.
Accountability was found to be positively correlated with political skill, core self-evaluations,
internal locus of control, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness, but only to a degree
that would be construed as modest in magnitude. Additionally, accountability was found to be
significantly and negatively related to trait and state anxiety as well as negative affect.
Strengths and Limitations
These studies benefit from a national sample drawn from numerous employers in several
industries. The student-recruited sample approach has weaknesses, but offers a broad-based
sample that supports generalizability (Hochwarter, 2014). They also benefit from having a solid
theoretical and empirical literature to inform modelling and writing items for expected factors.
Findings are limited by a moderate number of samples and moderate sample sizes. While
sufficient for initial validation research, a substantially larger total sample is needed.
Furthermore, the student-recruited method has been criticized because the sample characteristics
may be influenced by the characteristics of the recruiting sample and the samples are not
randomly selected. Expanding the samples in future research can address these issues, however,
it seems likely that because the samples in the studies are from across the United States a broad
range of subject participated in this research.
Directions for Future Research
Future research is needed to examine the predictive validity of the IAOS. Internal and
construct validity are useful to the extent that the scale also has predictive usefulness. Therefore,
while we have begun to extend the nomological network of workplace accountability, additional
work is needed. This includes further fine-tuning the psychometric properties of the IAOS scale
as well as articulating its relevance to other social and organizational phenomena.

17855
23
Accountability research has yet to consider selection and placement possibilities, as well
as other human resources functions, for people who may be more sensitive or aware of
accountability conditions, nor has research developed a model of optimal levels or
implementations of accountability. Research can articulate the extent to which there may be
correlations among accountability perceptions and organizational outcomes. The IAOS may help
in such endeavors.
Practical Implications
The IAOS may be useful in finding relations between individual dispositions and means
of enacting accountability in organizations. Differences in such variables as conscientiousness or
agreeableness, for example, may indicate different modes of structuring accountabilities.
Furthermore, at an organizational level, the IAOS may help managers find which mechanisms
for accountability may be useful in various industries or types of work.
Conclusion
Research was conducted to develop and test the Individual Accountability in
Organizations Scale (IAOS). Contemporary theory and research informed development of the
scale. Internal validity was evaluated, and the scale and subscales were found to demonstrate
acceptable internal consistency levels. In addition, construct validity was assessed with
convergent and discriminate studies, and supported with moderate correlations with related
constructs. As a result, we believe that this scale will help to extend understanding of workplace
accountability by offering fecund new opportunities with a new measure that is more in line with
the current theoretical advancements of the field.

17855
24
References
Bagozzi, R. P. (2010). Structural equation models are modelling tools with many ambiguities:
Comments acknowledging the need for caution and humility in their use. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20, 208-214.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 8-34.
Carnevale, P. (1985). Accountability of group representatives and intergroup relations. In E.J.
Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 227-248). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
1, 245-276.
Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc., Odessa, FL.
Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D., & Prehar, C. (2004). Accountability for
corporate injustice. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 107-133.
Crowne, D. P. and Marlowe, D. (1960). A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of
Psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Cummings, L.L., & Anton, R.J. (1990). The logical and appreciative dimensions of
accountability. In S. Srivastva, D. Cooperrider and Associates (Eds.), Appreciative
management and leadership (pp. 257-286). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the
mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review, 28, 376-417.

17855
25
Dubnick, M. (2011). Move over Daniel! We need some “accountability space.” Administration
& Society, 704-716.
Ferris, G., Treadway, D., Perrewé, P., Brouer, R., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in
organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290-320.
Frink, D.D., & Ferris, G.R. (1998). Accountability, impression-management, and goal setting in
the performance evaluation process. Human Relations, 51, 1259-1283.
Frink, D.D., & Ferris, G.R. (1999). The moderating effects of accountability on the
conscientiousness - performance relationship. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13,
515-524.
Frink, D.D., Hall, A.T., Perryman, A.A., Ranft, A.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., & Royle,
M.T. (2008). A meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In J.J. Martocchio
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 27, pp. 177-245).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Frink, D., Hall, A.T., Guzman, J., & Wikhamn, W. (2014). Taking account of accountability: A
meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Philadelphia, PA.
Frink, D.D., & Klimoski, R.J. (2004). Advancing accountability theory and practice:
Introduction to the special edition. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 1-17.
Geen, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 377-399.
Guerin, B. (1993). Social facilitation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haccoun, R. and R. Klimoski (1975) Negotiator status and accountability source: a study of
negotiator behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 342-359.

17855
26
Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hall, A.T., Bowen, M.G., Ferris, G.R., Royle, M.T., & Fitzgibbons, D.E. (2007). The
accountability lens: A new way to view management issues. Business Horizons, 50, 405-
413.
Hall, A.T., & Ferris, G.R. (2011). Accountability and extra-role behavior in organizations.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23, 131-144.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and
synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38, 204-224.
Hall, A.T., Royle, M.T., Brymer, R.A., Perrewé, P.L., Ferris, G.R., & Hochwarter, W. (2006).
Relationship between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The
neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11, 87-99.
Hochwarter, W. (2014). On the merits of student-recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the
making. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 27-33.
Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., Gavin, M., Perrewé, P., Hall, A., & Frink, D. (2007). Political skill
as a moderator of the felt accountability - job performance relationship: Longitudinal
convergence of mediated moderation results. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 102, 226-239.
Hochwarter, W.A., Kacmar, C., & Ferris, G.R. (2003). Accountability at work: An examination
of antecedents and consequences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

17855
27
Hochwarter, W., Perrewé, P., Hall, A.T., & Ferris, G.R. (2005). Negative affectivity as a
moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and
job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 517-534.
Hu, L, & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indexes in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
Judge, T. A.; Locke, E. A.; Durham, C. C. (1997). "The dispositional causes of job satisfaction:
A core evaluations approach". In Cummings, L.L., Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 151-188). Greenwich, C.T: JAI Press.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Klimoski, R. J. (1972). The effects of intragroup forces on intergroup conflict
resolution. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 363-383.
Klimoski, R. J., & Ash, R. A. (1974). Accountability and negotiator behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 409-425.
Klimoski, R., & Inks, L. (1990). Accountability forces in performance appraisal. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 194-208.
Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 255-275.

17855
28
Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). The impact of accountability on cognitive bias: Bridging
individual, interpersonal, and institutional approaches to judgment and choice. In S.
Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision making
(pp. 431-457). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Llewellyn, S. (1998). Pushing budgets down the line: Ascribing financial responsibility in UK
social services. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, 11, 292-308.
Lindkvist, L., & Llewellyn, S. (2003). Accountability, responsibility, organization. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 19, 251-273.
MacDonald, A.P. Jr. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: reliability and validity.
Psychological Reports, 26, 791-798.
MacIntyre, A. 1967. A short history of ethics. London: Routledge.
Mero, N.M., Guidice, R.M., & Werner, S. (2014). A field study of the antecedents and
performance consequences of perceived accountability. Journal of Management, 40,
1627-1652.
Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometrtc Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pennington, J., & Schlenker, B. (1999). Accountability for consequential decisions: Justifying
ethical judgments to audiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1067-
1081.
Perrewé, P.L., Zellars, K.L., Ferris, G.R., Rossi, A.M., & Ralston, D.A. (2004). Neutralizing job
stressors: Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict
stressors. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 141-152.

17855
29
Price, K. H. (1987). Decision responsibility, task responsibility, identifiability, and social
loafing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(3), 330-345.
Rosenblatt, Z. (2017). Personal accountability in education: Measure development and
validation. Journal of Educational Administration, 55, 18-32.
Rosenblatt, Z, & Shimoni, O. (2001). Teacher Accountability: An Experimental Field Study.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15, 309-328.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). "Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement". Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80, 1–28.
Schlenker, B.R., Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle
model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632-652.
Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In R.A.
Giacolone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 21-
43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schlenker, B. R, Weigold, M. F., & Doherty, K. (1991). Coping with accountability: Self-
identification and evaluative reckonings. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.),
Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 96-115). New York: Free Press.
Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B., & De Dreu, D. (2007). Motivated information
processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information
processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539-
552.
Smith,'P.C.,'Kendall,'L.M.,'&'Hulin,'C.L.'(1969).'The$measurement$of$satisfaction$in$work$and$
retirement.'Chicago:'Rand-McNally.

17855
30
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P.R., & Jacobs, G.A. (1983). Manual for
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press, Inc.
Stryker, S. (1981). Symbolic interactionism: Themes and variations. In M. Rosenberg &
R. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 3-29). New York: Basic Books.
Tetlock, P.E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297-332.
Tetlock, P.E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice. Toward a social
contingency model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.
331-377). New York: Academic Press.
Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accountability theory: Mixing properties of human agents with properties
of social systems. In L.L. Thompson, J.M. Levine, & D.M. Messick (Eds.), Shared
cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge, (pp. 117-138). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures
of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wood, J.A., & Winston, B. (2007). Development of three scales to measure leader
accountability. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 167-85.
Yarnold, P.R., Mueser, K.T., & Lyons J.S. (1988). Type A behavior, accountability, and work
rate in small groups. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 353-360.

17855
31
Table 1 - Individual Accountability in Organizations Scale (IAOS) Dimensions and Items
Intensity
1. I find myself accountable to a variety of different people.
2. The scope of things for which I may have to answer is very broad.
3. The scope of people to whom I may have to answer is very broad.
4. I find myself accountable to many different people for many different things.
Focus
1. I feel accountable at work for the results or outcomes of my job.
2. I feel accountable at work for producing a certain quality of work.
3. I feel accountable at work for the specific actions or behaviors demonstrate that lead to my job
results or outcomes.
4. I feel accountable for demonstrating ethical behavior at work.
5. I feel accountable at work for reflecting the proper values my organization embraces.
Salience
1. I am accountable for some really important programs and projects at work
2. I deal with, and am accountable for, critical issues and projects that contribute strongly to the
effectiveness of my work unit.
3. The work I do, and am accountable for, is central to the overall effectiveness my organization.
4. I am accountable for some of the most important work we do in my organization.

17855
32
Table 2 - Correlations Among Accountability Dimensions (Study 1)
Variables
M
SD
1
2
3
1. Intensity
3.76
.75
(.81)
2. Focus
4.43
.51
.35**
(.84)
3. Salience
4.00
.80
.34**
.62**
(.87)
Note. N = 224.
Reliability coefficients are presented on the diagonal.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

17855
33
Table 3 - Correlations Among Accountability Dimensions (Study 2)
Variables
M
SD
1
2
3
1. Intensity
1.88
.75
(.78)
2. Focus
1.36
.52
.52**
(.81)
3. Salience
1.68
.68
.67**
.82**
(.76)
Note. N = 383.
Reliability coefficients are presented on the diagonal.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

17855
34
Table 4 - Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (Study 2)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. IAOS 0.00 0.41 (.86)
2. Work Accountability 2.31 0.65 .39** [139] (.67)
3. Dispositional Accountability 1.47 0.52 .65** [139] .23** [139] (.86)
4. Applied Accountability 2.32 0.49 .52** [124] N/A N/A (.81)
5. Political Skill 2.00 0.63 .52** [140] .41** [139] .42** [139] N/A (.89)
6. Core Self-evaluations 2.09 0.63 .46** [119] N/A N/A N/A N/A (.85)
7. Internal Locus of Control 1.55 0.15 -.27** [124] N/A N/A -.47** [124] N/A N/A (.70)
8. Extraversion 2.40 0.50 .19* [139] 0.14 [139] .25** [139] N/A .44** [139] N/A N/A (.69)
9. Agreeableness 2.45 0.59 .23** [139] -.03 [139] .30** [139] N/A .23** [139] N/A N/A .54** [139] (.77)
10. Conscientiousness 1.98 0.62 .43** [139] .14 [139] .51** [139] N/A .42** [139] N/A N/A .37** [139] .45** [139] (.85)
11. Trait Anxiety 2.98 0.50 -.51** [124] N/A N/A -.46** [124] N/A N/A .42** [124] N/A N/A N/A (.90)
12. State Anxiety 3.05 0.53 -.41** [124] N/A N/A -.43** [124] N/A N/A .40** [124] N/A N/A N/A .86** [124] (.93)
13. Negative Affect 3.82 0.60 -.44** [124] N/A N/A -.54** [124] N/A N/A .50** [124] N/A N/A N/A .81** [124] .83** [124] (.90)
Reliability coefficients are presented on the diagonal.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N/A = correlations can not be computed because the measures were collected from different surveys.
Number in brackets [ ] denotes the number of observations.

17855
35
Figure 1
Factor Loadings (Study 1)
Intensity
1
Intensity1
4.7
ε1.63
Intensity2
4.2
ε2.66
Intensity3
3.5
ε3.33
Intensity4
3.8
ε4.27
Focus
1
Focus1
7.3
ε5.3
Focus2
6.5
ε6.42
Focus3
6.7
ε7.61
Focus4
6.9
ε8.58
Focus5
6.8
ε9.57
Salience
1
Salience1
4.1
ε10 .37
Salience2
4.6
ε11 .17
Salience3
4.1
ε12 .41
Salience4
4.3
ε13 .54
.61
.58
.82
.86
.31
.84
.76
.63
.65
.66
.3
.55
.79
.91
.77
.68

17855
36
Figure 2
Factor Loadings (Study 2)
Intensity
1
Intensity1
1.8
ε1.62
Intensity2
2
ε2.61
Intensity3
2
ε3.48
Intensity4
2
ε4.34
Focus
1
Focus1
2.1
ε5.49
Focus2
1.9
ε6.47
Focus3
2.2
ε7.58
Focus4
2
ε8.53
Focus5
1.8
ε9.65
Salience
1
Salience1
1.9
ε10 .56
Salience2
1.9
ε11 .49
Salience3
1.9
ε12 .64
Salience4
1.9
ε13 .66
.61
.62
.72
.81
.44
.71
.73
.65
.69
.59
.57
.71
.67
.71
.6
.58