Independent Variables

Workload was measured based on role overload measurement that consists of a three-item scale from Beehr et al. (1976). The instrument was measured based on a five-point Likert scale anchored by ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Higher scores were associated with greater workload experienced by respondents. This instrument has been widely used in previous studies (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000; H. Lee, Song, Cho, Lee, & Daly, 2003; Sweeney & Summers, 2002).

5.5.2.2 Budget Attainability

The instrument was adopted from Otley and Pierce (1996b) study. Respondents were asked their perceptions and responses on the attainability of their budget in the last

78

year. The question was scored on a five-point Likert scale (‘1’ represents ‘impossible to achieve’ and ‘5’ represents ‘very easy to achieve’).

5.5.2.3 Budget Emphasis

Respondents were asked two direct questions about their perception of the importance of budget achievement in their overall performance evaluation. The instrument was adopted from Otley and Pierce (1996b). The instrument was measured based on a five-point Likert scale (‘1’ represents ‘not important’ and ‘5’ represents ‘very important’).

5.5.2.4 Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict

In this study, role ambiguity and role conflict were measured based on the instrument developed by Rizzo et al. (1970). The instrument consisted of 14 items, with 8 of the items relating to role conflict and 6 items relating to role ambiguity. 85% of stress studies have employed this instrument to investigate the impact of role stress (Fisher, 2001). The psychometric properties of both measures have been closely scrutinised in previous studies (House, Schuler, & Levanoni, 1983; Schuler, Aldag, & Brief, 1977) and the results indicate that “the Rizzo et al. (1970) role ambiguity and role conflict scales have been and are satisfactory measures of two role constructs” (Jackson & Schuler, 1985, p. 17). A recent study by C. S. Smith, Tisak and Schmieder (1993) also concluded that the psychometric properties of the scales were acceptable.

Role ambiguity was measured based on the items that reflect certainty about duties, authority, allocation of time and relationship with others; clarity or existence of guidelines, directives, policies; and the ability to predict sanctions as outcomes of behaviour.

79

On the other hand, role conflict items were developed based on role conflict components, which identified the conflict between the focal person’s values and the defined role behaviour; conflict between time, resources or capabilities of focal person and defined role behaviour; and conflicting expectations and organisational demands in the form of incompatible policies. This instrument used a five-point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

5.5.2.5 Leadership Consideration and Structure

Leadership consideration and structure were measured using the instrument adapted for an auditing setting by Pratt and Jiambalvo (1981) that was based on Stogdill’s (1963) Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The instrument was measured based on a five-point Likert scale (‘1’ represents ‘never’ and ‘5’ represents ‘always’). Otley and Pierce (1996b) reported the cronbach alpha of their study was .88 which indicated a high level of reliability. They further suggested that the instrument is applicable in an auditing setting. In addition to that, the LBDQ was used mainly because it has dominated previous studies which have measured leadership behaviour (Goodstein & Lanyon, 1999; Kao, Craven, & Kao, 2006; Lok & Crawford, 2001; Lok, Westwood, & Crawford, 2005).

5.5.2.6 Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP)

There are two dominant instruments used to assess the TABP: the Structured Interview (SI) and the Jenkin Activity Survey (JAS), a self-administered questionnaire (Blumenthal, et al., 1985). Structured Interview is the initial scale used to measure TABP (Edwards, Baglioni, & Cooper, 1990). However, it is time consuming to evaluate each respondent and takes approximately one hour to complete an interview, making it impractical for use in large scale survey research (Blumenthal, et al., 1985; Edwards, et al., 1990). It also requires rigorous training from its originator to ensure validity and reliability (Yarnold & Bryant, 1988) and has to be administered by specially-trained interviewers (Blumenthal, et al., 1985).

80

Because of that, various self-reported measures of TABP have been developed, such as the Jenkins Activity Survey, the Vickers scale, Blumenthal’s Type A Self-Rating Inventory Scale and the Ivancevich and Matteson Individual Behaviour Activity Profile. There is, however, lack of consensus among researchers in terms of which self-reported measure of the TABP is the most appropriate for use in organisational research (Fisher, 2001). Therefore, the validity of the TABP scale is established based on the association between the chosen self-reported measure and Structured Interview (Fisher, 2001; Yarnold & Bryant, 1994).

The Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS) is the most commonly used self-reported scale in TABP studies (Edwards, et al., 1990; Fisher, 2001; Gundry & Liyanarachchi, 2007; Yarnold & Bryant, 1988) and has items similar to those used in the Structured Interview (Edwards, et al., 1990; Fisher, 2001). However, the JAS has some major problems that limit its usefulness. Perhaps, the most obvious shortcoming of the JAS is its expense. It is costly to administer since it is licensed under the Psychological Corporation and has to be supervised by a registered psychologist (Gundry & Liyanarachchi, 2007); and it takes approximately one hour to complete (Blumenthal, et al., 1985). Although the licensed right can be obtained from the Psychological Corporation, the practicality issue arises if it is going to be used in large scale survey research.

On the other hand, the Blumenthal’s Type A Self-Rating Inventory (TASRI) Scale developed by Blumenthal et al. (1985) does not need to be administered by a registered psychologist. The TASRI has also been found to have a high correlation with both, the Structured Interview and JAS (Blumenthal, et al., 1985; Yarnold & Bryant, 1994). The TASRI uses Type A scores which consist of 38 personality characteristics (while the Vickers, and Ivancevich and Matteson Individual Behaviour Activity Profile consist of 9 and 21 characteristics respectively), thus increasing the chances of differentiating between Type A and Type B samples (Yarnold & Bryant, 1988). In addition, the TASRI’s personality traits assess the

81

responses and expressions of the individual, which is important in assessing the Type A characteristic and which will enhance the construct validity of the Type A measure (Yarnold & Bryant, 1988). Finally, TASRI requires only ten minutes to complete (Blumenthal, et al., 1985), and is thus appropriate for use with a large number of subjects compared to SI and JAS. Therefore, based on these arguments, this study employed the TASRI instrument. In TASRI, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of a number of characteristics was true for them. Individuals who score above the median level will be classified as Type A personality, whereas, those who score below the median level will be classified as Type B personality (Gundry & Liyanarachchi, 2007).