This paper reports the results of determining the psychometric properties of the translated and contextualized tool for measuring organization commitment using three dimensions as intended by Meyer & Allen (1997). The study aimed to examine organizational commitment in a secondary school in Kazakhstan in line with the extant practices described in the literature. The three-dimensional instrument of Allen and Meyer contains three subscales: affective-, continuance- and normative commitments. The scale was a popular choice, as demonstrated by its extensive use in the literature.

The measurement of organizational commitment using the tool by Allen and Meyer has been confined to the English language only. Consequently, the former colonies of Russia have not benefitted from using this instrument in their contextual reality. It is unclear whether the tool that Meyer & Allen (1997) developed could be applied with or without modification. It is noteworthy that translating expressions from one language to another causes the loss of information or introduces unexpected artifacts due to differences in the connotations and nuances of words.

Organizational commitment was studied and documented extensively (Bayram, 2005; Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Ingersoll, 2001; Jaros et al., 2017; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Riehl & Sipple, 1996; Roxenhall & Andrésen, 2012; Saldamlı, 2009; Thomsen et al., 2016; Tsui & Cheng, 1999; Wheelock, 2005; Yusof, 2012; Zangaro, 2001). The Three Component Model (TCM) of Commitment by Meyer & Allen (1997) stands out of all the proposed models. 

Meyer & Allen (1997) posited three commitment components, including affective organizational commitment. First, it concerns the emotional attachment of employees to an organization and their identification with and involvement in it (p.1). Second, it involves continuance commitment associated with the costs employees imagine they shall incur upon leaving the organization (p.1). Finally, according to Meyer & Allen (1997), organizational commitment concerns normative commitment, the feelings of obligation in employees to remain with the organization for how good the organization has been to them (p.1).

Concerning normative commitment, (Perryer et al., 2010) explained that an employee might no longer feel emotionally attached to their employer but voluntarily stay on the staff to pay back whatever their employer invested in them. Such investment includes training on short and long courses, organizational support during a personal challenge and having enjoyed the higher rewards of a promotion. 

In their book (Meyer & Allen, 1997), affective and normative commitments were correlated while affective and continuance commitments were independent. Furthermore, affective commitment was strongly correlated to organizational commitment (Mowday et al., 1979). These co-dependencies imply that affective commitment and organizational commitment can be equivalent constructs.

Affective commitment appears to dominate the other components of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). It is associated with a strong prediction of employee performance than normative- and continuance commitment (Cichy et al., 2009; Shaw et al., 2003). According to Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran (2005), Luchak & Gellatly (2007), and Wasti (2005), affective organizational commitment strongly predicts employee turnover intentions, job-related stress and slackness in carrying out duties.

This study  has made a comprehensive inventory of the organizational commitment of teachers at the study school using a translated and contextualized version of the instrument by Meyer & Allen (1997). The modified tools will support the objective study of organizational commitment, especially in schools. It provides a springboard for formulating and undertaking confirmatory studies in organizational commitment, especially in the former Soviet Union states where the Russian language is used copiously, where Kazakh is applied. This study has contributed to the body of knowledge concerning organizational commitment by testing the organizational commitment subscales of the three-component model of organizational commitment  for the first time in Kazakhstan. This achievement opens the way for other researchers to apply the instrument beneficially. 

It was necessary to explore the applicability of translated contextualized subscales for use in a school in Kazakhstan, keeping in mind the validity, reliability and psychometric properties of the scale. The Meyer & Allen (1997) organizational commitment questionnaire items were scrutinized to identify and replace difficult, potentially confusing words. Given the possibility that the English language skills of some of the respondents were wanting, data collection instruments were translated into Kazakh and Russian with the help of professional translators. A different set of translators supported the translation back into English from local languages to aid comparison with the original and eliminate the infusion of unintended meanings during the first translation phase that could have compromised construct validity (Xu, 2013, pp. 54–55). Paper versions of the instrument were completed by 132 respondents and gathered over one week. The data were entered into Microsoft Excel, where a flat-file was generated, cleaned and ported to the SPSS version 24 application for descriptive-, factor-, and reliability analysis.

In line with standard research practice, the reliability of the subscales used in the instrument was tested. The Cronbach’s alpha for continuance organizational commitment, affective organizational commitment and normative organizational commitment were 0.658, 0.615 and 0.638, respectively. The subscales have moderate reliability according to (Hinton et al., 2014, p. 359) Hinton, McMurray, & Brownlow (2014: p.359). Further reliability analysis by the language of the questionnaire revealed the following. First, the questionnaire in English had moderate reliability for all subscales. According to table 2, the reliability of the organizational commitment subscales was reduced by national respondents who completed the questionnaire in English. This phenomenon is evident since the same questionnaires were completed by foreign teachers who are all proficient English language speakers. Consequently, there was respondent bias, possibly in the robotic completion of the questionnaire without reference to the questions. Second, the questionnaire in Russian had one subscale with excellent reliability, three scales with high reliability and one subscale with moderate reliability. The affective organizational commitment subscale had moderate reliability, most likely because of having four reversed items in it which could have confounded all respondents somewhat. Third, the questionnaire in Kazakh had one subscale with high reliability and four subscales with moderate reliability. It is plausible that the respondents experienced unfamiliar language in scoring the items. Considering that the study was drawing words from various fields, it is plausible that terms such as ‘deity’, ‘marketable skills’, ‘loyalty’, ‘discussing’, ‘father’s occupation’ and ‘school person’. The translations of such words carried unintended cultural baggage or were simply unclear to the respondents. This challenge may have affected the Russian language respondents as well. Overall, the tool used in this study was moderately reliable and sufficient for this exploratory study. Confirmatory studies are required to address some of the challenges already described.

Bayram, L. (2005). Yönetimde yeni bir paradigma: Örgütsel bağlılık. Sayıştay Dergisi, 59, 125–139. Cichy, R. F., Cha, J., & Kim, S. (2009). The relationship between organizational commitment and contextual performance among private club leaders. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 53–62. Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241. Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489–525. Hinton, P. R., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2014). SPSS explained. Routledge. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (2017). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal. Luchak, A. A., & Gellatly, I. R. (2007). A comparison of linear and nonlinear relations between organizational commitment and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 786. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Sage publications. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. Perryer, C., Jordan, C., Firns, I., & Travaglione, A. (2010). Predicting turnover intentions: The interactive effects of organizational commitment and perceived organizational support. Management Research Review. Riehl, C., & Sipple, J. W. (1996). Making the most of time and talent: Secondary school organizational climates, teaching task environments, and teacher commitment. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 873–901. Roxenhall, T., & Andrésen, E. (2012). Affective, calculative and normative commitment: An assessment of relationship. World Review of Business Research, 2(5), 86–96. Saldamlı, A. (2009). İsletmelerde Orgutsel Baglılık ve İsgoren Performansı. Ankara: Detay. Thomsen, M., Karsten, S., & Oort, F. J. (2016). Distance in schools: The influence of psychological and structural distance from management on teachers’ trust in management, organisational commitment, and organisational citizenship behaviour. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(4), 594–612.