Free Scales for I/O Psychology Theses (With Licence Notes)

This page is for BS, MS and MPhil students in psychology, HRM and management who need ready-made scales for a thesis on job attitudes, stress, leadership or personality. For each scale it gives the authors, year, number of items, dimensions and, most importantly, the licence status as I found it on the owner’s own website on 3 November 2026. Where the owner says nothing I could find, the table says “check with the author/publisher”. Terms change, so open the owner’s page again before you collect data.

This page does not reprint any items. Copying items from a journal article or a random PDF into your questionnaire is the most common copyright mistake in student theses, and the scale’s owner, not the website where you found the PDF, decides how it may be used.

How to read the licence column

I sorted every scale into one of four groups:

• Public domain / free for any use: no permission needed, even for commercial work. Example: the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP).
• Free for research, with conditions: no fee, but you must meet the owner’s conditions, such as sharing your results, crediting the source, using it only for non-commercial work, or registering first. Most scales students use are in this group.
• Commercial: you buy a licence, usually priced per respondent. Some publishers also offer a free research permission for certain scales.
• Check with the author/publisher: the scale was published in a journal, but I could not find any statement from the owner about permission. This does not mean it is free. Ask, or check the scale’s record in APA PsycTESTS through your university library, which shows a “Permissions” field for each test.

Two licence terms worth knowing. Non-commercial means nobody makes money from using the scale; a university thesis is non-commercial, but a paid consultancy survey for a bank is not. Creative Commons BY-NC means you may use and share the material if you give credit (BY) and do not use it commercially (NC); the extra ND (no derivatives) means you may not distribute modified versions.

Job attitude scales: satisfaction, commitment, engagement, OCB and CWB

For the theory behind these, see job satisfaction theories and measures, Meyer and Allen’s three-component model, OCB and CWB.

Stress, burnout and well-being scales

The free Copenhagen Burnout Inventory calculator scores the CBI for you. For the theory, see occupational stress models and the job demands-resources model.

Leadership, justice and work-design scales

For the theories, see leadership theories in I/O psychology, LMX theory and the job characteristics model.

Personality and individual-difference scales

Personality tests used for hiring raise different issues; see personality tests at work.

How to ask for permission (and what to keep)

1. Find the owner. Search for the scale name plus the first author’s name and “permission”, and look for a page on the author’s university site, lab site or publisher site.
2. Read the terms. If the page grants use on conditions (as Spector, Schaufeli and the University of Minnesota do), save a PDF of the page with the date. That is your permission.
3. If nothing is stated, write a short request. Say who you are, your university and supervisor, the study’s purpose, that it is non-commercial, the sample size, whether you will translate it, and that you will share a summary of results. Keep it under 150 words.
4. Wait for a reply before data collection. If you get no answer after two reminders, discuss with your supervisor whether to choose a scale with clear terms instead.
5. Put the evidence in your appendix: the saved terms page or the reply.

Translating a scale into Urdu, Hindi or Filipino

Translation is also covered by the owner’s terms. Spector allows translations if you send him a copy; the BFI-2 lab asks for a copy of any translation; the NAQ-R group asks you to send translations; COPSOQ asks you to check with the network first. A translated version needs forward translation, back-translation, expert review and a pilot test, and you must report its reliability in your own sample. The full procedure is in research methods for an I/O thesis.

Reporting a scale in your thesis

Examiners look for the same five facts for each instrument: the name and original citation, number of items and dimensions, response format and scoring, reliability in the original study and in your sample, and the permission. Report reliability per dimension, never one value for a multi-dimensional scale. The free tools help:

• Item analysis calculator for item-total correlations and alpha-if-deleted.
• Composite reliability and AVE calculator after a CFA.
• Spearman-Brown calculator to see what a short form does to reliability.
• Intraclass correlation calculator and rwg and ICC calculator if you aggregate ratings to team level.

Practice MCQs: scales and permissions for an I/O thesis

Practice questions written to the published syllabus, not past-paper questions.

1. Which of these scales has items that are in the public domain, free for any use?

   1. Maslach Burnout Inventory
   2. International Personality Item Pool (IPIP)
   3. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
   4. GHQ-12
   Show answer

   B. The IPIP site says its items are public domain and free for any purpose. The MBI and MLQ are sold by Mind Garden, and the GHQ needs permission from GL Assessment or Mapi.

2. A student wants to use the JSS for an MS thesis in Lahore. Which condition does Paul Spector’s site attach?

   1. Pay a fee per respondent
   2. Share the results with the author and keep the copyright notice
   3. Use only in the United States
   4. Get approval from Mind Garden
   Show answer

   B. Spector’s scales are free for non-commercial research if you share results and keep the copyright notice. There is no fee, no country limit, and Mind Garden does not sell the JSS.

3. What does “Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0” (the MSQ’s licence) allow?

   1. Any use including resale
   2. Non-commercial use with credit to the source
   3. Use only after paying a licence fee
   4. No use without written permission
   Show answer

   B. BY means credit the source; NC means non-commercial only. Resale is excluded, no fee is needed, and the licence itself is the permission.

4. Which statement about the UWES is correct, according to the author’s site?

   1. It is free for academic use if you share your data with the authors
   2. It is sold per respondent by Mind Garden
   3. It is public domain for commercial consultancy
   4. It may be used only in the Netherlands
   Show answer

   A. Schaufeli’s site allows free academic use (such as theses) on condition that you send the authors your raw data and sample details. It is not sold by Mind Garden, and commercial use needs a contract.

5. A student finds the full items of a scale in a journal article but no permission statement anywhere. What is the right step?

   1. Use it, because published means free
   2. Ask the author/publisher, or check the scale’s PsycTESTS permissions field
   3. Change two words so it is a new scale
   4. Use it but do not cite it
   Show answer

   B. Publication does not grant permission, so check with the owner. Rewording items still copies the scale, and not citing it adds plagiarism to the copyright problem.

6. Which burnout measure does Denmark’s NFA say can be used freely, even for commercial purposes?

   1. MBI
   2. Oldenburg Burnout Inventory
   3. Copenhagen Burnout Inventory
   4. Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure
   Show answer

   C. The NFA allows free use of the CBI with a citation. The MBI is commercial, and I found no owner terms for the OLBI.

7. According to the Bergen Bullying Research Group, a permission to use the NAQ-R covers:

   1. One research project
   2. All your future studies
   3. Paid consultancy work
   4. Every student at your university
   Show answer

   A. The group asks you to contact them before use, and each permission covers one project. It is for non-commercial research only, so consultancy is excluded, and it does not pass to other students.

8. A team-level thesis averages team members’ ratings of team psychological safety. Which check should come before averaging?

   1. Within-team agreement (rwg) and ICC
   2. Spearman-Brown on each item
   3. A t-test on every item
   4. Nothing; averaging is always fine
   Show answer

   A. Aggregating to team level needs evidence that members agree (rwg) and that teams differ (ICC). Spearman-Brown predicts reliability for a changed length, and item t-tests do not justify aggregation.

9. Which Mind Garden scale on this page has a free research permission option for non-commercial, unfunded studies?

   1. MBI
   2. MLQ 5X
   3. PCQ-24
   4. None of them
   Show answer

   C. On 3 November 2026 Mind Garden listed a $0 research permission (minimum 200) for the PCQ and the ALQ. The MBI and MLQ showed paid licences only.

Questions students ask

Which job satisfaction scale is free for a thesis?

The Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985) is free for non-commercial research if you share results; the MSQ is under a non-commercial Creative Commons licence; and the JDI and JIG can be downloaded free for research from Bowling Green State University. Check each owner’s page on the day you start.

Is the Maslach Burnout Inventory free?

No. On 3 November 2026 Mind Garden sold a licence to administer the MBI, priced per respondent, with no free research option. A free alternative with clear terms is the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory.

Can I get the Meyer and Allen commitment scale for free?

Western University lists a commercial licence for the TCM Employee Commitment Survey and says nothing about academic use. Ask the author/publisher before you use it, and keep the reply.

Do I need permission if a senior already used the scale?

Yes. Permission usually covers one project or one researcher, and the NAQ-R group, for example, says each permission covers one project. Check the terms for your own study.

Can I shorten a scale or change the wording?

Only if the owner’s terms allow it, and you must report the change. COPSOQ’s licence, for example, does not allow modified versions to be distributed under the COPSOQ name. Shortening also changes reliability, so recheck it.

Where can I find more scales?

APA PsycTESTS (through your library) lists thousands of tests with a permissions field. The thesis topic ideas in the I/O psychology thesis topics guide suggest a measure family for each idea.

References

1. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
2. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
3. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
4. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
5. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249-276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713
6. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
7. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
8. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
9. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12
10. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
11. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
12. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370902815673
13. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
14. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2012). The deviant citizen: Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02032.x
15. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
16. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
17. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
18. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 193-200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.193
19. Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 322-355. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322
20. Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3), 192-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720
21. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 254-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002
22. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
23. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 541-572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x
24. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
25. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
26. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
27. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
28. Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3 Suppl.), 8-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809349858
29. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
30. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
31. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
32. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). NFER-NELSON.
33. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27
34. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Rand McNally.
35. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
36. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00929796
37. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
38. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
39. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
40. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
41. Thompson, E. R., & Phua, F. T. T. (2012). A brief index of affective job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 37(3), 275-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111434201
42. Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.219
43. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, No. 22). University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center.
44. Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1

This post is part of the I/O psychology thesis topics hub. Related: research methods for an I/O thesis, reliability in psychological testing and validity in employee selection. Students in Pakistan can also read about industrial psychology in Pakistan.