Psychometric Validation of the Backbone Organizational Model Instrument for Assessing Organizational Health
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v15i2.32519Keywords:
backbone organizational model, CB-SEM, organisational health, psychometric validationAbstract
The growing demand for culturally relevant organisational assessment tools in Indonesia highlights the importance of
psychometric validation in instrument development. Existing diagnostic models, such as McKinsey's 7S Model and Weisbord's
Six-Box Model, often lack cultural adaptation, creating a gap in reliable measurement. This study addresses this gap by validating
the Backbone Organizational Model (BOM) instrument, designed to capture organisational health through 12 theoretically
grounded dimensions, including mission, leadership, people, values, and structure. A quantitative approach was employed, with
data collected through an online survey of 843 employees(600 men, 243 women; age range 20–58 years, M = 33.8, SD = 9.6)from
a State-Owned Enterprise using convenience sampling. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using Covariance-Based Structural
Equation Modelling (CB-SEM) was employed to test construct validity and reliability. The initial measurement model required
refinement, and indicators were iteratively evaluated based on factor loadings and conceptual redundancy.The refined
measurement model demonstrated good overall fit (χ²/df = 2.357, CFI = 0.981, TLI = 0.975, RMSEA = 0.040. SRMR = 0.018).
This process resulted in a parsimonious 29-item instrument while preserving the theoretical structure of the twelve BOM
dimensions. These findings indicate that the BOM provides a psychometrically sound and contextually relevant tool for assessing
organisational health in Indonesian organisational settings. However, the study is limited by its single cultural context and crosssectional design. Future research should validate the BOM across different organisational sectors and cultural settings and
employ longitudinal designs to assess its stability and applicability over time
References
Adiati, R. P., Handoyo, S., Wicaksono, D. A., Purba, H. P., & Syarifah, D. (2021). Organizational health
structure and measurement of higher education in Indonesia. Indigenous: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi, 6(1),
1–15. Retrieved from https://journals.ums.ac.id/index.php/indigenous/article/view/11147
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2015). Changing organizational culture. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315688404
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications.
(4th ed.). Free Press.
Bowen, S. A. (2018). Mission and vision. In The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication (pp.
1–9). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0111
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Caza, A., Caza, B. B., & Posner, B. Z. (2021). Transformational leadership across cultures: Follower
perception and satisfaction. Administrative Sciences, 11(1), 32.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010032
Chowdhury, A., & Chandra Shil, N. (2022). Understanding change management in organizational
context: Revisiting literature. Management and Entrepreneurship: Trends of Development, 1(19), 28–43.
https://doi.org/10.26661/2522-1566/2022-1/19-03
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Cengage
Learning.
Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and
technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121092.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092
DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377033.001.0001
Donaldson, L. (2015). Structural contingency theory. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences (pp. 609–614). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.73110-2
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologist (1st ed.). Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605269
Fauziah, S. (2018). Uji validitas konstruk instrumen organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ)
dengan metode confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi Dan Pendidikan
Indonesia (JP3I), 5(1). https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v5i1.9244
Gagnon, C., John, E., & Theunissen, R. (2021). Organizational health: A fast track to performance
improvement. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-andorganisational-performance/our-insights/organisational-health-a-fast-track-to-performanceimprovement
Hagl, C., Kanitz, R., Gonzalez, K., & Hoegl, M. (2024). Change management interventions: Taking
stock and moving forward. Human Resource Management Review, 34(1), 101000.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.101000
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Pearson.
Hair, J. F., Page, M., & Brunsveld, N. (2019). Essentials of business research methods. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203374
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–
135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations software of the mind (3rd
ed.). McGrawHill.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Jaafari, M., Alzuman, A., Ali, Z., Tantry, A., & Ali, R. (2023). Organizational health behavior index
(OHBI): A tool for measuring organizational health. Sustainability, 15(18), 13650.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813650
Jain, R., & Ovais, D. (2025). Cross-cultural leadership in tech-driven world. In Indigenous Empowerment
through Human-Machine Interactions (pp. 93–113). Emerald Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83608-068-820251006
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). The execution premium: Linking strategy to operations for competitive
advantage. Harvard Business Press.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
Lambert, L. S., & Newman, D. A. (2023). Construct development and validation in three practical steps:
Recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors. Organizational Research Methods, 26(4), 574–
607. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221115374
Latifa, R., Chang, K., Liem, A., Idriyani, N., Roebianto, A., Rahmah, M., & Puri, V. G. S. (2023).
Indonesian version of WHO-5 well-being index amidst COVID-19 pandemic settings: Scale
validation and standardisation. JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi Dan Pendidikan Indonesia), 12(2),
145–161. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v12i2.33964
MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent
models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 185–199.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.185
McKinsey & Company. (2023). Organizational health is (still) the key to long-term performance. McKinsey &
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–
433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2020). Thinking twice about sum scores. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6),
2287–2305. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0
Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The art of Japanese management. Business Horizons, 24(6), 83–85.
Pesurnay, A. J. (2018). Local wisdom in a new paradigm: Applying system theory to the study of local
culture in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 175, 012037.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/175/1/012037
Phillips, J., & Klein, J. D. (2023). Change management: From theory to practice. TechTrends, 67(1), 189–
197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00775-0
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Porras, J. I. (1987). Stream analysis: A powerful way to diagnose and manage organizational change. AddisonWesley.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841624
Riyono, B. (2022). Misi, kepemimpinan, budaya, kinerja, dan visi sebagai tulang punggung dari model
organisasi yang efektif. Psikologika: Jurnal Pemikiran Dan Penelitian Psikologi, 27(2), 331–350.
https://doi.org/10.20885/psikologika.vol27.iss2.art8
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2013). Organisational behavior (15th ed). Pearson.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling.
Handbook of Market Research, 1–40.
Tadesse Bogale, A., & Debela, K. L. (2024). Organizational culture: A systematic review. Cogent Business
& Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2340129
Thamrin, H., & Kadarudin, K. (2023). Local wisdom in business practices in Indonesia. In Proceedings of
the 3rd International Conference on Business Law and Local Wisdom in Tourism (ICBLT 2022) (pp. 590–
601). Atlantis Press SARL. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-93-0_70
Weisbord, M. R. (1976). organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory.
Group & Organization Studies, 1(4), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117600100405
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic
regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Directorate of
Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Indrayanti Indrayanti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
