Allyship Readiness Scale Development and Validation
Like any other organizational initiative, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts require substantial work, which can take a toll on those involved. This toll has, in many instances, disproportionally fallen on members of historically marginalized groups, resulting in what has been defined as the “minority tax” (Faucett et al., 2023). This additional burden placed on minority individuals, who are often expected to volunteer their time and expertise for such efforts while also fulfilling their regular job responsibilities, places unnecessary stress on underrepresented groups. This negative pattern highlights the importance of developing strong allies from other members within the workplace to alleviate this load and promote a more equitable environment. Allies are individuals who practice allyship by recognizing their privilege and using their resources, such as their voice, actions, and platforms, to disrupt and dismantle inequality (Sabat et al., 2013). Despite the increased discourse of allyship in different contexts including the workplace, research highlights the urgent need to develop research-based allyship interventions and evidence-based allyship methods (e.g., Salter & Migliaccio, 2019). Given the clear importance of allies in society and the urgent need to further explore allyship, it is critical to have valid and reliable measures that evaluate constructs related to allyship such as competences or readiness. This dissertation aims to contribute to addressing this critical gap by developing and validating the Allyship Readiness Scale (ARS), a theoretically grounded and psychometrically robust instrument designed to assess the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of allyship readiness. Drawing from Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1974), training needs assessment literature, and the five-stage ally identity development model proposed by Martinez et al. (2023), this paper conceptualized allyship readiness as a multidimensional construct encompassing five initially theorized domains: Apathy, Awareness of Privilege, Empathy, Emotional Readiness, and Supportive Engagement. Each dimension was intended to capture a distinct but complementary aspect of an individual's readiness to recognize systemic inequities, reflect on personal privilege, regulate emotions in difficult conversations, and act in solidarity with marginalized groups. However, Empathy was removed following exploratory factor analysis due to conceptual and statistical overlap with other dimensions. A comprehensive, multi-study scale development process guided by Hinkin’s (1998) methodology was utilized to develop the scale. In Study 1, a content validity assessment was conducted using a construct classification task with naïve judges ( N = 15), yielding 64 items that met or exceeded the 54% agreement threshold, demonstrating initial conceptual alignment and definitional clarity. Study 2 employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a sample of 352 full-time employees, revealing a five-factor solution consistent with the proposed model. As mentioned prior, the Empathy factor exhibited conceptual and statistical overlap with other dimensions, leading to its removal from the final structure. Study 3 tested the revised four-factor model via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in an independent sample of 396 full-time workers, yielding excellent fit indices (CFI = .919, TLI = .913, RMSEA = .048), thereby validating the factor structure of the 37-item ARS. To enhance accessibility and utility in applied settings, a 16-item short form (ARS-SF) was developed by retaining the four highest-loading items per dimension. The short form also demonstrated strong model fit (CFI = .956, TLI = .946, RMSEA = .049) and retained conceptual integrity, making it a viable alternative for organizational contexts with limited time or resources. Study 4 evaluated convergent and discriminant validity by situating the ARS within a broader nomological network of related constructs, such as DEI attitudes, and emotional regulation. Together, these studies provide strong initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the Allyship Readiness Scale. This research makes several theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it introduces a novel operationalization of allyship readiness as a measurable psychological construct situated within broader social identity and attitude change frameworks. It offers a validated tool to empirically examine allyship, therefore enabling future research to identify antecedents and consequences of readiness across diverse organizational and cultural settings. Practically, the ARS provides DEI practitioners and organizational leaders with an evidence-based instrument to tailor trainings, evaluate readiness pre- and post-intervention, and track progress over time. Its application can support more equitable and effective DEI programming, reduce training resistance, and shift the burden of DEI work toward collective responsibility. In sum, the development and validation of the Allyship Readiness Scale contribute to the advancement in both the science and practice of allyship in organizations by offering a reliable and theory-driven measure. This dissertation responds to urgent calls for accountability and rigor in DEI work and supports the design of more inclusive, psychologically safe, and socially just workplaces.
Allyship, Allyship Readiness Scale, Diversity equity inclusion, Scale, Workplace inclusion, Organizational Behavior and Theory, Social Psychology
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations