Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Nursing Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apnr

The relationship among factors of organizational justice, organizational

citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and ease of work among
Japanese nurses.
Misako Shimamura a, Mayumi Fukutake b, Mineko Namba a, Tetsuya Ogino c, *
a
Department of Nursing, College of Nursing, Kansai University of Social Welfare, 380-3 Shinden, Ako 678-0255, Japan
b
Department of Nursing, Kawasaki College of Allied Health Professions, 316 Matsushima, Kurashiki 701-0194, Japan
c
Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Welfare Science, Okayama Prefectural University, 111 Kuboki, Soja 719-1197, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Aim: This work is aimed to create a strategy to improve the nurses' working environment.
Organizational justice Background: As the working-age population is expected to decline in Japan, the maintenance of the nurse
Organizational citizenship behavior workforce is important. In order to create a strategy to improve the nurses' working environment, we studied the
Job satisfaction
relationship among factors of organizational justice (procedural, distributive, and interactional justices), orga­
Pleasant working environment
nizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, and ease of work.
Methods: A cross-sectional, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 969 nurses and 322 effective re­
sponses were analyzed (effective response rate 33.2%). The questionnaire contained demographic information,
ease of work, and three scales for organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction.
The factor structure of the scales was studied using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Structural
equation modeling was used to investigate the relationship among measurements. The protocol was approved by
the ethical committee of the author's university.
Results: The final model showed a fair fit to the data (χ2 = 1803.15, df = 1014, p < 0.001, comparative fit index
= 0.907, root mean square error of approximation = 0.049). Interactional justice showed the most significant
correlation to job satisfaction (r = 0.590). Job satisfaction and ease of work also showed a significant positive
correlation (r = 0.696). Distributive justice had a slight negative indirect effect on job satisfaction, whereas
procedural justice had no significant effect.
Conclusion: In order to enhance job satisfaction/ease of work among Japanese nurses, improvement of interac­
tional justice may be the best strategy.

1. Introduction
A serious decline in the working-age population is one of the current
problems in Japan (National Institute of Population and Social Security
Research, 2014). Japan's total fertility rate was as low as 1.36 in 2019
(Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2020). This decrease in Japan's
population lead to a decrease in the working population, resulting in a
labor shortage (National Institute of Population and Social Security
Research, 2014), including a shortage of medical personnel. In order to
improve the working environment of medical staff, the revised Medical
Care Act was introduced in October 2014. The act introduced provisions
regarding the improvement of the working environment of medical in­
stitutions with the aim of improving the “quality of employment”
(Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, 2021). This provision encour­
ages medical institutions to improve their working environment, and we
examined how an organization can achieve this goal.
When literature was reviewed, a pleasant working environment was
reported to be an integral component of job satisfaction (Muya et al.,
2014) and correlated significantly to the intention of job retention in
Japanese nurses (Yoshimura et al., 2018). In addition, Lu, Zhao, and

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike information criteria; AVE, average variance extracted; CFA, confirmatory factor analysis; CFI, comparative fit index; CMIN/df, χ2/
degrees of freedom; CR, composite reliability; df, degrees of freedom; EFA, exploratory factor analysis; IFI, incremental fit index; MSV, maximum shared variance;
NFI, normed fit index; OCB, organizational citizenship behavior; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SEM, structural equation modeling.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: togino@fhw.oka-pu.ac.jp (T. Ogino).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2021.151479
Received 1 March 2021; Received in revised form 24 April 2021; Accepted 3 August 2021
Available online 8 August 2021
0897-1897/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Shimamura et al.
While reported that increasing nurses' job satisfaction was vital to ensure
an adequate nursing workforce (Lu et al., 2019). Job satisfaction is a
positive emotion that is derived from work. When considering an
organizational approach to improve job satisfaction, it was reported that
the factors associated with job satisfaction included organizational jus­
tice (Rodwell & Munro, 2013) and organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) (Chu & Hsu, 2011). However, few studies have examined the
relationships among a pleasant working environment, job satisfaction,
organizational justice, and OCB among nurses, particularly in Japan.
Thus, we investigated the relationships among these variables.
Organizational justice is “equity in the rules and social norms that
govern companies” (Ndjaboué et al., 2012), in short, fairness in the
workplace. The organizational justice has been reported to affect job
performance (Nakagawa et al., 2015), job satisfaction (Rodwell &
Munro, 2013), OCB (Arbabisarjou et al., 2014), psychological distress
(Kobayashi & Kondo, 2019), and turnover intention (Mengstie, 2020;
Tourani et al., 2016). Several factors comprise organizational justice,
namely distributive justice (distribution of resources and benefits),
procedural justice (processes and procedures of distribution), and
interactional justice (interpersonal relationships) (Ndjaboué et al.,
2012). Wan et al. reported that the work engagement of nurses was
associated with organizational justice (Wan et al., 2018).
It is notable that factors of organizational justice, such as distribu­
tive, procedural, and interactional justice, may have a different rela­
tionship with job satisfaction and OCB (Colquitt et al., 2001). A study
among Japanese manufacturing company employees showed that job
performance was significantly correlated with procedural justice, but
not with interactional justice (Nakagawa et al., 2015). Another meta-
analysis study showed that distributive justice was most strongly
linked with unit-level performance, such as productivity and customer
satisfaction, whereas interactional justice was most strongly related to
unit-level processes such as OCB (Whitman et al., 2012). Therefore, the
three factors of organizational justice should be studied independently.
OCB was also reported to be correlated positively with job satisfac­
tion in nurses (Chu & Hsu, 2011). OCB was originally defined as
“discretionary behavior which is not formally recognized in the orga­
nization's reward system but overall enhances the effectiveness of the
organization” (Organ, 1988). Hence, OCB is a voluntary activity by the
employee that has positive effects on the organization. Tefera and
Hunsaker reported that positive aspects of OCB included promotion,
recognition, and positive affection for individuals, and increased effi­
ciency and productivity for the organization (Tefera & Hunsaker, 2020).
Several different types of OCB models have been proposed (Tefera &
Hunsaker, 2020), and Tanaka developed a Japanese version of the OCB
scale, which consisted of five subscales (Tanaka, 2002).
Among Japanese company employees, it was found that employees
with low overall organizational justice had a low willingness to work,
and that job satisfaction as well as OCB played a role in mediation be­
tween organizational justice and low willingness to work (Hayashi et al.,
2011). Based on these findings, a hypothetical model was constructed, in
which each factor of organizational justice interacted differently with
OCB and job satisfaction, and job satisfaction interacted with ease of
work (Fig. 1). The ease of work is a measure of the respondent's sub­
jective feeling that their current workplace is a pleasant place to work.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate this model among Japanese
nurses and improve the workplace environment.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants and procedures
Based on the list of health and welfare facilities/hospitals in pre­
fecture A in 2016, 80 hospitals were randomly selected from 147 general
hospitals (excluding psychiatric hospitals) with 20 beds or more and a
written survey request was mailed to the directors of the nursing de­
partments. Prefecture A is a middle-sized, averagely-populated
2
Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479
Procedural behavior
Ease of work
Job
Fig. 1. Hypothetical model of the relationship among organizational justice,
OCB, job satisfaction, and ease of work. Each factor of organizational justice
may have different relations to OCB and job satisfaction.
prefecture in Japan. The questionnaire was distributed to 969 people at
28 facilities who gave their consent. The participating hospitals were
located both in urban and rural areas.
The data collection period was between August and November 2017.
An anonymous self-administered questionnaire and a reply envelope
was distributed by the director of the nursing department. The collection
was made directly to the researchers individually.
Information about the survey was given to all participants in writing.
Participation in the research was totally voluntary, and anonymity was
ensured. Upon returning the questionnaire, it was considered that con­
sent had been granted. This survey was approved by the ethics com­
mittee of the author's university.
2.2. Measures
For organizational justice, OCB, and job satisfaction, the item pools
were prepared from previous research as described below. To obtain
content validity, items were examined for adequacy, clarity, and
comprehensibility by a group of nursing science researchers.
2.3. Organizational justice
Tanaka developed a Japanese version of the organizational justice
scale and its reliability was confirmed by Cronbach's α (Tanaka, 2007).
The scale consisted of three factors adopted from Folger and Cropanzano
(1998), and Niehoff and Moorman (1993): distributive justice (four
items), procedural justice (six items) and interactional justice (seven
items). For all 17 items, the respondents were asked to answer whether
or not they did that activity using a five-point Likert scale (1, Hardly
ever; 2, Rarely; 3, Sometimes; 4, Often; 5, Almost always).
2.4. Organizational citizenship behavior
The Japanese version of the OCB scale was developed by Tanaka
(Tanaka, 2002), and its reliability and validity have been confirmed by
Cronbach's α and factor analysis, respectively (Tanaka, 2005). The scale
consists of five factors, each of which has three items. The five factors
are: interpersonal help, conscientiousness, concentration on the job,
supporting the organization, and cleanliness. For the 15 items, the re­
spondents were asked to answer whether or not they did that activity
using a five-point Likert scale (1, Hardly ever; 2, Rarely; 3, Sometimes; 4,
Often; 5, Almost always).
2.5. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as the positive emotions that members of
an organization have about their work. The questionnaire used in the
present study was based on the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire
short form (Vocational Psychology Research, 2021), which Takahashi
translated into Japanese and its factor structure has been tested
M. Shimamura et al.
(Takahashi, 1997). The questionnaire consisted of 20 items, and the
respondents were asked to answer using a four-point Likert scale (1,
Very dissatisfied; 2, Dissatisfied; 3, Satisfied; 4, Very satisfied).
2.6. Ease of work
Ease of work is a measure of the respondent's subjective feeling that
their current workplace is a pleasant place to work. The participants
were asked “do you feel that your current workplace is a pleasant place
to work?” and answered using a five-point Likert scale (1, Hardly ever; 2,
Rarely; 3, Sometimes; 4, Often; 5, Almost always).
2.7. Construction of a hypothetical model
Organizational justice and OCB correlate positively with job satis­
faction (Chu & Hsu, 2011; Rodwell & Munro, 2013). In addition, each
factor of organizational justice correlates differently with OCB and job
satisfaction (Hayashi et al., 2011; Rodwell & Munro, 2013; Whitman
et al., 2012). Job satisfaction also correlates positively with a pleasant
working environment (Muya et al., 2014). Based on these reports, a
hypothetical model was constructed (Fig. 1). In this model, each factor
of organizational justice interacted differently with OCB and job satis­
faction, OCB interacted with job satisfaction, and job satisfaction
interacted with ease of work. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with
the maximum likelihood method was used to test this model because
SEM allows latent variables and estimation of direct/indirect effects.
2.8. Statistical analysis
For the scales described above, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was
performed to identify the factors involved in each measurement. Data
with missing values in the scale were deleted and the remaining data (n
= 322) were used for analysis. Normality of the data was studied using
skewness and kurtosis (Kim, 2013), and no item showed a substantial
departure from normality. There were no items with a correlation co­
efficient of 0.9 or more. Factorability was assessed by the Kaiser-Myer-
Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphe­
ricity. Factors were extracted via maximum likelihood method with
Varimax rotation. The number of factors was determined by scree plot
and whether the factor could be interpreted conceptually (Worthington
& Whittaker, 2006). As suggested by Worthington and Whittaker, items
with low factor loading (less than 0.32), or substantial cross-loading
(less than 0.15 difference) were deleted (Worthington & Whittaker,
2006). Then, the factor structure obtained from EFA was validated using
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Structural equation modeling (SEM)
with maximum likelihood method was used for CFA. The fit of the model
to the data was assessed by chi-squared/degree-of-freedom (CMIN/df),
normed fit index (NFI), incremental fit index (IFI), comparative fit index
(CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a
90% confidence interval. Values of CMIN/df < 3 (Schermelleh-Engel
et al., 2003), NFI > 0.9, IFI > 0.9, CFI > 0.9 and RMSEA <0.08 were
considered as fair fit (Cho & Jeon, 2019; Hooper et al., 2008). Composite
reliability was also calculated for each subscale and its value of more
than 0.7 is considered to be reliable (Raykov, 1997). Convergent validity
and discriminant validity were tested by average variance extracted
(AVE) and maximum shared variance (MSV), and AVE > 0.5 and AVE >
MSV were used as the threshold of validity (Castarlenas et al., 2020).
Finally, SEM was performed using the maximum likelihood method in
order to investigate the relationship among factors of organizational
justice: OCB, job satisfaction, and ease of work. The fitness indices were
the same as described above. The model was improved by removing non-
significant paths and comparing the Akaike information criteria (AIC)
(Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), as well as considering consistency
based on previous literature (Chu & Hsu, 2011; Hayashi et al., 2011;
Rodwell & Munro, 2013). All statistical analyses were performed using
the SPSS version 25.0 and Amos 24.0 (IBM Japan, Tokyo, Japan).
3
Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479
3. Results
Demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The par­
ticipants consisted of eight male nurses (2.5%) and 314 female nurses
(97.5%). Their ages ranged from 21 to 62, their average age (± standard
deviation) was 42.1 (±9.5), and they had 18 years of clinical experience
on average. Most of the participants were staff nurses (79.8%), their
final academic background was vocational schools (73.3%), and they
were full-time employees (88.5%). When we compared our sample with
the data of working nurses in Japan in 2018 (Ministry of Health Labour
and Welfare, 2019), the chi-square test showed that our sample had
more female participants (97.5% vs. 92.2%), but the one-sample t-test
showed that the average age was not significantly different (42.1 vs.
41.2 years old).
Responses to the questionnaire items for organizational justice, OCB,
and job satisfaction are listed in Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively. EFA was
performed for organizational justice, OCB, and job satisfaction. Both the
KMO measure and Bartlett's test of sphericity indicated their adequacy
for factor analysis. Three factors were extracted for organizational jus­
tice (procedural justice, distributive justice, interactional justice), five
factors for OCB (interpersonal help, concentrate on the job, conscien­
tiousness, support the organization, cleanliness), and one factor was
extracted for job satisfaction. These factor structures were consistent
with previous reports (Takahashi, 1997; Tanaka, 2005; Tanaka, 2007).
Based on these results, a three-factor model was constructed for orga­
nizational justice (Fig. 2), a five-factor second-order factor model was
constructed for OCB (Fig. 3), and a one-factor model was constructed for
job satisfaction (Fig. 4). Composite reliability, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity were examined by CFA using the maximum like­
lihood method. For the three factors of organizational justice, proce­
dural justice, distributive justice, and interactional justice, the
composite reliability was 0.915, 0.911, and 0.842, respectively, and the
AVE was 0.684, 0.721, and 0.641, respectively. AVE was larger than
MSV. For the five factors of OCB, interpersonal help, concentrate on the
job, conscientiousness, support the organization, and cleanliness, the
composite reliability was 0.775, 0.788, 0.836, 0.836, and 0.896,
respectively, and the AVE was 0.536, 0.555, 0.630, 0.634, and 0.742,
respectively. AVE was larger than MSV. These values substantiated the
reliability and validity for organizational justice and OCB. For job
satisfaction, the composite reliability was 0.921 and the AVE was 0.385.
As the data and fit indices were within the acceptable range, it was
considered that the models were consistent with the data.
Initial SEM analysis was performed using the hypothetical model as
shown in Fig. 1. This model (χ2 = 1799.55, df = 1011, CMIN/df = 1.78,
NFI =0.812, IFI = 0.908, CFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.049 [90% confidence
interval 0.046–0.053], AIC = 2033.55) contained several insignificant
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of nurses that responded (n = 322).
n (%)
Gender
Male 8 2.5
Female 314 97.5
Position
Division head nurse 17 5.3
Nursing chief 47 14.6
Staff nurse 257 79.8
Not specified 1 0.3
Final education
University 19 5.9
Junior college 41 12.7
Vocational school 236 73.3
Others 26 8.1
Employment status
Regular staff 285 88.5
Part time job 34 10.6
Others 3 0.9
M. Shimamura et al. Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479

Table 2
Response distribution to organizational justice questions (n = 322).
Hardly Rarely Sometimes Often Almost
ever always

n % n % n % n % n %

xA1 Workplace manager informs all staff of plans and workplace trends 21 6.5 86 26.7 116 36.0 94 29.2 5 1.6
xA2 Workplace promotion procedures are biased toward some departments and people. 13 4.0 43 13.4 148 46.0 78 24.2 40 12.4
xA3 To make job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and complete information 21 6.5 69 21.4 152 47.2 70 21.7 10 3.1
xA4 Workplace systems and procedures allow staff to seek explanations or request information 21 6.5 63 19.6 156 48.4 74 23.0 8 2.5
regarding certain decisions.
xA5 Workplace systems and procedures are designed to listen to the opinions and requests of all 40 12.4 84 26.1 144 44.7 48 14.9 6 1.9
parties involved when making certain decisions.
xA6 Workplace systems and procedures provide ample opportunity for staff to express their views 39 12.1 90 28.0 141 43.8 46 14.3 6 1.9
on important decisions.
xA7 When making decisions about my job, my manager offers explanations that make sense to me. 30 9.3 78 24.2 125 38.8 83 25.8 6 1.9
xA8 My manager treats me with kindness and consideration. 26 8.1 65 20.2 133 41.3 91 28.3 7 2.2
xA9 When deciding something, my manager tends to downplay the individual circumstances of 17 5.3 82 25.5 147 45.7 62 19.3 14 4.3
subordinates.
xA10 It seems that my manager is not interested in rights as a subordinate employee. 16 5.0 79 24.5 156 48.4 55 17.1 16 5.0
xA11 My manager deals with me in a truthful manner. 14 4.3 47 14.6 136 42.2 114 35.4 11 3.4
xA12 My manager respects me as one of the staff. 13 4.0 43 13.4 127 39.4 129 40.1 10 3.1
xA13 My manager tends to make decisions that are more convenient for him/her. 11 3.4 60 18.6 186 57.8 56 17.4 9 2.8
xA14 My work results and salary are balanced 38 11.8 85 26.4 141 43.8 54 16.8 4 1.2
xA15 My salary is appropriate for my age and position 37 11.5 86 26.7 145 45.0 51 15.8 3 0.9
xA16 My salary is commensurate with my contribution to the hospital 40 12.4 79 24.5 154 47.8 47 14.6 2 0.6
xA17 My salary is fair compared to my colleagues 35 10.9 55 17.1 159 49.4 68 21.1 5 1.6

Table 3
Response distribution to OCB questions (n = 322).
Hardly ever Rarely Sometimes Often Almost always

n % n % n % n % n %

xB1 Help others who have heavy work loads 2 0.6 24 7.5 98 30.4 183 56.8 15 4.7
xB2 Willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have work-related problems 1 0.3 28 8.7 143 44.4 138 42.9 12 3.7
xB3 Helps others who have been absent 1 0.3 27 8.4 91 28.3 182 56.5 21 6.5
xB4 Try not to rest your work unnecessarily 0 0.0 20 6.2 70 21.7 205 63.7 27 8.4
xB5 Avoid taking more rest during work 2 0.6 15 4.7 58 18.0 186 57.8 61 18.9
xB6 Do not kill time with useless conversation during work 1 0.3 24 7.5 111 34.5 158 49.1 28 8.7
xB7 If noticed a mistake at work, correct it immediately 2 0.6 12 3.7 55 17.1 178 55.3 75 23.3
xB8 Carefully answer questions and questions from colleagues and subordinates 1 0.3 14 4.3 70 21.7 200 62.1 37 11.5
xB9 Responsibly carry out the work once received until completion 2 0.6 12 3.7 53 16.5 173 53.7 82 25.5
xB10 Voluntarily introduce information on events held by your workplace 28 8.7 83 25.8 133 41.3 71 22.0 7 2.2
xB11 Actively promote your workplace outside the workplace 74 23.0 108 33.5 104 32.3 34 10.6 2 0.6
xB12 Encourage talented people to enter their workplace 85 26.4 89 27.6 114 35.4 29 9.0 5 1.6
xB13 At work, always keep your desk clean and try to keep it clean. 7 2.2 40 12.4 112 34.8 130 40.4 33 10.2
xB14 Clean your surroundings at work 4 1.2 34 10.6 114 35.4 140 43.5 30 9.3
xB15 Arrange stationery and consumables for ease of use. 7 2.2 46 14.3 120 37.3 124 38.5 25 7.8

paths. Therefore, the insignificant path was omitted one by one and the
analysis was repeated until all the remaining paths become significant as
shown in Fig. 5 (χ2 = 1803.15, df = 1014, CMIN/df = 1.778, NFI
=0.811, IFI = 0.908, CFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.049 [90% confidence
interval 0.046–0.053], AIC = 2031.15). The results indicated that the
model was consistent to the data.
Specifically, significant positive relationships were found among
interactional justice and OCB (standardized estimate: 0.223), interac­
tional justice and job satisfaction (0.590), OCB and job satisfaction
(0.122), and job satisfaction and ease of work (0.696). On the other
hand, a significant negative correlation was found between distributive
justice and OCB (− 0.192). No significant interaction was detected be­
tween procedural justice and OCB or job satisfaction.
4. Discussion
We studied the hypothesis that each factor of organizational justice
interacts differently with OCB and job satisfaction, and that job satis­
faction interacts with ease of work. The factor structure of each scale
was consistent with previous reports, suggesting that each construct was
adequately measured. The final model shown in Fig. 5 was consistent
with the data, according to the reliability and validity indices as well as
fit indices, and the results indicated that interactional justice had the
most potent interaction with job satisfaction and OCB. The standardized
direct effect of interactional justice on job satisfaction was 0.590 and
there was also a standardized indirect effect through OCB of 0.027,
which is calculated by multiplying 0.223 by 0.122, and they together
make a standardized total effect of 0.617. The indirect effect was much
smaller than the direct effect, which is, in part, due to a relatively small
effect from OCB on Job satisfaction.
One characteristic of our result is that interactional justice, but not
procedural and distributive justice, had a high positive correlation with
job satisfaction. A significant positive correlation between interactional
justice and job satisfaction has been reported rather consistently; how­
ever, the role of procedural and distributive justice is controversial.
Lambert et al. reported that procedural and interactional justice had
positive effects on job satisfaction among correctional staff (Lambert
et al., 2021). On the other hand, a study among clinical nurses in Iran
showed that distributive and interactional justice could reduce the
intention to leave the nursing profession by influencing job satisfaction
(Zahednezhad et al., 2021). Another study among nurses in Ghana
showed that verbal abuse and perceived respect were statistically sig­
nificant predictors of nurses' job satisfaction (Boafo, 2018). As verbal
abuse and perceived respect may be related to interactional justice, this

4
M. Shimamura et al. Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479

Table 4
Response distribution to job satisfaction questions (n = 322).
Dissatisfied Rather dissatisfied Rather satisfied Satisfied

n % n % n % n %

xC1 Being able to keep busy all the time 13 4.0 71 22.0 175 54.3 63 19.6
xC2 The chance to work alone on the job 30 9.3 100 31.1 152 47.2 40 12.4
xC3 The chance to do different things from time to time 18 5.6 116 36.0 161 50.0 27 8.4
xC4 The chance to be “somebody” in the community 30 9.3 142 44.1 137 42.5 13 4.0
xC5 The way my boss handles his/her workers 27 8.4 73 22.7 167 51.9 55 17.1
xC6 The competence of my supervisor in making decisions 20 6.2 79 24.5 155 48.1 68 21.1
xC7 Being able to do things that don't go against my conscience 22 6.8 99 30.7 175 54.3 26 8.1
xC8 The way my job provides for steady employment 17 5.3 77 23.9 169 52.5 59 18.3
xC9 The chance to do things for other people 5 1.6 70 21.7 196 60.9 51 15.8
xC10 The chance to tell people what to do 23 7.1 132 41.0 159 49.4 8 2.5
xC11 The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities 23 7.1 117 36.3 167 51.9 15 4.7
xC12 The way company policies are put into practice 14 4.3 91 28.3 191 59.3 26 8.1
xC13 My pay and the amount of work I do 93 28.9 98 30.4 117 36.3 14 4.3
xC14 The chances for advancement on this job 69 21.4 153 47.5 97 30.1 3 0.9
xC15 The freedom to use my own judgment 21 6.5 108 33.5 176 54.7 17 5.3
xC16 The chance to try my own methods of doing the job 29 9.0 140 43.5 136 42.2 17 5.3
xC17 The working conditions 37 11.5 116 36.0 138 42.9 31 9.6
xC18 The way my co-workers get along with each other 15 4.7 53 16.5 196 60.9 58 18.0
xC19 The praise I get for doing a good job 44 13.7 135 41.9 128 39.8 15 4.7
xC20 The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job 32 9.9 109 33.9 156 48.4 25 7.8

e xA3 e
.750† xB1 e
.738† Interpersonal
e xA4 .780 xB2 e
.755 help
Procedural .658
e xA5 .895 xB3 e
.912
e xA6 e
.820 xB4 e
.646† .790†
e xA7 Concentrate
.779 xB5 e
on the job
.424 .656 e
xB6
.667
e xA14
e
.866† xB7 e
e xA15 .691 .735†
.909 OCB .883 .842 xB8 e
.889 ness
e xA16 .800 e
xB9
.719
e xA17 .225 e
.475 xB10 e
.664†
.624 Support the .930 xB11 e
e xA8 .773
.803† xB12 e
e xA11 .800
.798 xB13 e
e xA12 .857†
Cleanliness .924 xB14 e
Fig. 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of organizational justice. The numerical .798
xB15 e
value on each path indicates the standardized estimates. All factor loadings are e
statistically significant at p < 0.001. † indicates a constrained path for model
identification. n = 322, χ2 = 178.1, df = 50, p < 0.001, CMIN/df = 3.562, NFI Fig. 3. Confirmatory factor analysis of OCB. The numerical value on each path
= 0.938, IFI = 0.955, CFI = 0.955, RMSEA = 0.089 (90% confidence interval: indicates the standardized estimates. All factor loadings are statistically sig­
0.075–0.104), estimator: maximum likelihood method. Composite reliability: nificant at p < 0.01. † indicates a constrained path for model identification. n =
procedural justice, 0.915; distributive justice, 0.911; interactional jus­ 322, χ2 = 185.9, df = 85, p < 0.001, CMIN/df = 2.187, NFI = 0.921, IFI =
tice, 0.842. 0.956, CFI = 0.955, RMSEA = 0.061 (90% confidence interval: 0.049–0.073),
estimator: maximum likelihood method. Composite reliability: interpersonal
study also indicated a relationship between interactional justice and job help, 0.775; concentrate on the job, 0.788; conscientiousness, 0.836; support
satisfaction. Along with our current result, interactional justice played a the organization, 0.836; cleanliness, 0.896.
significant role in job satisfaction among nurses. Improvement of the
interactional justice of the organization is an effective strategy to intervention protocol.
enhance job satisfaction and ease of work. Several factors are reported to It should also be noted that procedural justice and distributive justice
be related to interactional justice, such as leadership style (Qiu et al., may have a significant interaction when a different endpoint is studied,
2020), perceived social support (Otto & Mamatoglu, 2015), and work­ such as job involvement and retirement intentions. A study among
group structure (Ambrose et al., 2013), and these are possible subjects to nurses in Finland showed that both interactional justice and procedural
be addressed to improve interactional justice. Nevertheless, the re­ justice moderated the association of job involvement with retirement
lationships among these factors in nurses are not well established. intentions (Sulander et al., 2016). The study also indicated that
Therefore, further studies are required to identify the effective distributive justice was associated with retirement intentions in both

5
M. Shimamura et al. Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479

high and low job-involved respondents (Sulander et al., 2016). Thus, the
xC1 e
endpoint of the research may also be a determinant of the importance of
xC2 e each factor of organizational justice, and further studies need to take this
point into account.
xC3 e
Another interesting finding of this study is the relatively low corre­
.570† xC4 e lation between factors of organizational justice and OCB, and between
.460 OCB and job satisfaction. This finding is consistent with a previous
.510 xC17 e report that interactional justice, but not procedural and distributive
.584 xC5 e justice, correlated with OCB among employees from various industries
.475 (Williams et al., 2002). In addition, research among university hospital
.620 xC6 e personnel in Thailand indicated that there were statistically significant
.582 xC7 e positive correlations between job satisfaction and OCB, although the
.675 regression weight was low (r = 0.173) (Intaraprasong et al., 2012). On
xC8 e the other hand, another study among Iranian nurses showed that job
.683
Job satisfaction had no significant impact on explaining OCB (Taghinezhad
.699 xC9 e
.544 et al., 2015). Consistent with these results, our result indicated that the
xC10 e correlation between OCB and job satisfaction was relatively low (r =
.735
.742 xC11 e 0.122). Although OCB has been reported to correlate highly with ethical
.534 climate (r = 0.61) (Aloustani et al., 2020) and moderately with patient
xC12 e safety culture (r = 0.349) (Jafarpanah & Rezaei, 2020) among nurses,
.680
.616 xC14 e the correlation with job satisfaction may be lower.
.627 There are several limitations in our research. Firstly, the participants
xC15 e comprised of more female nurses than average in Japan. In addition,
.652
xC16 e participants were recruited from one prefecture and the effective
.700
response rate was low. The low response rate might be due to higher
xC18 e workload or minor interest in the survey (Aerny-Perreten et al., 2015);
xC19 e therefore, there may be bias in our sample. Secondly, the ease of work
was the only endpoint in this research. When another endpoint was
xC20 e chosen, such as job involvement or retirement intention, the importance
of each factor of organizational justice and OCB may change. Thirdly,
Fig. 4. Confirmatory factor analysis of job satisfaction. The numerical value on the AVE of job satisfaction was relatively low and a better scale may be
each path indicates the standardized estimates. All factor loadings are statisti­
needed. Finally, this research was cross-sectional, and a cause-effect
cally significant at p < 0.001. † indicates a constrained path for model identi­
relationship could not be established. Future research should include
fication. n = 322, χ2 = 300.8, df = 145, p < 0.001, CMIN/df = 2.074, NFI =
0.895, IFI = 0.942, CFI = 0.942, RMSEA = 0.058 (90% confidence interval:
longitudinal or intervention studies.
0.049–0.067), estimator: maximum likelihood method. Composite reli­ In conclusion, the interactions among factors of organizational jus­
ability: 0.921. tice, OCB, job satisfaction, and ease of work were studied among Jap­
anese nurses using SEM. The final model showed a fair fit to the data,
and interactional justice showed the most significant correlation to job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction and the ease of work also showed a

Fig. 5. Structural equation modeling. The numerical value

on each path indicates the standardized estimates. All factor
Interpersonal
loadings and paths are statistically significant at p < 0.05. †
Procedural help
indicates a constrained path for model identification. For
simplicity, observed variables, except for “ease of work”, and
error variables are not shown. n = 322, χ2 = 1803.15, df =
1014, p < 0.001, CMIN/df = 1.778, NFI = 0.811, IFI =
.657† Concentrate 0.908, CFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.049 (90% confidence in­
on the job terval: 0.046–0.053), AIC = 2031.15. Estimator: maximum
likelihood method. R2: coefficient of determination.
.660

-.192
OCB .865
ness
.223
.245
.122
.637 Support the

.590
Job
.696
Ease of work Cleanliness

R2 = .484

6
M. Shimamura et al.
significant positive correlation (R2 = 0.484). In order to enhance job
satisfaction/ease of work among Japanese nurses, improvement of
interactional justice may be the best strategy. For this purpose, future
research should focus on issues such as leadership style, perceived social
support, and workgroup structure. Meanwhile, the nursing practitioners
are better to try to improve the relationship between supervisors/col­
leagues for the improvement of their job satisfaction.
Ethical issues
This survey was approved by the Ethics Committee of Okayama
Prefectural University (#16-48) and was performed in accordance with
the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 and 2008.
Funding
This study was supported by a general research fund at Okayama
Prefectural University. The funding source had no involvement in study
design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the
writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for
publication.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
M. S.: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing-
original draft, M. F.: Formal analysis, Validation, Writing-review and
editing, M. N.: Conceptualization, Writing-review and editing, T. O.:
Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Project adminis­
tration, Writing-original draft,
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Aerny-Perreten, N., Domínguez-Berjõn, M. F., Esteban-Vasallo, M. D., & García-
Riolobos, C. (2015). Participation and factors associated with late or non-response to
an online survey in primary care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21(4),
688–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12367.
Aloustani, S., Atashzadeh-Shoorideh, F., Zagheri-Tafreshi, M., Nasiri, M., Barkhordari-
Sharifabad, M., & Skerrett, V. (2020). Association between ethical leadership, ethical
climate and organizational citizenship behavior from nurses’ perspective: A
descriptive correlational study. BMC Nursing, 19(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12912-020-0408-1.
Ambrose, M. L., Schminke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). Trickle-down effects of supervisor
perceptions of interactional justice: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98(4), 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032080.
Arbabisarjou, A., Hajipour, R., & Sadeghian, M. (2014). The correlation between justice
and organizational citizenship behavior and organizational identity among nurses.
Global Journal of Health Science, 6(6), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.
v6n6p252.
Boafo, I. M. (2018). The effects of workplace respect and violence on nurses’ job
satisfaction in Ghana: A cross-sectional survey. Human Resources for Health, 16(1), 6.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-018-0269-9.
Castarlenas, E., Solé, E., Galán, S., Racine, M., Jensen, M. P., & Miró, J. (2020). Construct
validity and internal consistency of the Catalan version of the pain self-efficacy
questionnaire in young people with chronic pain. Evaluation and the Health
Professions, 43(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278718820410.
Cho, E., & Jeon, S. (2019). The role of empathy and psychological need satisfaction in
pharmacy students’ burnout and well-being. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 43.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1477-2.
Chu, C. I., & Hsu, Y. F. (2011). Hospital nurse job attitudes and performance: The impact
of employment status. Journal of Nursing Research, 19(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/
10.1097/JNR.0b013e31820beba9.
Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Conlon, D. E., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice
at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.86.3.425.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource
management. In Organizational justice and human resource management. 2455 Teller
7
Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479
Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452225777.
Hayashi, T., Odagiri, Y., Ohya, Y., Tanaka, K., & Shimomitsu, T. (2011). Organizational
justice, willingness to work, and psychological distress: Results from a Private
Japanese Company. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(2),
174–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31820665cd.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.58.
Intaraprasong, B., Dityen, W., Krugkrunjit, P., & Subhadrabandhu, T. (2012). Job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior of personnel at one university
hospital in Thailand. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 95 Suppl 6,
S102–S108. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23130495/.
Jafarpanah, M., & Rezaei, B. (2020). Association between organizational citizenship
behavior and patient safety culture from nurses’ perspectives: A descriptive
correlational study. BMC Nursing, 19(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-
00416-y.
Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution
(2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54.
https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52.
Kobayashi, Y., & Kondo, N. (2019). Organizational justice, psychological distress, and
stress-related behaviors by occupational class in female Japanese employees. PLoS
One, 14(4), Article e0214393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214393.
Lambert, E. G., Tewksbury, R., Otu, S. E., & Elechi, O. O. (2021). The Association of
Organizational Justice with job satisfaction and organizational commitment among
Nigerian Correctional Staff. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 65(2–3), 180–204. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624
X20946926.
Lu, H., Zhao, Y., & While, A. (2019). Job satisfaction among hospital nurses: A literature
review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 94, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijnurstu.2019.01.011.
Mengstie, M. M. (2020). Perceived organizational justice and turnover intention among
hospital healthcare workers. BMC Psychology, 8(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40359-020-0387-8.
Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2019). Report on public health administration
and services (practicing health professionals) 2018. Retrieved February 14, 2021,
from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/eisei/18/ (article in Japanese).
Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2020). Report of vital statistics 2019. Retrieved
February 13, 2021, from https://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/saikin/hw/jinkou/kak
utei19/index.html (article in Japanese).
Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare. (2021). About improving the working
environment of medical staff. Retrieved February 13, 2021, from https://www.mh
lw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkou_iryou/iryou/quality/ (article in
Japanese).
Muya, M., Katsuyama, K., Ozaki, F., & Aoyama, H. (2014). Development of a scale
measuring the job satisfaction of Japanese hospital nurses. Japan Journal of Nursing
Science, 11(3), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12017.
Nakagawa, Y., Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Tsuno, K., Tomioka, K., Nakanishi, M.,
Mafune, K., & Hiro, H. (2015). Change in organizational justice and job performance
in Japanese employees: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Occupational Health,
57(4), 388–393. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.14-0212-BR.
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. (2014). Population
projections for Japan 2016 to 2065. Retrieved February 13, 2021, from http://www.
ipss.go.jp/pp-zenkoku/e/zenkoku_e2017/pp_zenkoku2017e.asp.
Ndjaboué, R., Brisson, C., & Vézina, M. (2012). Organisational justice and mental health:
A systematic review of prospective studies. Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
69(10), 694–700. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2011-100595.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556. https://doi.org/10.2307/256591.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
Otto, K., & Mamatoglu, N. (2015). Why does interactional justice promote organizational
loyalty, job performance, and prevent mental impairment? The role of social support
and social stressors. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 149(1–2),
193–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.866535.
Qiu, S., Dooley, L. M., Deng, R., & Li, L. (2020). Does ethical leadership boost nurses’
patient-oriented organizational citizenship behaviours? A cross-sectional study.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(7), 1603–1613. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14366.
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/
01466216970212006.
Rodwell, J., & Munro, L. (2013). Well-being, satisfaction and commitment: The
substitutable nature of resources for maternity hospital nurses. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 69(10), 2218–2228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12096.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of
structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit
measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
Sulander, J., Sinervo, T., Elovainio, M., Heponiemi, T., Helkama, K., & Aalto, A. M.
(2016). Does organizational justice modify the association between job involvement
and retirement intentions of nurses in Finland? Research in Nursing and Health, 39(5),
364–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21740.
Taghinezhad, F., Safavi, M., Raiesifar, A., & Yahyavi, S. H. (2015). Antecedents of
organizational citizenship behavior among Iranian nurses: A multicenter study
nursing. BMC Research Notes, 8(1), 547. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1505-
1.
M. Shimamura et al.
Takahashi, K. (1997). An analysis of Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (MSQ) by item
response theory: Estimation of item Prameters and application to human resource
management. Bulletin of Faculty of Humanities, Law and Economics, Mie University,
15(1), 1–20. (article in Japanese).
Tanaka, K. (2002). The development of the Japanese version of the organizational
citizenship behavior scale. Japanese Association of Industrial/Organizational
Psychology Journal, 15(2), 77–88. (article in Japanese).
Tanaka, K. (2005). An examination on validity, reliability, and item characteristics of the
Japanese organizational citizenship behavior scale. Japanese Association of Industrial/
Organizational Psychology Journal, 18(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.32222/
jaiop.18.1_15 (article in Japanese).
Tanaka, K. (2007). Do performance-based appraisal systems cause dysfunction in
Japanese organizations? Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, 20(3),
355–362. doi:https://doi.org/10.5651/jaas.20.355 (article in Japanese).
Tefera, C. A., & Hunsaker, W. D. (2020). Intangible assets and organizational citizenship
behavior: A conceptual model. Heliyon, 6(7), Article e04497. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04497.
Tourani, S., Khosravizadeh, O., Omrani, A., Sokhanvar, M., Kakemam, E., & Najafi, A.
(2016). The relationship between organizational justice and turnover intention of
hospital nurses in Iran. Materia Socio Medica, 28(3), 205–209. https://doi.org/
10.5455/msm.2016.28.205-209.
Vocational Psychology Research. (2021). Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.
Retrieved February 13, 2021, from http://vpr.psych.umn.edu/instruments/msq-m
innesota-satisfaction-questionnaire.
Applied Nursing Research 61 (2021) 151479
Wan, Q., Zhou, W., Li, Z., & Shang, S. (2018). Associations of organizational justice and
job characteristics with work engagement among nurses in hospitals in China.
Research in Nursing and Health, 41(6), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21908.
Whitman, D. S., Caleo, S., Carpenter, N. C., Horner, M. T., & Bernerth, J. B. (2012).
Fairness at the collective level: A meta-analytic examination of the consequences and
boundary conditions of organizational justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(4), 776–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028021.
Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship
behavior intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. Journal of Social Psychology,
142(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603883.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content
analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6),
806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127.
Yoshimura, C., Harada, H., & Yamada, C. (2018). Relationship between pleasant working
environment and professional identity, and intention in regard to career
continuation and intention in regard to job retention among female nurses. Journal
of the Japan Society for Healthcare Administration, 55(4), 173–183. doi:10.11303/js
ha.55.173 (article in Japanese).
Zahednezhad, H., Hoseini, M. A., Ebadi, A., Farokhnezhad Afshar, P., & Ghanei
Gheshlagh, R. (2021). Investigating the relationship between organizational justice,
job satisfaction, and intention to leave the nursing profession: A cross-sectional
study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(4), 1741–1750. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jan.14717.