Political Justice Scale Test

Citizens who want to examine how Russian public authorities make and communicate decisions can use this political justice questionnaire to reflect on perceived fairness in national political life. The Political Justice Scale Test connects views about influence, equal treatment, explanation, and dignity with a sense of whether official procedures seem fair and transparent. It is suited to personal reflection when considering how institutional conduct shapes trust and acceptance of outcomes.

What This Assessment Explores

Items ask whether officials allow voice, challenge decisions, apply rules equally, explain actions, and treat citizens respectfully. It focuses on perceived process fairness and official conduct, rather than policy approval. This procedural justice test presents three dimensions and one overall score:

• Informational (1-7) measures complete, honest, timely information for citizens about process and rationale; bands are Low clarity 1-3, Moderate clarity 4-5, and High clarity 6-7.
• Interpersonal (1-7) reflects respectful, polite treatment that supports trust; bands are Low respect 1-3, Mixed respect 4-5, and High respect 6-7.
• Procedural (1-7) captures influence, equal treatment, and impartiality; bands are Low perceived procedural fairness 1-3, Moderate perceived procedural fairness 3.1-5, and High perceived procedural fairness 5.1-7.
• Procedural Justice Total Score (1-7) is a composite summary of political fairness, transparency, influence, and equal treatment; bands are Low fairness 1-3, Moderate fairness 4-5, and High fairness 6-7.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Each statement uses a seven-point agreement scale from strong disagreement to strong agreement, with a neutral midpoint. Responses produce dimension and overall scores; higher values indicate more favorable perceptions of communication, treatment, procedure, or political fairness, while bands provide descriptive labels rather than clinical cutoffs.

Methodologically, the questionnaire is conceptually consistent with Gulevich and Guseva (2023), whose political-sphere work examines voice, influence, equality, and respectful administration, but is not presented as a direct adaptation. Colquitt’s construct-validation research offers a framework for distinguishing informational, interpersonal, and procedural judgments. Perceived fairness may relate to legitimacy, as discussed by Van der Toorn, Tyler, and Jost (2011), but responses on this self-report questionnaire cannot establish that fair procedures cause legitimacy or trust.

As a political fairness test, it is an online self-report profile: answers may shift with current events, political knowledge, expectations, and response style. The questionnaire has descriptive result bands but no established population norms or clinical thresholds, so results are a structured snapshot of perceived fairness and a prompt to examine why official decisions seem acceptable or unacceptable.