AbstractThe measurement properties of the Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970) role conflict and role ambiguity scales have been debated in the research literature for several years. The criticisms are that the scales do not measure separate constructs and are contaminated by method variance. However, some researchers have presented evidence supporting the scales' continued use as independent measures. We attempted to clarify the running debate by re‐examining these issues and presenting additional data, which focused on the item level of analysis. Using confirmatory factor analyses and item statistics, we show discriminant validity for the role conflict and ambiguity scales across three diverse samples of workers. We also contend that the evidence for method bias is not as strong as previously argue