Premium
An Instrument for the Measurement of Job Satisfaction 1
Author(s) -
JOHNSON GEORGE H.
Publication year - 1955
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1955.tb01185.x
Subject(s) - psychology , job satisfaction , social psychology , test (biology) , applied psychology , work (physics) , reliability (semiconductor) , statistics , mathematics , mechanical engineering , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , engineering , biology
Summary T he construction of a 99 item job satisfaction questionnaire is described as covering the following work areas: physical and mental exertion; relations with associates; relations with employer; security, advancement, and finances; interest in, liking for, and emotional involvement in the job; job information and status; physical surroundings and work conditions; future, goals, and progress toward goals; and evaluation in retrospect. The test‐retest reliability coefficient over a three‐week interval with 98 teachers was .90, while individual items averaged 91.4 per cent complete agreement between the two questionnaires. Internal consistence was indicated by item analysis, comparing the most and least satisfied 27 per cent of 844 female teachers and 242 male teachers respectively. Biserial correlations were significant for 97 of the 99 items for the female group, and for 87 out of 99 for the smaller male group. The average magnitude of the biserial correlations obtained was .45 for each sex group when all items were considered together, and ranged from .33 to .55 when items were grouped into the various work categories represented. Validity was inferred from the nature of the construction of the instrument, ratings of the individual items by ten judges, ratings of work characteristics for importance to job satisfaction by 1184 teachers, a correlation of .64 between self‐estimates of satisfaction and job satisfaction scores for 98 teachers and a correlation of .61 between paired‐comparison ratings of job satisfaction and scores for 18 teachers. Such an instrument should be of value in studying and diagnosing job satisfaction in both applied and research situations.