1. Journal of Managerial Psychology Overall job satisfaction:
how good are single versus multiple-item measures? Titus Oshagbemi
Article information: To cite this document: Titus Oshagbemi,
(1999),"Overall job satisfaction: how good are single versus
multiple-item measures?", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14
Iss 5 pp. 388 - 403 Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683949910277148 Downloaded on: 12 June
2015, At: 14:20 (PT) References: this document contains references
to 29 other documents. To copy this document:
[email protected] The fulltext of this document has
been downloaded 4595 times since 2006* Users who downloaded this
article also downloaded: Mark A. Tietjen, Robert M. Myers,
(1998),"Motivation and job satisfaction", Management Decision, Vol.
36 Iss 4 pp. 226-231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810211027
Titus Oshagbemi, (1997),"Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in
higher education", Education + Training, Vol. 39 Iss 9 pp. 354-359
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400919710192395 Daulatram B. Lund,
(2003),"Organizational culture and job satisfaction", Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Iss 3 pp. 219-236
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0885862031047313 Access to this document
was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
emerald-srm:273599 [] For Authors If you would like to write for
this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available
for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more
information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a
global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of
society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals
and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing
an extensive range of online products and additional customer
resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER
compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related
content and download information correct at time of download.
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
2. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 388 Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 5, 1999, pp. 388-403. # MCB
University Press, 0268-3946 Overall job satisfaction: how good are
single versus multiple-item measures? Titus Oshagbemi The Queen's
University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK Keywords Job
satisfaction, Measurement, Academic staff, United Kingdom Abstract
Managers interested in finding out the overall job satisfaction
levels of their workers often face the problem of the appropriate
measure of job satisfaction to adopt: single versus multiple-item?
This study sets out to compare the results of a single versus a
multiple-item measure employed to investigate the job satisfaction
of university teachers. The purpose of the study was to ascertain
the superiority or otherwise of the measures in ascertaining the
overall job satisfaction of workers. The outcome of the study shows
that the single-item measure overestimated the percentage of people
satisfied with their jobs and grossly underestimated both the
percentage of dissatisfied workers and those who show indifference
in comparison with the figures of the multiple-item measure. Our
conclusion, therefore, is that the results from the single- item
measure tend to paint a rosier picture of job satisfaction than the
impression conveyed from the multiple-item measure would justify.
Introduction As a result of many decades of effort by social
scientists, there appears to be a high level of agreement among
them on the meaning of the construct of job satisfaction.
Typically, job satisfaction is conceptualised as a general attitude
toward an object, the job. For example, the definitions given by
Lofquist and Dawis (1969, p. 53), Porter et al. (1975, pp. 53-4),
Locke and Henne (1986, p. 21) are a few illustrations of several
others that are consistent with the general construct stated above.
The definitions given by these authors are similar to the one
offered by Locke (1976, p. 1300) who defined job satisfaction as
``a pleasurable or positive emotional state, resulting from the
appraisal of one's job experiences''. There are, of course, a few
but largely unimportant differences to the general construct. These
variations were discussed by Wanous and Lawler (1972, pp. 95-105).
In general, therefore, job satisfaction refers to an individual's
positive emotional reactions to a particular job. It is an
affective reaction to a job that results from the person's
comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired,
anticipated or deserved. The topic of job satisfaction is an
important one because of its relevance to the physical and mental
well-being of employees, i.e. job satisfaction has relevance for
human health. Work is an important aspect of people's lives and
most people spend a large part of their working lives at work. An
understanding of the factors involved in job satisfaction is
relevant to improving the well being of a significant number of
people. While the pursuit of the improvement of satisfaction is of
humanitarian value, Smith and others stated that ``trite as it may
seem, satisfaction is a legitimate goal in itself'' The current
issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
3. Overall job satisfaction 389 (Smith et al., 1969, p. 3). The
topic of job satisfaction is also important because of its
implications for job related behaviours such as productivity,
absenteeism or turnover. Therefore, apart from its humanitarian
utility, it appears to make economic sense to consider whether and
how job satisfaction can be improved. Measuring the level of job
satisfaction is therefore an important task for a researcher.
Basically there are two types of job satisfaction measures: single-
question versus multiple-item measures. Single-question measures
typically ask a question such as, ``On the whole would you say you
are satisfied or dissatisfied with the work you do?'', and its
variant, ``All in all, would you say you are satisfied or
dissatisfied with your job?'' (Quinn, et al., 1974, p. 51). A
respondent may then be presented with a scale of measure from
satisfaction to dissatisfaction or vice versa. Multiple-item
measures, on the other hand, ask respondents to rate various
aspects of their job on a scale running from (say) levels of
dissatisfaction to levels of satisfaction. The revised job
descriptive index (Smith et al., 1985) and Oshagbemi's study of the
job satisfaction of university teachers (1996; 1997a; 1997b; 1997c;
1998) provide examples of general-item measures of job
satisfaction. While the literature on the topic of job satisfaction
is extensive (Oshagbemi, 1996), the results obtained from empirical
studies are often a function of the measure of job satisfaction
employed. While there are popular single-question and general
multiple-item measures of job satisfaction, there are often more
specific tailor made multiple measures of ascertaining the job
satisfaction of specified workers. Therefore, the choice of what
measure to use in ascertaining the job satisfaction of a given
occupational group is sometimes problematic in terms of the
information desired and the ease of comparability of results with
different occupations. This study sets out to compare the results
of two research instruments employed to investigate the job
satisfaction of university teachers. The study aims to compare the
relative effectiveness of the two research instruments in the
investigation of the job satisfaction of the workers. Ultimately,
we are interested in evaluating the overall superiority, if at all,
of one measure of job satisfaction over the other. Towards this
end, a widely used general measure to ascertain the job
satisfaction of workers was employed and the results from this
aspect of the study were compared with the results from a tailor
made measure of ascertaining the job satisfaction of university
teachers which was designed. The results from the two sets of
studies are presented and discussed. Literature review Job
satisfaction is a heavily researched area of inquiry. Locke
estimated that, as of 1976, about 3,350 articles or dissertations
had been written on the topic. Cranny et al. (1992) suggested that
more than 5,000 studies of job satisfaction had been published. In
a more recent estimate, Oshagbemi (1996) suggested that if a count
of relevant articles and dissertations were made, Locke's estimate,
made only 20 years earlier, would probably be doubled.
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
4. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 390 However, studies
of measures of job satisfaction are relatively very few. A search
of relevant articles through the Institute of Scientific
Information Social Sciences Database revealed that only seven
articles were published between 1981 to 1997, both years inclusive.
The search used ``measures of job satisfaction'' as words in title.
When the search used ``measures of job satisfaction'' as words in
title, key words or abstract, a total of 23 hits were recorded
during the search period. This shows that relatively very little
had been written on measurement of job satisfaction although there
are extensive publications on the subject of job satisfaction
itself. The work by Thompson et al. (1997) focused on a synthesis
of research findings of job satisfaction carried out within
educational organisations. However, their review did not focus on
measures of job satisfaction. Rather, it synthesised empirical
findings on job satisfaction published in the first 26 volumes of
Educational Administration Quarterly. Malinowska-Tabaka (1987) set
out to establish a general scale of job
satisfaction/dissatisfaction for four professional groups
(teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers) and to discuss the
importance of the components of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction
scales which differ between them. They found that the general level
of job satisfaction among the four professionals is similar, except
for teachers, for whom it is slightly lower. There was no
presentation of a conceptual scale for the measurement of job
satisfaction which is of general applicability. In his own study,
Pollard (1996) found that the single-item indicator offered a less
comprehensive explanation of job satisfaction than did the four and
seven- item indicators. The results of his study underscore that
more attention must be paid to measurement issues if a reliable and
valid understanding of job satisfaction among various professional
workers is anticipated. Scarpello and Campbell (1983), on the other
hand, concluded that a single-item measure of overall job
satisfaction was preferable to a scale that is based on a sum of
specific job facet satisfactions. Since the publication of their
article, however, the legitimacy of single-item measures has not
increased for a variety of reasons. Among reasons explaining the
non-legitimacy of single-item measures is the view often expressed
that one cannot estimate the internal consistency of single-item
measures, and this alone is believed to be a sufficient reason to
limit or avoid their use. Additionally, for psychological
constructs, the use of single- item measures is typically
discouraged, because they are presumed to have low reliability.
Wanous et al. (1997) presented a study in which single-item
measures of overall job satisfaction are correlated with scales
measuring overall job satisfaction. Their finding appears to
bolster their argument that a single-item measure of overall job
satisfaction is acceptable. The authors suggested that the
measurement of change in overall job satisfaction is one example of
a research question suggesting the use of single-item measure.
Nevertheless, the authors argue that there are still good reasons
for preferring scales to single items and that the appropriateness
of either single or multiple-item measures of job satisfaction for
a particular piece of research should always be evaluated.
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
5. Overall job satisfaction 391 Research method This research
was designed to enable a comparison between a single and a
multiple-item measure of job satisfaction. A questionnaire survey
was conducted in May 1994. The population for this study comprised
teachers from 23 universities in the UK. The universities were
selected to include sample institutions from all the regions of the
country. Subjects were 566 university teachers who responded to a
questionnaire on job satisfaction. These represent 51.4 percent of
possible respondents who were randomly selected from the
Commonwealth Universities Yearbook (1993). To measure the level of
satisfaction of university teachers, respondents were asked to
answer four questions concerning job satisfaction. The questions
are reproduced in Table I. They have been used frequently in the
past as measures of satisfaction. See, for example, Larkin (1990)
and Oshagbemi (1995). An aggregate score of 20 on the four
questions indicates that one is very satisfied with one's job. An
aggregate score of four suggests that an individual is very
dissatisfied. See Table I for the interpretation of the scores in
terms of an individual's level of job satisfaction. It is the
results from this instrument that we designate as ``single
measure'' in relation to the second instrument described below. In
order to measure the job satisfaction of university teachers on
particular aspects of their jobs, sections of the questionnaire
comprising eight basic job elements and some demographic questions
were introduced. The job elements are: (1) teaching (2) research
}nature of the job (3) administration and management (4) present
pay; (5) promotions; (6) supervision/supervisor behaviour; (7)
co-workers' behaviour; (8) physical conditions/working facilities.
Respondents were asked to indicate the level of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction which they derived from each of the eight aspects
of their jobs. The scale ranged from 1 to 7 representing 1 =
``extremely dissatisfied'', 2 = ``very dissatisfied'', 3 =
``dissatisfied'', 4 = ``indifferent'', 5 = ``satisfied'', 6 =
``very satisfied'', 7 = ``extremely satisfied''. The criteria were
equally weighted. The job elements in the study are consistent with
findings on the measurement of job satisfaction (Wanous and Lawler,
1972; Giles and Feild, 1978; Kulik et al., 1988; Scarpello and
Campbell, 1983; Loher et al., 1985; Schneider and Dachler, 1978;
Oshagbemi, 1996; 1997a; 1997b; 1997c; 1998). For example, the
elements in our formulation are almost identical with those of the
popular job descriptive index (Smith et al., 1969) which has been
found to produce highly reliable results. See, for example,
Imparato (1972).
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
6. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 392 It is the
questionnaire that we regard as a multiple-item measure of job
satisfaction. The results of the research instruments (single
versus multiple- item measures) form the central discussion in this
article. The question is, which of the two research instruments, if
any, provides superior results? Towards providing answers to this
question, the results of the research questions are evaluated and
judgement passed on their comparative value. Background of
respondents Table II shows a breakdown of the university teachers
who responded to our questionnaire. The table shows the
distribution of respondents' age, sex, rank, Table I. Job
satisfaction test I. Which one of the following indicates how much
of the time you feel satisfied with your job? 1. Never 2. Seldom 3.
About half of the time 4. Most of the time 5. All of the time II.
Which one of the following statements best describes how you feel
about your job? 1. I hate it 2. I dislike it 3. I am indifferent to
it 4. I like it 5. I love it III. Which one of the following
statements best describes how you feel about changing your current
job? 1. I would quit this job at once if I could 2. I would like to
change my job soon 3. I am not sure if I would exchange my present
job for a similar one 4. I am not eager to change my job, but I
would do so if I could get a better job 5. I would not exchange my
job for any other IV. Which one of the following statements best
describes how you think you compared with other people? 1. No one
dislikes his/her job more than I dislike mine 2. I dislike my job
more than most people dislike theirs 3. I like my job about as well
as most people like theirs 4. I like my job better than most people
like theirs 5. No one likes his/her job better than I like mine
Your job satisfaction measure: add up your score for the four
questions. Match your total score with the appropriate category to
find your job satisfaction measure Score Job satisfaction level
20-17 Very satisfied 16-13 Satisfied 12 Indifferent 11-8
Dissatisfied 7-4 Very dissatisfied
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
7. Overall job satisfaction 393 length of service in present
university/higher education, areas of academic discipline, and
their leadership or management responsibilities. The information in
Table II shows that the academic backgrounds of the respondents
were very wide and cover most subject areas in the universities.
The distribution of the length of service spent in higher education
shows that respondents included relative newcomers who had spent
less than five years (about 15 percent) to workers who had spent
more than 30 years in the university system (about 6 percent). As
would be expected, perhaps, a large percentage of workers (almost
80 percent) fall in between the newcomers and the workers whose
service had been for a much longer period. Table II. Background of
respondents Percentage Age Less than 35 years 14.3 35-44 35.0 45-54
36.7 55+ 14.0 100.0 Rank Lecturer 54.9 Senior lecturer 31.2 Reader
4.3 Professor 8.5 Other 1.1 100.0 Sex Male 60.8 Female 39.2 100.0
Length of service in higher education/present university (years)
0-5 14.9 28.5 6-10 21.0 20.8 11-20 32.3 27.1 21-30 25.9 20.2 31+
5.9 3.4 100.0 100.0 Area of academic discipline
Medicine/pharmacy/dentistry/nursing 11.9
Engineering/computing/architecture/archaeology/building 17.9
Arts/law/education 23.3 Social sciences/management/accountancy 21.7
Natural sciences/agriculture/mathematics 23.9 Others 1.3 100.0
Leadership or management responsibility Head, director, dean,
provost, etc. 12.2 Not currently in charge of an academic unit or
group 61.3 Holding other management posts 26.5 100.0
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
8. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 394 It was useful to
find that almost 30 percent of the respondents had not worked for
more than five years in their present universities. This percentage
is about double the corresponding percentage of respondents who had
worked in higher education during the same period. The comparison
suggests some rates of staff turnover, retirement, or new
recruitment, necessitated perhaps because of expansion of
universities, which makes about one-third of the academic staff
relatively new in their present institutions. In fact, almost 50
percent of the respondents had worked for only ten years or less in
their present universities. The corresponding figure for those who
had worked in higher education during the same period is 36
percent. It is possible, however, that these figures would compare
favourably with similar figures of the length of service of workers
within other employment sectors, especially workers within other
public sector organisations. Table II also shows that the majority
of the respondents were lecturers (about 55 percent) while a
significant percentage were of senior lecturer rank. The relatively
few readers and professors appear to be representative of the
percentage of these top officers in the academic population. Only
about 39 percent of the respondents were females. However,
considering the estimated proportion of females in the total
population, the percentage of those who responded to our
questionnaire can certainly not be considered low. It was observed
from the results of the data analyses that only one respondent was
less than 25 years of age. One is not sure whether this finding
suggests an ageing academic population or whether the average age
of academics tends to be higher than the average age of workers in
other employment sectors. It was further observed that the
percentage of respondents who were less than 35 years old was about
the same as those who were older than 55 years. Over 70 percent of
the respondents were in the 35-54 age bracket. About 12 percent of
the respondents held managerial posts as head of department or
division, director of school, dean of faculty, provost or head of a
unit e.g. an institute or centre. The percentage of those who held
other management posts, such as year tutor, chairperson of a
research group, project co-ordinator, director of undergraduate
programmes, etc. was about double the figure of 12 percent.
Clearly, the majority of the respondents were not currently in
charge of an academic unit or group. However, it does not follow
that this group did not have some administrative assignments, at
least on an occasional, if not on a regular, basis. General measure
of job satisfaction Table III is a summary of an analysis of the
responses to the job satisfaction test which was used to estimate
the level of general job satisfaction of university teachers. From
Table III, it can be seen that slightly more than 50 percent of the
respondents were satisfied with their jobs most of the time or all
of the time, while about 90 percent of the respondents were
satisfied with their jobs about
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
9. Overall job satisfaction 395 half, or more, of the time.
About eight out of every ten respondents liked or loved their jobs,
while about 70 percent of the university teachers were either not
eager to change their job or would not exchange their job for any
other. About 35 percent of university teachers felt that they liked
their job at about the same level as others liked their job, while
about 60 percent of the academics believe that they liked their job
better. In essence, about 95 percent of university teachers reckon
that they like their job as much as others or better. For general
comparative purposes, and perhaps for a better overall picture of
the university teachers' general satisfaction levels, the
statistics at the bottom of Table III were prepared from the
general analysis presented at the top of the page. The information
at the bottom of the table represents a summary of responses to the
job satisfaction test. It shows the percentage of the respondents
who were satisfied, dissatisfied or indifferent. It can be seen
from the table that 19 percent were very satisfied while 64 percent
were satisfied, Table III. An analysis of responses to the job
satisfaction test (1) The time you feel satisfied with your job (3)
Your feelings about changing your current job Percent Percent Never
0.9 Would quit at once if I could 8.6 Seldom 10.0 Would like to
change job soon 9.5 About half of the time 37.3 Not sure/undecided
13.2 Most of the time All of the time 49.5 2.4 Not eager to change
job Would not exchange job for anything 49.5 19.2 100.0 100.0 (2)
Statements describing how you feel about your job (4) How you think
your feelings compare with others Percent Percent I hate it I
dislike it I am indifferent to it I like it I love it 0.9 7.8 8.9
66.3 16.0 No one dislikes his/her job more than I dislike mine I
dislike my job more than most people dislike theirs I like my job
as well as most people like theirs 0.0 5.0 34.5 I like my job
better than most people like theirs 59.6 No one likes his/her job
better than I like mine 0.9 100.0 100.0 A summary of responses to
the job satisfaction test Score Percentage Job satisfaction level
20-17 19 Very satisfied 16-13 64 Satisfied 12 3 Indifferent 11-8 11
Dissatisfied 7-4 3 Very dissatisfied All responses 100
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
10. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 396 giving a total of
83 percent of the respondents who were at least satisfied with
their job. Similarly, 3 percent of the respondents were very
dissatisfied while 11 percent were dissatisfied giving a total of
14 percent who were at least dissatisfied. About 3 percent of the
respondents were indifferent in terms of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with their job. Compared with accountants which
Larkin investigated (Larkin, 1990, pp. 20-4), university teachers
appeared to possess a higher level of job satisfaction 83 percent
versus 72 percent. Even compared with the series of surveys on job
satisfaction which was conducted in the USA between 1954 and 1973
(Quinn et al., 1974), where the level of the workers' job
satisfaction ranged between 81-92 percent, the picture conveyed by
the results of the job satisfaction of university teachers is
satisfactory. It should be noted, however, that similar general
measures of job satisfaction were used in these studies and also
partly in our own survey. Specific measure of job satisfaction
Tables IV and V present a summary of the responses to the job
satisfaction questionnaire on particular aspects of the university
teachers' job. The questionnaire was developed and administered
together with the job satisfaction test. Table IV reports the
average rating, and the variability of Table IV. Average rating of
respondents on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction derived from
aspects of their jobs Aspect of job Mean score Modal score Median
score Standard deviation Teaching 5.09 5 5 1.20 Research 4.66 5 5
1.58 Administration and management 3.93 5 4 1.40 Present pay 3.44 3
3 1.46 Promotions 3.42 3 3 1.50 Head of unit's supervision 4.18 5 5
1.73 Co-workers' behaviour 4.81 5 5 1.23 Physical
conditions/working facilities 4.33 5 5 1.51 Table V. Percentages of
respondents who were satisfied, dissatisfied with or indifferent to
aspects of their jobs Aspect of job Satisfieda Dissatisfiedb
Indifferent Teaching 79.5 12.8 7.7 Research 64.8 26.6 8.6
Administration and management 40.2 36.8 23.0 Present pay 29.9 54.3
15.8 Promotions 26.4 50.1 23.5 Head of unit's supervision 52.4 34.3
13.3 Co-workers' behaviour 69.7 17.0 13.3 Physical
conditions/working facilities 56.9 30.9 12.2 Notes: a incorporating
respondents who were satisfied, very satisfied and extremely
satisfied; b incorporating respondents who were dissatisfied, very
dissatisfied and extremely dissatisfied
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
11. Overall job satisfaction 397 these ratings, of respondents
on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction derived from aspects of
their job. Table V presents the percentages of respondents who were
satisfied, dissatisfied with or indifferent to aspects of their
job. The finding from the job satisfaction questionnaire was
compared with the findings from the job satisfaction test to
generate the figures presented on Table VI, to be discussed later.
One finding from Table IV is that the respondents rated the
satisfaction which they derived from teaching, research and their
colleagues' behaviour highly. This positive rating is shown in the
mean scores recorded for these aspects of their jobs and the
variability of the ratings. It is perhaps useful to note that the
variability of the responses was particularly low on teaching and
on interaction with colleagues. This indicates a consistent and a
reassuring positive response from the university teachers on these
aspects of their jobs. On research, however, the variability of the
ratings was rather high with standard deviation of almost 1.6 (see
Table IV). It shows that while many academics enjoy research
activities a lot, some of them do not appear to enjoy research
functions at all. Alternatively, it may be that some academics tend
to be more successful than others in the rate of their research
output, for example, in publications and/or, in the attraction of
external funding for their research projects. Obviously, it would
be difficult for an individual to enjoy a task which he or she is
not very successful at performing. The ratings of the respondents
on the satisfaction derived from their head of units' behaviour, as
well as of the physical conditions and working facilities in their
universities, was rather lower. However, the modal and median
ratings of these tasks are as high as those for teaching and
research. There is a rather wide variability of the respondents'
rating of the latter tasks, especially with the rating of the
satisfaction derived from the head of unit's behaviour. This means
that in the case of satisfaction derived from the head of unit's
supervision, for example, while some respondents were very
satisfied with their head's behaviour, a significant number were
seriously dissatisfied. The mean ratings of the satisfaction
derived from the university teachers' administrative and managerial
functions, their present pay and their promotions, were low. Mean
ratings of less than four were obtained in each of the latter three
considerations and suggest dissatisfaction with these aspects of
their job. The dissatisfaction with the university teachers'
promotion and present salaries was serious, with the mode and
median ratings of only three in each of these two aspects of their
job. The interpretation from these statistics is that the majority
of respondents were clearly dissatisfied with these aspects of
their jobs. Table V supplements the information provided in Table
IV. Table V was presented to show the percentage of respondents who
were satisfied, dissatisfied with or indifferent to aspects of
their jobs. It shows that less than 30 percent of the respondents
were satisfied with their promotions while only
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
12. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 398 about 30 percent
were satisfied with their present pay. At the same time, more than
50 percent of the respondents were dissatisfied with both their
present pay and their promotions (see Table V). The survey results
are difficult to summarise in terms of the overall feelings of the
respondents. While the respondents appeared to be very satisfied
with their main tasks, i.e. teaching and research, they were
clearly dissatisfied with some aspects of their job. A moderately
high level of job satisfaction by the university teachers may, in
general, represent the feelings of most workers. However, to get
the true average situation of the satisfaction of workers in all
tasks, we take the mean of the average figures of each aspect of
their job. It is the mean figures obtained from Table V that form
the input to the multiple- item measure in Table VI. Evaluation of
the methodological alternatives In order to discuss and appraise
the methodological alternatives of single versus multiple-item
measures, Table VI is presented. The table was prepared with the
assumption that the multiple-item measure of job satisfaction is
closer to reality than the single-item measure, i.e. we take the
multiple-item measure as the ``standard'' from where deviations
were recorded. Given this assumption, it can be seen from Table VI
that the single-item measure overestimates the percentage of people
satisfied with their jobs by a wide margin of 31 percent of the
sample. Consequently, both the percentages of dissatisfied or
``indifferent'' academics were grossly underestimated (see Table
VI). Thus there are clear differences between the results obtained
from the two measures used for the same study. From the figures on
Table VI, only about 52 percent of the academics in UK universities
are satisfied with their job overall while as many as 33 percent
are dissatisfied. The remaining 15 percent of staff show
indifference. This means that the percentage of academics who are
dissatisfied and the proportion of them who are indifferent are
about equal to the percentage of academics who were satisfied with
their jobs (48 percent versus 52 percent). The interpretation is
that while academics are very satisfied with some tasks, overall,
their satisfaction is only moderately high. It can be improved. The
figures from the table show that single-item measures tend to
exaggerate the results obtained for satisfaction while they
underestimate results obtained for dissatisfied Table VI.
Comparison of the results of the single versus multiple-item
measure of job satisfaction Percentage satisfied Percentage
dissatisfied Percentage indifferent Single-item measure 83 14 3
Multiple-item measure 52 33 15 Differencea +31 19 12 Result
Overestimation Underestimation Underestimation Notes: a Assumes
that the multiple-item measure is closer to reality than the
single-item measure, i.e. we take the multiple-item measure as the
``standard''
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
13. Overall job satisfaction 399 workers and those who show
indifference. This shows single-item measures to be less reliable
estimators of job satisfaction when compared with multiple measures
of the same phenomenon. A single-item measure of job satisfaction,
such as the one used in this study, has some advantages. Perhaps
the greatest of these is the simplicity of the measure and its
applicability to miscellaneous occupations. Thus, whether one is
investigating the job satisfaction of pilots, fishermen, solicitors
or managers, the single-item measure of job satisfaction may be
administered. This feature of simplicity, in turn, outlines its use
in comparative studies, especially when the intention is to compare
the job satisfaction of workers of one occupation with those of
another. It also renders the measure of value when comparing the
job satisfaction of workers in one country with those from a
different country. Applicability of the single-item measure, at
different time span, is also one of the several advantages that
recommend its wide use. Against these advantages are some drawbacks
of using a single-item measure of job satisfaction. This can be
summarised in the brevity of information obtained from a
single-item measure. The statistics obtained measure overall
satisfaction in general terms without an opportunity to record
satisfaction or dissatisfaction levels on particular aspects of the
same job. In essence, only the ``average'' job satisfaction level
is revealed, without any opportunity to know the composition of the
average statistics. Single-item derived job satisfaction levels are
often of little value to managers who are interested in taking some
action towards improving the level of job satisfaction of workers
in their organisations. This is because single-item measures of job
satisfaction do not reveal areas of strength or weakness of an
organisation in terms of aspects of its operations which workers
enjoy or do not enjoy. In essence, therefore, the single-item
statistics of job satisfaction fail to give a report card
describing the success and/or failures of its managers in ensuring
that the job satisfaction of its workers remains reasonably high.
Wanous et al. (1997) suggested that the appropriateness of
single-item measures for a particular piece of research should
always be evaluated. The authors further suggest that if neither
the research question nor the research situation suggest the use of
a single-item job satisfaction measure, then choosing a well
constructed scale makes sense. There are some common problems with
single-question measures of overall job satisfaction. First, there
are some problems of measurement. This has to do with the fact that
different job satisfaction measures have different points at which
discontent begins to register, the ``threshold of discontent''.
While thresholds of discontent depend on a number of factors, they
lead to one important conclusion, namely, that the most frequently
used subjective measures of job satisfaction, such as ``All in all,
would you say you are satisfied or dissatisfied with your job?'',
tend to produce the highest estimate of satisfied workers (Quinn et
al., 1974, pp. 51-2). Second, there tends to be defensive reactions
of workers to questions about job satisfaction. For example,
workers may feel that being dissatisfied is their
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
14. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 400 own fault because
of having chosen the wrong job or not bothering to do anything to
get another one, or a variety of other reasons. They may, for
example, view their reports of job satisfaction as reflecting
poorly on their own decision-making abilities. Third, workers'
reactions to job satisfaction questions may indicate an attempt to
rationalise the problems they may face at work, especially if they
are not able or willing to change their job. Thus, they may, for
example, demand less of their job, if they find a prolonged state
of chronic dissatisfaction uncomfortable. The consequence is that
such workers may report that they are satisfied with their present
work when in fact they may not be! In addition to these problems of
measuring job satisfaction, there are some problems of
interpretation. Absolute levels of job satisfaction are much more
difficult to determine than relative ones. While researchers
continue the search for an acceptable international measure of job
satisfaction (Misener et al., 1996), the three problems of
measurement discussed heretofore suggest that no sure way has yet
been devised for determining absolute levels of job satisfaction.
However, while existing measures of job satisfaction provide
questionable estimates of absolute levels of satisfaction, they
prove very useful for comparing the satisfaction of workers in
different occupations, at different times, in different demographic
groups, and at different levels of hierarchy. In evaluating
multiple-item measures of job satisfaction, one should bear in mind
that these are often tailor-made questionnaires appropriate to
particular jobs. Thus, in evaluating the job satisfaction of
university teachers, we designed a measure to record their
satisfaction levels on important aspects of their job, their pay,
promotions, supervision, co-workers' behaviour and physical
conditions or working facilities obtainable from their job. One
advantage of such measures is that they are relevant and they often
reveal differences in the job satisfaction levels derived from
performing different tasks of the same job. A picture of the
overall satisfaction level from all tasks can also be ascertained
by computing an average of the individual average figures of the
identified tasks. Thus, the average statistics of one worker can be
compared with those of another to find out the worker who, on the
whole, is more satisfied with his or her job. When multiple-item
job satisfaction measures are used, the information generated can
provide managers with data with which to initiate action aimed at
improving the overall job satisfaction of their workers. It also
serves to inform managers on aspects of their operations which
workers enjoy and which should be sustained as much as possible. In
essence, it helps managers to improve on their human and
organisational management. There are no disadvantages of the
multiple-item measures of job satisfaction as such except that the
specifics may sometimes make a general perception of workers' job
satisfaction level difficult to ascertain. As a research tool,
however, multiple-item measures of job satisfaction are also more
difficult to conceptualise and formulate and therefore tend to be
more costly to produce when compared with single-item measures.
Since single-item measures are
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
15. Overall job satisfaction 401 relatively simple and short,
perhaps they should accompany most multiple- item measures of job
satisfaction studies. In this way, meaningful comparisons of job
satisfaction studies are greatly enhanced. Even then, factors
responsible for job satisfaction or dissatisfaction may differ from
one study to another although the same or different satisfaction
levels may be reported. In essence, therefore, a thorough
understanding and description of the job satisfaction of an
occupational group would also deal with the need to explain or
interpret resulting job satisfaction statistics. While researchers
continue to investigate the possibility of a uniform international
measure of job satisfaction (Misener et al., 1996; Mueller and
McCloskey, 1990), differences in organisational culture and levels
of economic and social development which exist in various countries
make the adoption of a universal measure of job satisfaction
unlikely. Summary and conclusions This study aims to compare the
effectiveness of two research instruments used to measure the job
satisfaction of university teachers. In the single-item measure,
respondents were asked simple questions about satisfaction with
their job, namely: how often they feel satisfied with their jobs,
their feelings about changing their current job, statements such as
``hate'' or ``love'' describing how they feel about their job and
how they think their feelings compare with others (see Table III).
In the multiple-item measure, the respondents were asked questions
not only on their satisfaction with teaching, research and
administration and management, but also on satisfaction with their
pay, promotions, co-workers' behaviour, supervisor behaviour and
physical conditions or working facilities which exist in their
organisations. The respondents' answers were then analysed and
compared for comprehensive information and consistency of opinions.
The results of the study show that the multiple-item measure of job
satisfaction was more detailed in terms of aspects of the
respondents' job where information was available. In addition, the
measure was useful in comparing tasks or aspects of the same job.
However, if a comparison of the job satisfaction of workers in
different occupations were desired, a single-item job satisfaction
measure would be preferable as it tends to eliminate the specifics
and the peculiarities of jobs. It was, therefore, suggested that,
where possible, both single as well as multiple-item measures of
job satisfaction should be used in the same study. In discussing
the results, the complementary nature of the two measures of job
satisfaction was apparent. It was, therefore, felt that both
measures are superior to either of them used alone. If a choice of
only one method must be made, the choice of which method to use
would depend largely on the objectives of a research. In
comparative studies, the single-item measure has obvious
advantages, while in organisational or occupational studies,
tailor- made multiple-item measures tend to provide more
comprehensive information.
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
16. Journal of Managerial Psychology 14,5 402 References
Commonwealth Universities Yearbook (1993), Association of
Commonwealth Universities, London, pp. 2170-976. Cranny, C.J.,
Smith, P.C. and Stone, E.F. (1992), Job Satisfaction, Lexington,
New York, NY. Giles, W.F. and Feild, H.S. (1978), ``The
relationship of satisfaction questionnaire: item to item
sensitivity'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp.
295-301. Imparato, N. (1972), ``Relationship between Porter's need
satisfaction: questionnaire and the job descriptive index'',
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 397-405. Kulik,
C.T., Oldham, G.R. and Langner, P.H. (1988), ``Measurement of job
characteristics: comparison of the original and the revised job
diagnostic survey'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 462-6. Larkin, J.M. (1990), ``Does gender affect internal
auditors' performance?'', The Woman CPA, Spring, pp. 20-4. Locke,
E.A. (1976), ``The nature and causes of job satisfaction'', in
Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organisational
Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-343. Locke, E.A.
and Henne, D. (1986), ``Work motivation theories'', in Cooper, C.L.
and Roberston, I. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organisational Psychology, Wiley, London, pp. 1-35. Lofquist, L.H.
and Dawis, R.V. (1969), Adjustment to Work A Psychological View of
Man's Problems in a Work-oriented Society, Appleton Century Crofts,
New York, NY. Loher, B.T., Noe R.A., Moeller, N.L. and Fitzgerald,
M.P. (1985), ``A meta-analysis of the relation of job
characteristics to job satisfaction'', Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 280-9. Malinowska-Tabaka, E. (1987),
``Complex measures of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction among
professionals'', Social Indicators Research, Vol. 19, pp. 451-73.
Misener, T.R., Haddock, K.S., Gleaton, J.U. and Ajamieh, A.R.A.
(1996), ``Toward an international measure of job satisfaction'',
Nursing Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 87-91. Mueller, C.W. and
McCloskey, J.C. (1990), ``Nurses' job satisfaction: a proposed
measure'', Nursing Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 113-17. Oshagbemi,
T. (1995), ``Job satisfaction of workers in higher education'',
Reflections on Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 65-89.
Oshagbemi, T. (1996), ``Job satisfaction of UK academics'',
Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp.
389-400. Oshagbemi, T. (1997a), ``Job satisfaction profiles of
university teachers'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 27-39. Oshagbemi, T. (1997b), ``The influence of rank on
the job satisfaction of organisational members'', Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 511-19. Oshagbemi, T.
(1997c), ``Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher
education'', Education + Training, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 354-9.
Oshagbemi, T. (1998), ``The impact of age on the job satisfaction
of university teachers'', Research in Education, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp.
95-108. Pollard, G. (1996), ``A comparison of measures of job
satisfaction used in studies of social communicators'', Gazette,
Vol. 57, pp. 111-19. Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E. and Hackman, J.R.
(1975), Behaviour in Organisations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
17. Overall job satisfaction 403 Quinn, R.P., Staines, G.L. and
McCullough, M.R. (1974), ``Job satisfaction: is there a trend?'',
Manpower Research Monograph No.30. US Department of Labour,
Washington DC, Vol. vi, pp. 1-57. Scarpello, V. and Campbell, J.P.
(1983), ``Job satisfaction: are the parts there?'', Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 577-600. Schneider, B. and Dachler,
H.P. (1978), ``A note on the stability of the job descriptive
index'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 650-3.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hulin, C.L. (1969), The Measurement
of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of
Attitudes'', Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M.
and Hulin, C.L. (1985), The Revised Job Descriptive Index, Rand
McNally, Chicago, IL. Thompson, D.P., McNamara, J.F. and Hoyle,
J.R. (1997), ``Job satisfaction in educational organisations: a
synthesis of research findings'', Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 7-37. Wanous, J.P. and Lawler III,
E.D. (1972), ``Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction'',
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 95-105. Wanous,
J.P., Reichers, A.E. and Hudy, M.J. (1997), ``Overall job
satisfaction: how good are single- item measures?'', Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 247-52.
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
18. This article has been cited by: 1. Jisun Jung, Jung Cheol
Shin. 2015. Administrative staff members job competency and their
job satisfaction in a Korean research university. Studies in Higher
Education 40, 881-901. [CrossRef] 2. Sigrid Blmeke, Jessica Hoth,
Martina Dhrmann, Andreas Busse, Gabriele Kaiser, Johannes Knig.
2015. Teacher Change During Induction: Development of Beginning
Primary Teachers Knowledge, Beliefs and Performance. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13, 287-308.
[CrossRef] 3. Eric W. Welch, Yamini Jha. 2015. Network and
perceptual determinants of satisfaction among science and
engineering faculty in US research universities. The Journal of
Technology Transfer . [CrossRef] 4. Alexander Newman, Ingrid
Nielsen, Russell Smyth, Angus Hooke. 2015. Examining the
Relationship Between Workplace Support and Life Satisfaction: The
Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Social Indicators Research 120,
769-781. [CrossRef] 5. Ying Xue. 2015. Racial and ethnic minority
nurses job satisfaction in the U.S. International Journal of
Nursing Studies 52, 280-287. [CrossRef] 6. Marcus Kunter. 2015.
Exploring the Pay-What-You-Want payment motivation. Journal of
Business Research . [CrossRef] 7. Laurent Sovet, Miriam Sang-Ah
Park, Sungcheol Jung. 2014. Validation and Psychometric Properties
of Academic Major Satisfaction Scale Among Korean College Students.
Social Indicators Research 119, 1121-1131. [CrossRef] 8. Sue-Youn
Han, Hee-Chan Lee. 2014. The Effects of Job Stress on Burnout and
Job Satisfaction of Flight Attendants -Focusing on Comparison
between Full Service Carrier and Low Cost Carrier-. Journal of the
Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics 22, 33-49. [CrossRef]
9. Irene C. Moore, Jason B. Coe, Cindy L. Adams, Peter D. Conlon,
Jan M. Sargeant. 2014. The role of veterinary team effectiveness in
job satisfaction and burnout in companion animal veterinary
clinics. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
245, 513-524. [CrossRef] 10. Anja Iseke. 2014. The Part-Time Job
Satisfaction Puzzle: Different Types of Job Discrepancies and the
Moderating Effect of Family Importance. British Journal of
Industrial Relations 52:10.1111/ bjir.2014.52.issue-3, 445-469.
[CrossRef] 11. Wajda Wikhamn, Angela T. Hall. 2014. Accountability
and satisfaction: organizational support as a moderator. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 29:5, 458-471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Vinod Mishra, Russell Smyth. 2014. It pays to be happy (if you
are a man). International Journal of Manpower 35:3, 392-414.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 13. Jung Cheol Shin, Jisun Jung. 2014.
Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the
changing academic environments. Higher Education 67, 603-620.
[CrossRef] 14. Sarah E. Duffy. 2014. The Role of Cultural Artifacts
in the Interpretation of Metaphorical Expressions About Time.
Metaphor and Symbol 29, 94-112. [CrossRef] 15. Robert D. Bixler,
Stephanie L. Joseph, Vicki M. Searles. 2014. Volunteers as Products
of a Zoo Conservation Education Program. The Journal of
Environmental Education 45, 57-73. [CrossRef] 16. Pascalia
Munyewende, Laetitia Rispel, Tobias Chirwa. 2014. Positive practice
environments influence job satisfaction of primary health care
clinic nursing managers in two South African provinces. Human
Resources for Health 12, 27. [CrossRef]
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
19. 17. Lawrence E. Ross, Katie P. Desiderio, Michael
Knudstrup, Michael G. Frino. 2014. Sales Teams or Salespersons:
Performance Implications for Embracing Individualistic and
Collectivistic Cultural Values in a Global Marketplace. Performance
Improvement Quarterly 26:10.1002/piq.v26.4, 53-73. [CrossRef] 18.
Peter Hosie, Payyazhi Jayashree, Abdellatif Tchantchane, Ban Seng
Lee. 2013. The effect of autonomy, training opportunities, age and
salaries on job satisfaction in the South East Asian retail
petroleum industry. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 24, 3980-4007. [CrossRef] 19. Marco Giovanni Mariani,
Matteo Curcuruto, Ivan Gaetani. 2013. Training opportunities,
technology acceptance and job satisfaction. Journal of Workplace
Learning 25:7, 455-475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 20. Sigrid
Blmeke, Patricia Klein. 2013. WHEN IS A SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT
PERCEIVED AS SUPPORTIVE BY BEGINNING MATHEMATICS TEACHERS? EFFECTS
OF LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AUTONOMY AND APPRAISAL ON TEACHING QUALITY.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 11,
1029-1048. [CrossRef] 21. Shing On Leung, Meng Lin Xu. 2013.
Single-Item Measures for Subjective Academic Performance, Self-
Esteem, and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Social Service
Research 39, 511-520. [CrossRef] 22. Anna Huysse-Gaytandjieva, Wim
Groot, Milena Pavlova. 2013. A New Perspective on Job Lock. Social
Indicators Research 112, 587-610. [CrossRef] 23. Judith Teresa Bos,
Nathalie Charlotte Gerarda Maria Donders, Roel Leonardus Joseph
Schouteten, Joost Willem Johannes van der Gulden. 2013. Age as a
moderator in the relationship between work-related characteristics,
job dissatisfaction and need for recovery. Ergonomics 56, 992-1005.
[CrossRef] 24. Steven R. Wininger, Paige M. Birkholz. 2013. Sources
of Instructional Feedback, Job Satisfaction, and Basic
Psychological Needs. Innovative Higher Education 38, 159-170.
[CrossRef] 25. Robin Stanley Snell, Zhang Yi, Almaz M.K. Chak.
2013. Representational predicaments for employees: their impact on
perceptions of supervisors' individualized consideration and on
employee job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 24, 1646-1670. [CrossRef] 26. Yunkyung Jung.
2013. Influences of Work Characteristics on Older Workers' Job
Satisfaction: Focusing on Gender Differences. The Korean Journal of
Community Living Science 24, 119-132. [CrossRef] 27. Sheikh Zahoor
Sarwar, Ebtisam Mirza, Nadeem Ehsan, Khushnoor Khan, Huma Hanif.
2013. Determining the impact of age and LOS on job satisfaction: a
case study of Pakistan automotive industry. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 24, 415-435. [CrossRef] 28.
Christa L. Wilkin. 2013. I can't get no job satisfaction:
Meta-analysis comparing permanent and contingent workers. Journal
of Organizational Behavior 34, 47-64. [CrossRef] 29. Frank
Jing-Horng Lu, Ya-Wen Hsu, Yuan-Shuo Chan, Jang-Rong Cheen,
Kuei-Tsu Kao. 2012. Assessing College Student-Athletes' Life
Stress: Initial Measurement Development and Validation. Measurement
in Physical Education and Exercise Science 16, 254-267. [CrossRef]
30. De Wet Van Der Westhuizen, Gail Pacheco, Don J. Webber. 2012.
Culture, participative decision making and job satisfaction. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 23, 2661-2679.
[CrossRef] 31. Peter Hosie, Michael Willemyns, Peter Sevastos.
2012. The impact of happiness on managers' contextual and task
performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
50:10.1111/aphr.v50-03, 268-287. [CrossRef] 32. Gabriela Topa, Juan
A. Moriano, Ana Moreno. 2012. Psychosocial determinants of
financial planning for retirement among immigrants in Europe.
Journal of Economic Psychology 33, 527-537. [CrossRef]
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
20. 33. Marann Byrne, Aamir Ali Chughtai, Barbara Flood,
Pauline Willis. 2012. Job satisfaction among accounting and finance
academics: empirical evidence from Irish higher education
institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34,
153-167. [CrossRef] 34. Ilknur zalp Tretgen, zlem Sertel Berk,
Gokce Basbug, Pinar Unsal. 2012. The Development of the Job
Stressor Appraisal Scale as Part of the Job Stress Battery.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 28, 147-153.
[CrossRef] 35. Judith Volmer, Cornelia Niessen, Daniel Spurk,
Alexandra Linz, Andrea E. Abele. 2011. Reciprocal Relationships
between Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Job Satisfaction: A
Cross-Lagged Analysis. Applied Psychology
60:10.1111/apps.2011.60.issue-4, 522-545. [CrossRef] 36. Russell
Smyth, Ingrid Nielsen, Qingguo Zhai, Tiemin Liu, Yin Liu, Chunyong
Tang, Zhihong Wang, Zuxiang Wang, Juyong Zhang. 2011. A study of
the impact of environmental surroundings on personal well-being in
urban China using a multi-item well-being indicator. Population and
Environment 32, 353-375. [CrossRef] 37. Boran Toker. 2011. Job
satisfaction of academic staff: an empirical study on Turkey.
Quality Assurance in Education 19:2, 156-169. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] 38. Timo Christophersen, Udo Konradt. 2011.
Reliability, validity, and sensitivity of a single-item measure of
online store usability. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies 69, 269-280. [CrossRef] 39. Barbara Caemmerer, Alan Wilson.
2011. An exploration of the service orientation discrepancy
phenomenon in a public sector context. The Service Industries
Journal 31, 355-370. [CrossRef] 40. Peter Holland, Amanda Pyman,
Brian K. Cooper, Julian Teicher. 2011. Employee voice and job
satisfaction in Australia: The centrality of direct voice. Human
Resource Management 50:10.1002/hrm.v50.1, 95-111. [CrossRef] 41.
Luis Moya-Albiol, Miguel ngel Serrano, Alicia Salvador. 2010. Job
Satisfaction and Cortisol Awakening Response in Teachers Scoring
high and low on Burnout. The Spanish journal of psychology 13,
629-636. [CrossRef] 42. Wenshu GAO, Russell SMYTH. 2010. Job
satisfaction and relative income in economic transition: Status or
signal?. China Economic Review 21, 442-455. [CrossRef] 43. Jacob
Eskildsen, Kai Kristensen, Henrik Gjesing Antvor. 2010. The
relationship between job satisfaction and national culture. The TQM
Journal 22:4, 369-378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 44. Eva
Gallardo, SandraM. SnchezCaizares, Toms LpezGuzmn, Maria Margarida
Nascimento Jesus. 2010. Employee satisfaction in the Iberian hotel
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 22:3, 321-334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 45. Nicholas
Chileshe, Theodore C. Haupt. 2010. The effect of age on the job
satisfaction of construction workers. Journal of Engineering,
Design and Technology 8:1, 107-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Brian Payne, Brenda Sims Blackwell, Sue Carter Collins. 2010.
Exploring the Ties between Career Satisfaction and Education: Trait
versus Situational Approaches. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education 21, 77-92. [CrossRef] 47. Jeroen de Jong, Ren Schalk.
2010. Extrinsic Motives as Moderators in the Relationship Between
Fairness and Work-Related Outcomes Among Temporary Workers. Journal
of Business and Psychology 25, 175-189. [CrossRef] 48. Meghna
Sabharwal, Elizabeth A. Corley. 2009. Faculty job satisfaction
across gender and discipline. The Social Science Journal 46,
539-556. [CrossRef]
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
21. 49. Russell Smyth, Qingguo Zhai, Xiaoxu Li. 2009.
Determinants of turnover intentions among Chinese off farm
migrants. Economic Change and Restructuring 42, 189-209. [CrossRef]
50. Nan Young Kim, Graham Miller. 2008. Perceptions of the Ethical
Climate in the Korean Tourism Industry. Journal of Business Ethics
82, 941-954. [CrossRef] 51. Jeremy S. Jordan, Brian A. Turner.
2008. The Feasibility of Single-Item Measures for Organizational
Justice. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 12,
237-257. [CrossRef] 52. John O. Okpara, Pamela Wynn. 2008. The
impact of ethical climate on job satisfaction, and commitment in
Nigeria. Journal of Management Development 27:9, 935-950.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 53. Jacob Eskildsen, Kai Kristensen.
2008. Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty as predictors of
future business potential. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 19, 843-853. [CrossRef] 54. Ingrid Wnnstrm, ke Nygren,
Marie sberg, J. Petter Gustavsson. 2008. Different response
alternatives in the assessment of job demands. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 81, 813-819.
[CrossRef] 55. Rachid Zeffane, Mohamed E. Ibrahim, Rashid Al
Mehairi. 2008. Exploring the differential impact of job
satisfaction on employee attendance and conduct. Employee Relations
30:3, 237-250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 56. Alexandros G.
Sahinidis, John Bouris. 2008. Employee perceived training
effectiveness relationship to employee attitudes. Journal of
European Industrial Training 32:1, 63-76. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] 57. Jacob Eskildsen, Kai Kristensen. 2007. Customer
Satisfaction The Roleof Transparency. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence 18, 39-47. [CrossRef] 58. Gabriela Topa,
Francisco Palac. 2007. Mltiples focos de identificacin en las
organizaciones: comparacin de su poder predictivo sobre los
resultados grupales, profesionales y organizacionales. Revista de
Psicologa Social 22, 17-29. [CrossRef] 59. Michael Rose. 2005. Job
Satisfaction in Britain: Coping with Complexity. British Journal of
Industrial Relations 43:10.1111/bjir.2005.43.issue-3, 455-467.
[CrossRef] 60. Hyungil Kwon, Galen Trail. 2005. The Feasibility of
Single-Item Measures in Sport Loyalty Research. Sport Management
Review 8, 69-88. [CrossRef] 61. Sangmook Kim. 2005. Gender
Differences in the Job Satisfaction of Public Employees: A Study of
Seoul Metropolitan Government, Korea. Sex Roles 52, 667-681.
[CrossRef] 62. Gabriela Topa, J.-Francisco Palac. 2005. La ruptura
de contrato psicolgico entre los soldados profesionales espaoles y
su relacin con la decisin de permanecer o abandonar. Revista de
Psicologa Social 20, 45-60. [CrossRef] 63. Jacob K. Eskildsen,
Anders H. Westlund, Kai Kristensen. 2004. Measuring employee assets
The Nordic Employee IndexTM. Business Process Management Journal
10:5, 537-550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 64. Jacob Eskildsen,
Kai Kristensen, Hans Jrn Juhl, Peder stergaard. 2004. The Drivers
of Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty. The Case of Denmark 20002002.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 15, 859-868.
[CrossRef] 65. Monica H. Cass, Oi Ling Siu, E. Brian Faragher, Cary
L. Cooper. 2003. A meta-analysis of the relationship between job
satisfaction and employee health in Hong Kong. Stress and Health
19:10.1002/smi.v19:2, 79-95. [CrossRef] 66. Osman M. Karatepe,
Turgay Avci, Tuna Karatepe, Sezen Canozer. 2003. The Measurement of
Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Administration 4, 69-85. [CrossRef]
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)
22. 67. Robert Loo. 2002. A caveat on using singleitem versus
multipleitem scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology 17:1, 68-75.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 68. EDDIE W.L. CHENG, HENG LI. 2001.
Development of a conceptual model of construction partnering.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 8:4,
292-303. [Abstract] [PDF] 69. Titus Oshagbemi. 2000. Gender
differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers. Women
in Management Review 15:7, 331-343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. Titus Oshagbemi. 2000. How satisfied are academics with their
primary tasks of teaching, research and administration and
management?. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education 1:2, 124-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 71. Titus
Oshagbemi. 2000. Satisfaction with coworkers behaviour. Employee
Relations 22:1, 88-106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
DownloadedbyUniversitasGadjahMadaAt14:2012June2015(PT)