Content uploaded by Dr T S Nanjundeswaraswamy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dr T S Nanjundeswaraswamy on Mar 24, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal for Quality Research 13(1) 193-220
ISSN 1800-6450
193
Nanjundeswaraswamy
T S1
Article info:
Received 02.09.2018
Accepted 14.01.2019
UDC - 331.101.32
DOI - 10.24874/IJQR13.01-12
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF JOB
SATISFACTION SCALE FOR DIFFERENT
SECTORS
Abstract: In a competitive business environment retaining
skilled and talented employees are major challenges to the
organizations. Amongst, job satisfaction plays a vital role in
employee retention rate. Job satisfaction is a multidimensional
construct and it has been influenced by many variables. The
purpose of the study was to develop and validate the common
measuring instrument that suits any types of sectors. A survey
using a questionnaire was conducted among 697 employees
working in Manufacturing, Construction, Nursing, IT
industries. The collected data were subjected to EFA to reduce
the items; to validate the instrument CFA was done and SEM
was done to determine the interrelationships between extracted
components. Through the EFA 18 significant dimensions were
extracted, these 18 dimensions together explained 87.04
percent of the total variance. Using CFA following 8
components were extracted and validated the instruments.
These eight components address 82.35 percent of the total
variance. All the important fit indices of the CFA model
indicated a good fit and model proposed for Job satisfaction
consisting of 8 factors with 52 items has construct validity.
Keywords: Job Satisfaction, Confirmatory Factor Analysis,
Structural Equation and modelling, Exploratory Factor
Analysis
1. Introduction
1
Job satisfaction of employees is the relation
on one person's own assessment on his/her
job against the matters and concerns that
matter to them, and these sentiments and
emotions involved will considerably have an
influence on person's work attitude, Roodt et
al. (2002). Job satisfaction of employees is
associated with superior job performance,
positive work values, elevated levels of
employee motivation, and minor rate of
absenteeism, turnover and burnout argued by
1
Corresponding author: Nanjundeswarswamy T S
email: nswamy.ts@gmail.com
Ngo et al. (2009). Swamy et al. (2015) stated
that satisfied employees are the key asset to
the organization. Nanjundeswaraswamy
(2016) opinion is to continue in the cutthroat
business environment, organizations have to
preserve skilled and talented employees; this
is possible only through the humanized job
design process that enriches the employee’s
job satisfaction.
There have been several types of research on
the employee job satisfaction, its drives and
their effects on different organizational and
employees concept. These varieties of
concepts and the effect of job satisfaction on
them were examined for the purpose of
194 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
contributing a solution to the employees and
organizational issues. Although many studies
have been made on the job satisfaction
concept, from the literature it is identified
that there are many differences in the
selections of dimensions, development and
validation of measuring instrument.
This research adapted the standard
methodology for the development of the
measurement scales in social sciences
according to Churchill (1979); and Llusar
and Zornoza (2002) for the development and
validation of job satisfaction measuring
instrument that suits for all the sectors. In
this research through the extensive literature
review, important job satisfaction
components were identified; by using EFA
items were reduced based on eigen value and
item loading. By using Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) and model fitness was
determined and Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) was done to determine the
interrelationships between extracted
components using AMOS.
2. Literature review
Weiss et al. (1967) designed an instrument to
measure employee job satisfaction, by
considering 20 dimensions which are effects
on job satisfaction, the dimensions are as
follows; Ability Utilization, Achievement,
Activity, Advancement, Authority, Company
Policies, Compensation, Coworkers,
Creativity, Independence, Moral Values,
Recognition, Responsibility, Security, Social
Status, Social Service, Human Relations,
Supervision, Working Conditions. For the
validated instrument is named as the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
(MSQ). Hirschfeld 2000 stated that revision
of Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
(MSQ) necessary by adding some
components such as job involvement, overall
job satisfaction, and volitional absence
variables, in addition to the job satisfaction
components for the better measurement of
the status of Job satisfaction of employees.
By considering five major drives of job
satisfaction like Nature of work,
Compensation and benefits, Attitudes toward
supervisors, Relations with co-workers and
Opportunities for promotion, Smith et al.
(1969) developed Job Description Index
(JDI) to measure the extent of job
satisfaction of employees. Tasios and
Giannouli (2017) stated that JDI is more
suitable for measuring specific aspects of
work and not general job satisfaction.
Locke and Dunnette (1976) classified the job
satisfaction drives into two like intrinsic and
extrinsic drives. The intrinsic drives were
coworkers, a method of supervision, and the
work itself. While extrinsic drives were paid
package, company management style,
working condition, opportunities for
promotion, recognition. Tatsuse et al. (2011)
and Jurgensen (1978) used five dimensions
to measure the employee job satisfaction
they were supervision, compensation,
policies, promotion opportunities,
coworkers. Spector (1985) considered nine
components to assess the extent of Job
Satisfaction in employees they were, Pay
policies, Promotion Policies, Supervision
methods, Fringe benefits, Reward System,
Operating conditions, Coworkers, Nature of
work, and Communication. Kathawala et al.
(1990), argued that salary is the most
important drive for the job satisfaction of
employees. Koustelios (1991) identified the
six predominant components to quantify the
employee job satisfaction level and they
were Working Conditions, Earnings,
Promotions, Nature of Work, Immediate
Superior, and the Institution as a whole he
coined that instrument as Employee
Satisfaction Inventory (ESI). Drakou et al.
(1997); Platsidou (2010); Belias et al.
(2014); Belias et al. (2015) all stated that
ESI instrument has not been validated and
reliability value Cronbach alpha was very
low for few items. Rentsch et al. (1992) used
pay policies, promotion opportunities,
coworker’s relationship, supervision
methods, and work itself to measure the
employee job satisfaction level. Clark (1997)
195
adopted, employee rights, working
conditions, coworker’s manners, supervisor
attitude, involvement in the process of
decision making factors to quantify job
satisfaction of employees. Stamps (1997)
argued that job satisfaction is a complex,
multidimensional construct that captures an
individual’sreactions to specific components
of their work. In their research Stamps used
six significant components of work to
estimate the status of job satisfaction for
employees they were Pay policies,
Autonomy, Task requirements,
Organizational requirements, Interactions
and Prestige.
Cano et al. (2004) study proved that
interpersonal relationships, recognition and
supervision are the important drives of job
satisfaction. Christen et al. (2006) proposed
a model for employee’s job satisfaction
which includes: Job-related factors, Role
perceptions, Job performance and Firm
performance. Vidal et al. (2007) argued that
Job satisfaction is a complex phenomenon
comprising comprise of multi-facets like
salary, working environment, autonomy in
work, communication method and
organizational commitment.
Parvin and Kabir (2011) assessed the level of
Job satisfaction of employees through their
Working Condition, Pay policies, Promotion
methods, Fairness, Job Security, Relation
with Co-worker and Supervisor. Sell and
Cleal (2011) research illustrate that
psychosocial work environment factors,
participation in the decision-making process
related to the workplace, social support, and
influence are the predominant factors and
have significant impacts on the status of job
satisfaction of employees. Neriman et al.
(2011) analyzed the employee job
satisfaction through, Management and
managers in the organization, Patient
examination, treatment and care, Personal
and interpersonal relations, Career
improvement opportunities, Organizational
participation, Motivation, Payment. The
study also revealed that Payments and
organization related dimensions significantly
associated with job satisfaction. Swarnalatha
and Sureshkrishna (2012) evaluated the
intensity of job satisfaction with, work
performance, commitment, compensation,
responsibility, achievement, supervisory
support, workgroup cohesion, quantitative
workload, the instrument consist of 25 items
for 6 components and also this instrument is
not validated through the content,
convergent and divergent validations
method.
Tariq et al. (2013) research revealed that
different variables like workload, salary, and
stress at the workplace and work-life balance
are associated with employee job
satisfaction. Saeed et al. (2013) research
evident that employee relations, salary,
fringe benefits methods and supervision
methods are the predominant factors that
effect employee job satisfaction.
Ayamolowo (2013) adopt five components
to measure the status of job satisfaction
using work environment, professional
recognition, management practices, the
support structure in the workplace, education
and career advancement and occupational
health and safety. Md Yusof et al. (2014)
research used salary, working environment,
and stress at the workplace, leadership style
dimensions to quantify the employee job
satisfaction. Skitsouet al. (2015) research
used Job Satisfaction Survey questionnaires
designed by Spector (1985), it includes nine
dimensions of job satisfaction, namely
salary, promotion policies, supervision
method, general benefits, moral, rewards,
operational procedures, partners, nature of
work, a method of communication.
Lottrup et al. (2015); Vakola and Nicholaou
(2012) and Giannikis and Mihail (2011);
Agarwal (2016) research reveals that
personal factors like personality, gender, age
social differences etc, and environmental
factors like job stability, salary, fairness in
workplace and economy can affect job
satisfaction.
Education level, self-awareness, empathy,
emotional intelligence, and social skills, also
196 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
associated with job satisfaction according to
the Ouyang, et al. (2015); Belias et al. (2014)
research results. Equity in the workplace,
salary, rewards, promotion and supervisor
behaviour are positively associated with
employee job satisfaction as stated by
Onorato and Zhu (2015); Mudor and Phadett
(2011).
Tabatabaeiet al. (2013) research used Job
Descriptive Index developed by Smith et al.
(1969) to measure the Job satisfaction,
following five dimensions were included in
the Job descriptive index they were Nature
and content of the job, Pay, Supervision,
Promotion opportunities, Relationships with
coworkers. Kouvoussis (2016) study used a
variety of factors such as working
environment, relations with colleagues,
Command, career opportunities, professional
benefits and obligations to measure the level
of job satisfaction among employees. Yousef
(2017) used six dimensions, namely working
conditions, pay, promotion, supervision, co-
workersand security to measure the level of
job satisfaction.
The research by Sudha and Beena Joice
(2017) investigates the intensity of job
satisfaction among the employees by salary,
co-worker relationship, career planning,
work environment, rewards on job
satisfaction. Dawson, et al. (2017) research
used following dimensions to quantify the
level of job satisfaction they were job
security, satisfaction with total pay,
satisfaction with hours, satisfaction with
actual work itself.
From the literature it is evident that Job
Descriptive Index (JDI) instrument designed
by Smith et al. (1969) and Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) designed
and validated by Weiss et al. (1967), were
extensively used by the different researchers.
However, these scales were developed in
1960 and its measures can be debatable in
the present day scenarios, due to various
reasons such as the effect of globalization,
liberalization, privatization and competitions
in the business.
Further, Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs
theory claims that, once the low-level needs
fulfil, high-level needs will actuate. As the
technology changes because of
liberalization, Globalization and
Privatization, employee living standards also
change. Once living standards of employees
changes, employees need also varies, if
needs are fulfilled employees will be
satisfied otherwise they will be dissatisfied.
To survive in the competitive market
organizations need to reduce the
absenteeism, retain skilled and talented
employees, by improving level job
satisfaction for the changed scenario.
Therefore organizations need to ensure the
status of Job satisfaction level of employees,
based on the current conditions. Employers
have to take necessary actions, to measure
the current status of job satisfaction of
employees, by incorporating the various Job
satisfactions dimensions which have an
adverse effect on the job by itself and
employees. Hence there is a need for
revising the existing job satisfaction scale by
considering the present competitive and
global economic scenarios and the labour
market.
Form the literature review it is recognized
that many researchers used a various
mechanism to determine Employee Job
satisfaction, these mechanisms measure less
than 60 percent of total variance in the
measurement of Job satisfaction. Hence,
there is a need for developing a reliable scale
to measure the employee Job satisfaction and
validate the same.
3. Demographic characteristics
Any studies related to employees and
without an enquiry into the demographic
characteristic of the workers would reveal
only half the legend.Job satisfaction of
employees depends on demographic
characteristics of firms and employees as
stated by Samad (2006); Long et al. (2007);
Buker et al. (2010); and Tabatabaei et al.
(2013). Employee demographic attributes
197
like age, education, experience, average
monthly salary, etc and firmsdemographic
characteristics like size of the firms, cost of
the firms, age of the firms etc, act as a
catalysts, which modify the employees
perception towards job satisfaction
according to De Vane and Sandy (2003).
Many researchers identified the associations
of demographic with employee job
satisfaction. Valid analysis of job
satisfaction of employees is partial unless the
differences of demographic attributes are
recognized, deliberate and accommodate in
the decision-making process.
4. Methodology
A survey was conducted among 697
employees working in different sectors such
as Manufacturing, Construction, Nursing, IT
industries using a predetermined
questionnaire. The data collected were
subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) to reduce the items; to validate the
instrument Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) was done using SPSS16. Further
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was
done to determine the interrelationships
between extracted components using Amos.
4.1. Components selection
From the literature review, 30 important Job
Satisfaction components were considered
based on the frequency of usage by the
different researchers in their study. The
components for the present study were;
Compensation, Promotion, recognition of
efforts, Leadership Style, Benefits, Welfare
Facilities, Recognition/Rewards, Relation &
Cooperation, physical work environment,
Communication, Working Condition,
Training & Development, Career
Development Opportunities, Work-Life
Balance, Work Stress, Work-Life Balance,
Job Clarity, Organization Culture, Team
Work, penalty system, Employee
Engagement, Information Sharing,
Promotion and Opportunity, grievance
handling, nature of job, work and total life
space, workload.
4.2. Design of Questionnaire
Survey approach method was adopted for
this study. Questionnaires were developed as
a measuring instrument in five-point Likert
scale, with “5” is “strongly agree” and “1” is
“strongly disagree”. The instrument was
developed by considering job satisfaction as
a dependent variable and 30 components that
drive the job satisfaction were considered as
independent variables, it consists of 120
items. The instrument consists of two parts.
The first part of the questionnaire gathered
general demographic factors of firms and
employees. The second part of the
questionnaire consists of 120 items of 30 job
satisfaction components. To reduce the bias
in responses of respondents, few items were
intentionally negatively worded. During the
analysis, these items responses were reverse
scored. Care was taken to avoid the double
barrel questions.
4.3. Predominant
JobsatisfactionComponents
Through the Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) using Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) allows the dimension reduction of the
proposed measuring instrument and varimax
rotation method maximizes the sum of
variance for required loading according to
Hair et al. (1998).
For the present study, Exploratory Factor
Analysis was conducted to check the
dimensionalities of 120 items from 30
components were analyzed using Principal
Component Analysis method and from the
varimax rotation, 18 predominant factors had
Eigen values greater than 0.5 were taken in
account. Basic 18 components of job
satisfaction were obtained they were
Compensation, Promotion, Leadership Style,
Benefits, Welfare Facilities, Recognition /
Rewards, Relation & Cooperation,
198 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Communication, Working Condition,
Training & Development, Career
Development Opportunities, Work-Life
Balance, Work Stress, Organization Culture,
Team Work, Job Clarity, Participative
management, Job security. Table 2 shows
the rotated matrix of factor analysis.
Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin (KMO) statistic was
performed to check the adequacy of the
collected data sample. Table 1 presents test
statistics, for the present study KMO value is
0.759, it greater than 0.6, it is considered to
be adequate stated by Kaiser and Rice,
(1974). Barlett's Test of Sphericity statistics
(6393.739, dof. 2016, Sig.0.000) indicates
values are significant and there exist non-
zero correlations at the significance level of
0.000, it provided an adequate basis for
proceeding with the factor analysis.
Table 1. KMO and Bartlett's Test results
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.759
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
6393.734
Df
2016
Sig.
.000
The outline of PCA factor loading is shown
in Table 2. Based on EFA, subsequent 18
principal Job Satisfaction components were
selected based on Eigenvalues which are
greater than 1.
1) Compensation
2) Promotion
3) Leadership Style
4) Benefits
5) Welfare Facilities
6) Recognition/Rewards
7) Relation & Cooperation
8) Communication
9) Working Condition
10) Training & Development
11) Career Development Opportunities
12) Work-Life Balance
13) Work Stress
14) Organization Culture
15) Team Work
16) Job Clarity
17) Participative management
18) Job security
Further, in order to assess the significance of
the data through the items for factor analysis,
the commonalities derived from the factor
analysis were reviewed. The item loading is
greater than 0.5, falling in the range of 0.520
to 0.880, it suggests that the data set was
appropriate according to Stewart (1981). For
the final instrument, 64 items were extracted
based on those variables having a loading of
at least 0.50 on a single factor.Table 3
summarized the extraction of eight
components through the factor analysis.
The reliability coefficient was 0.870
Cronbach’s alpha value, it was concluded
that the questionnaire has good reliability
and is acceptable for statistical computation,
as Cronbach alpha is more than 0.7, as
prescribed by Nunnally (1978). Factor
loadings of 0.50 or greater are "Practically
significant" for a sample size of 100
according to Hair et at. (2009). It is shown in
Table 3.
199
Table 2. Summary of Principal Component Analysis
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1
8.293
11.933
11.933
8.293
11.933
11.933
8.293
11.933
11.933
2
7.717
11.104
23.037
7.717
11.104
23.037
7.717
11.104
23.037
3
6.486
9.357
32.370
6.486
9.357
32.370
6.486
9.357
32.370
4
4.341
6.353
38.727
4.341
6.353
38.727
4.341
6.353
38.727
5
4.418
6.246
44.973
4.418
6.246
44.973
4.418
6.246
44.973
6
4.027
5.794
50.767
4.027
5.794
50.767
4.027
5.794
50.767
7
3.877
5.579
56.346
3.877
5.579
56.346
3.877
5.579
56.346
8
3.633
5.228
61.574
3.633
5.228
61.574
3.633
5.228
61.574
9
3.276
4.714
66.288
3.276
4.714
66.288
3.276
4.714
66.288
10
3.051
4.390
70.678
3.051
4.390
70.678
3.051
4.390
70.678
11
1.624
2.337
73.015
1.624
2.337
73.015
1.624
2.337
73.015
12
1.597
2.298
75.313
1.597
2.298
75.313
1.597
2.298
75.313
13
1.533
2.206
77.519
1.533
2.206
77.519
1.533
2.206
77.519
14
1.474
2.121
79.640
1.474
2.121
79.640
1.474
2.121
79.640
15
1.422
2.046
81.686
1.422
2.046
81.686
1.422
2.046
81.686
16
1.414
2.035
83.721
1.414
2.035
83.721
1.414
2.035
83.721
17
1.174
1.689
85.410
1.174
1.689
85.410
1.174
1.689
85.410
18
1.164
1.675
87.085
1.164
1.675
87.085
1.164
1.675
87.085
19
0.972
1.254
79.346
20
0.940
1.213
80.559
21
0.850
1.097
81.656
22
0.806
1.040
82.696
23
0.765
0.987
83.683
24
0.729
0.941
84.624
25
0.670
0.865
85.488
26
0.665
0.858
86.347
27
0.617
0.796
87.143
28
0.588
0.759
87.901
29
0.539
0.696
88.597
30
0.530
0.684
89.281
31
0.501
0.646
89.927
32
0.063
0.081
99.925
33
0.058
0.075
100
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
200 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Table 3. Summary of factor analysis
Factors
Measurable values
Weights
Eigen
values
Variance
Accumulated
Compensation
Fair salary
.792
8.293
11.933
11.933
Annual increments
.771
Allowances
.754
Promotion
Fair promotion
.735
7.717
11.104
23.037
Performance-based
promotion
.720
Chances of promotion
.709
Promotion Opportunities
.679
Leadership Style
Fair supervisor
.826
6.486
9.333
32.37
Supervisor attitudes
.674
Supervisor orientation
towards subordinates
.650
Decision-making policies
.637
Decision-making policies
.560
Benefits
Magnitude of benefits
.772
4.341
6.357
38.727
Benefits compared to other
organization
.758
Benefits compared to another
co-worker
.736
Accidental benefits
.696
Welfare Facilities
Recreational facilities
.696
4.418
6.246
44.973
Canteen facilities
.666
Medical benefits
.661
Transport facilities
.625
Recognition/
Rewards
Recognition
.839
4.027
5.794
50.767
Appreciation
.812
Rewarded
.794
Reward mechanism
.593
Fair reward process
.569
Relation
&
Cooperation
Relationship with co workers
.719
3.877
5.579
56.346
Relationship with an
incompetentco-worker
.696
A pleasure to work with co-
workers
.620
Bickering and fighting with
co-workers
.569
Smooth relationship with co-
workers
.534
Communication
Proper channel
.766
3.633
5.228
61.574
Proper direction of assigned
work
.765
Accurate organizational goal
.687
Accurate information sharing
.671
Working
Condition
Quantity of work
.743
3.276
4.714
66.288
Rules & procedures
.732
Good facilities
.636
Safety precaution
.575
Statutory norms
.510
201
Table 3. Summary of factor analysis (continued)
Factors
Measurable values
Weights
Eigen
values
Variance
Accumulated
Training
&
Development
Effectiveness of T&D
( Confidence)
.791
3.051
4.39
70.678
Sufficient number of Training
.790
The effectiveness of T&D
(Morale)
.755
The effectiveness of T&D
( Technical Ability)
.678
Adaptability of training
output
.665
The effectiveness of T&D
( Job satisfaction )
.508
Career
Development
Opportunities
Opportunities for
development
.688
1.624
2.337
73.015
Amount of Opportunities for
development
.543
Work Life
Balance
Time spend with family
.807
1.597
2.298
75.313
Support form organization to
fulfil the important
responsibility of the family
.768
Origination work during the
personal time in the home
.728
Work Stress
Outcome of work
.678
1.533
2.206
77.519
Willingness to work
.666
Unachievable deadline
.560
Organization
Culture,
Co-operation from other
department
.768
1.474
2.121
79.64
Comments and suggestion
.638
Team Work
Team work and cooperation
.560
1.422
2.046
81.686
Encouragement by the
teammates
.731
Job Clarity
Clear understanding of job
.643
1.414
2.035
83.721
Clearly defined responsibility
.599
Participative
management
Decision making power
.579
1.174
1.689
85.41
Employees input for decision
making
.918
Autonomy to make an
important decision
.801
Job security
Job security
.560
1.164
1.675
87.085
Secured job feeling
.550
Table 4 represents the components of Job
satisfaction and Question Numbers in the
Questionnaires, negative questions and also
Cronbach’s alpha value for each component.
The questionnaire used for the survey is
shown in Appendix 2.
202 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Table 4. Dimensions of Job satisfaction and Question Numbers in the final Questionnaires
Sl No
Dimensions of Job
satisfaction
Question number
in the
Questionnaires
Negative Question
number in the
Questionnaires
Cronbach’s
alpha value
1
Compensation
1,2,3
-
0.917
2
Promotion
4,5,6,7
-
0.856
3
Leadership Style
8,9,10,11,12
8,9,11
0.986
4
Benefits
13,14,15,16
13
0.829
5
Welfare Facilities
17,18,19,20
-
0.886
6
Recognition/Rewards
21,22,23,24,25,
22,23
0.815
7
Relation &
Cooperation
26,27,28,29,30
29
0.773
8
Communication
31,32,33,34
34
0.848
9
Working Condition
35,36,37,38,39
-
0.841
10
Training &
Development
40,41,42,43,44,45
-
0.898
11
Career Development
Opportunities
46,47
-
0.911
12
Work Life Balance
48,49,50
49,50
0.912
13
Work Stress
51,52,53
51,52,53
0.879
14
Organization Culture
54,55
-
0.827
15
Team Work
56,57
-
0.854
16
Job Clarity
58,59
-
0.906
17
Participative
management
60,61,62
-
0.855
18
Job security
63,64
-
0.813
5. Validation of the instrument
Factor analysis, reliability, convergent
validity and discriminant validity are the
tests to measure the construct validity and
reliability of the developed measuring
instrument according to Bagozzi and Phillips
(1982). For the present research study
content validity, convergent validity,
discriminant validity and through the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural
Equation Modeling using AMOS was done
to check the validity of the developed
instrument.
5.1. Content Validity
Content validity based on judgments about
the sampling adequacy of test items.
Sampling adequacy test gauges the
soundness of scientific measurement of
stated items in the instrument. Agreement
among experts represents the items covers
the stated objectives of the measurement.
The designed questionnaires were circulated
among 12 subject experts, for the feedback
and suggestion about the relevance of
questions intended to measure the job
satisfaction of employees. Out of 12
expertise, 10 gave “yes” and 2 gave “no”,
based on the feedback Lawshe test was
conducted, Content Validity Ratio (CVR) =
0.66, for sample size 12 CVR>0.56 is
acceptable as mentioned by Lawshe, (1975)
and Wilson et al., (2012). Thereforethe
content of the designed instrument is
relevant to measuring Job satisfaction.
5.2. Convergent validity
Convergent validity was examined to
identify whether the constructs are different
from one another. Convergent validity
represents the consistency between the
203
applications made by different methods for
the same purpose stated by different
authours like Rao et al.,(1999); and Llusar
& Zornoza, (2002). For present research the
developed instrument was pretested for the
small sample group and the research was
expanded for larger group, it is identified
that the result obtained for the two types of
research were very close to each other, the
results are presented in Table 5, is the final
reliability and variance addresses by the each
component of job satisfaction.
Table 5.Convergent Validity
Sl
No
Dimensions of Job satisfaction
Mean
Standard
deviation
Reliability
Variance
in %
1
Compensation (D1)
3.54
0.66
0.917
81
2
Promotion (D2)
2.74
0.79
0.856
71
3
Leadership Style(D3)
2.93
0.28
0.986
90
4
Benefits(D4)
3.28
0.40
0.829
88
5
Welfare Facilities(D5)
2.59
0.80
0.886
69
6
Recognition/Rewards(D6)
3.02
0.41
0.815
87
7
Relation & Cooperation(D7)
3.33
0.34
0.773
90
8
Communication(D8)
2.93
0.52
0.848
82
9
Working Condition(D9)
3.52
0.51
0.841
85
10
Training & Development(D10)
3.31
0.70
0.898
79
11
Career Development Opportunities (D11)
3.42
0.54
0.911
84
12
Work Life Balance (D12)
3.42
0.54
0.912
84
13
Work Stress(D13)
3.38
0.58
0.879
83
14
Organization Culture(D14)
3.40
0.56
0.827
84
15
Team Work(D15)
3.39
0.57
0.854
83
16
Job Clarity(D16)
3.69
0.84
0.906
77
17
Participative management(D17)
3.49
0.49
0.855
86
18
Job security(D18)
3.59
0.61
0.813
83
Table 5 shows that the reliability and
variance explained for all the constructs are
greater than 0.77 and 0.70 respectively; it is
acceptable at 0.50 or more proposed by Van
Saane et at., (2003). This suggests that all the
adopted constructs are different.
5.3. Discriminate Validity
Discriminant validity specifies that the
selected dimensions were distinctly and
independently differs from each other
according to Bryman and Bell (2015);
Bagozzi & Phillips,(1991). Discriminant
validity can be assessed by the variance
extracted estimates should be greater than
the squared correlation estimate staed by
Fornell and Larcker,(1981).
For the designed questionnaires discriminate
validity test was conducted, the discriminant
validity measure explains whether the
eighteen Components used in this study were
distinct among themselves. It is evident that
from Table 6 (See Appendix 1) variance
explained score of all the selected eighteen
components is higher than the squared
correlation of two factors. Thus, it can be
concluded that the scale used for data
collection for this research ensured the
adequate discriminant validity as stated by
Bryman et al.,(2015); Van Saane, et at.,
(2003).
204 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
for of Jobsatisfaction
Components
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is the
next step after Exploratory Factor Analysis
to confirm the factor structure of the research
data extracted in EFA according to
Özpehlivan and Acar (2016). Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) permits to test the
hypothesis that exists the relationship
between the observed variables and latent
constructs stated by Suhr (2006);
Schumacher and Lomax (2004) and Byrne
(2001).
The 18 factors consisting of 64 items
extracted from EFA was subjected to
Confirmatory Factor Analysis to confirm the
factor structure. The reliability coefficient of
the items in the questionnaire was 0.933
Cronbach’s alpha value which indicates that
all factors had acceptable reliabilities
according to Kline (1998).
The model fit is typically analyzed through
set of fit indices like: Goodness Fit Index
(GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
(AGFI), Comparative Fit Index, (CFI),
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and Tucker-
Lewis Coefficient (TLI) all these indices
must be close to 1.0 for perfect fit as stated
by Bentler (1992); Bentler and Bonett
(1987); While the error approximation in
data represented by Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA) must be less
than 0.08 according to Browne and Cudeck
(1993). The CFA test results showed an
adequate fit as shown in Figure 1, further the
other set of model fit indices were above the
acceptable criterion range as stated by
Bentler (1992) and Bonett (1987) and it is
represented in the Table 7.
Table 7. Model Fit Indices for Eight Job satisfaction components
Model
fit
Indices
Job satisfaction Factors
Acceptable
criteria
Range
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
χ2/df
2.116
2.213
1.803
1.334
1.367
1.203
2.238
2.450
Less than 3
GFI
0.946
0.954
0.952
0.930
0.923
0.955
0.988
0.995
Greater than
0.9
AGFI
0.920
0.927
0.966
0.978
0.958
0.962
0.956
0.958
CFI
0.965
0.947
0.995
0.988
0.999
0.998
0.993
0.999
IFI
0.965
0.948
0.995
0.988
0.999
0.998
0.993
0.998
TLI
0.955
0.932
0.998
0.996
0.996
0.997
0.957
0.993
RMSE
A
0.059
0.073
0.037
0.024
0.025
0.018
0.064
0.030
Less than
0.08
The CFA model of 8 factors with 52 items
showed factor loadings or estimates in the
range of 0.42 to 0.91 which is above the
acceptance criterion of 0.3, indicating
convergent validity. The R-squared values in
the range of 0.20 - 0.50 represent the
percentage variation in the 52 items as
shown in the Table 8. The chi-square
statistics was 2425.89 (df = 1233 and p =
0.000), χ2 /df ratio=1.967, it is should be
within 5 according to Bentler (1992); Bentler
and Bonett (1987); Hair et al. (1998).
GFI=.988, AGFI=.905, IFI=.912, TLI=.905,
CFI=.959, indices >0.9 indicates good model
fit according to Hu and Bentler (1999); Hair
et al. (2006); Daire et al. (2008) and Hair et
al.,(1998) and RMSEA=0.04 it should be
less than 0.08 for good model fit that is
errors of approximation, smaller is better
stated by Hair et al. (2006). All the major
model fit indices of the CFA model indicated
a good fit and model proposed for Job
satisfaction consisting of 8 factors with 52
items have to construct validity i.e. all the 8
factors and their respective items can
measure the Job satisfaction.
205
Figure 1. Path diagram for 8 factors Job satisfaction model
206 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Table 8. Standardized coefficient estimates and R2 values of 8 Job satisfaction Components
Parameters
Job satisfaction Factors
Acceptable
criteria
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
Factor loading
or Standardized
coefficient
estimates
0.83
0.80
0.80
0.78
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.75
0.76
0.72
0.71
0.73
0.66
0.63
0.64
0.62
0.69
0.70
0.67
0.70
0.61
0.61
0.58
0.73
0.65
0.51
0.47
0.74
0.62
0.66
0.62
0.62
0.76
0.74
0.62
0.59
0.82
0.66
0.73
0.47
0.63
0.64
0.59
0.57
0.71
0.78
0.73
0.46
0.42
0.76
0.91
0.88
Greater than
0.30 shows
convergent
validity
R-squared
value
(Percentage of
variation)
0.43
0.40
0.30
0.38
0.25
0.45
0.44
0.35
0.36
0.32
0.31
0.43
0.66
0.63
0.64
0.62
0.41
0.30
0.42
0.50
0.41
0.41
0.23
0.43
0.35
0.31
0.20
0.31
0.21
0.23
0.24
0.41
0.34
0.41
0.43
0.33
0.40
0.21
0.31
0.30
0.41
0.34
0.32
0.44
0.21
0.32
0.44
0.31
0.22
0.33
0.31
0.27
Form the CFA analysis is concluded that 52
items address the eight components, for this
components name was done they are as
follows, Compensation and welfare benefits
(C1), Work environment(C2), Career and
promotion opportunities(C3), Leadership
style(C4), Communication and job
clarity(C5), Work life balance(C6), Training
and development(C7), Teamwork and job
security(C8). Table 9 shows the eight
components of Job satisfaction and questions
in the final questionnaires.
Table 9. Dimensions of Job satisfaction and Question Numbers in the final Questionnaires
Sl
No
Dimensions of Job satisfaction
Question number in the Questionnaires
1
Compensation and Welfare Benefits (C1)
1,2,3,13,14, 15,16,17,18,19,
20,21,22,23,24,25
2
Work Environment (C2)
26,27,28,29, 35,36,37,38, 54,55
3
Career and Promotion Opportunities (C3)
4,5,6, 46,47
207
Table 9. Dimensions of Job satisfaction and Question Numbers in the final Questionnaires
(continued)
Sl
No
Dimensions of Job satisfaction
Question number in the Questionnaires
4
Leadership style (C4)
8,9,10, 60,61
5
Communication and Job clarity (C5)
31,32, 58,59
6
Work life balance (C6)
48,49,50, 51,52
7
Training and Development (C7)
41,42,43,44
8
Teamwork and Job security (C8)
56,57, 63, 64
7. Conclusions
A measure of Job satisfaction of employees
is very difficult because it depends on so
many factors, and these factors are dynamic
in nature. According to Maslow's hierarchy
of needs theory, once the low-level needs
fulfil, high-level needs will actuate. Because
of the change in technology due to
Liberalization, Globalization and
Privatization, employee living standards also
vary. Once living standards of employees
changes, employees need also varies, if it is
fulfilled employees will be satisfied
otherwise they will be dissatisfied. This
satisfaction level of employees will effect on
the retention rate, performance, absenteeism
and many more. Nowadays in the
competitive business environment retaining
a talented employee is the biggest challenges
to the organization. In this context
employers/ researchers need to check the
status of employee job satisfaction by
considering many factors.
Many researchers used a different instrument
to measure Employee Job satisfaction, these
instruments measure less than 60 percent of
variations in the measurement of Job
satisfaction. It is necessary to develop a
suitable scale to measure the employee Job
satisfaction and validate the same.
The present study is an attempt to design a
job satisfaction measuring instrument and
validate the same. The following 18
significant dimensions were identified
through the EFA they were: Compensation,
Promotion, Leadership Style, Benefits,
Welfare Facilities, Recognition/Rewards,
Relation & Cooperation, Communication,
Working Condition, Training &
Development, Career Development
Opportunities, Work-Life Balance, Work
Stress, Organization Culture, Team Work,
Job Clarity, Participative management, Job
security. Further analysis revealed that these
18 dimensions together explained 87.04
percent of the total variance.
Using CFA 8 components were extracted
and validated for the instrument and they
were: Compensation and welfare benefits,
Work environment, Career and promotion
opportunities, Leadership style,
Communication and job clarity, Work life
balance, Training and development,
Teamwork and job security. These eight
items address 82.35 percent of the total
variance.Structural Equation and Modeling
reveals that chi-square statistics was 2425.89
(df = 1233 and p = 0.000), χ2 /df
ratio=1.967, GFI=.988, AGFI=.905,
IFI=.912, TLI=.905, CFI=.959 and
RMSEA=0.04. All the important fit indices
of the CFA model indicated a good fit and
model proposed for Job satisfaction
consisting of 8 factors with 52 items has
construct validity.The designed instruments
have shown both high reliability andhigh
validity.
Many researchers used a different instrument
to measure Employee Job satisfaction, these
instruments measure less than 60 percent of
variations in the measurement of Job
satisfaction. It is essential to develop an
appropriate scale to measure the employee
208 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Job satisfaction and validate the same. The
present instrument explained 82.35 percent
of the total variance.
The scale developed in this study focused on
Manufacturing, Construction, Nursing, IT
industries employees and therefore, it has
limited use. As per the labor market situation
and different culture components may be
added and delete and the sample size was
697 respondents from 140 firms. It is,
therefore, necessary to keep modifying the
scale to improve its applicability by testing it
at facilities of different sizes and with large
samples.
The research outcome will help the
employers / Researchers to measure the status
of Employee job satisfaction in any sector
with small modification according to their
demographic characteristics.
References:
Agarwal, R. N. (2016). A study on the relationship of employee satisfaction VIZ-A-VIZ
attitude and perception of the employees towards the organization. International Journal of
Information, Business and Management, 8(1), 67-87.
Ayamolowo, S. J. (2013). Job satisfaction and work environment of primary health care nurses
in Ekiti State, Nigeria: An exploratory study. International journal of caring sciences, 6(3),
531-542.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A
holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459-489.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-458.
Belias, D., Koustelios, A., Sdrolias, L., Koutiva, M., Zournatzi, E., &Varsanis, Κ. (2014).
Motivation and job satisfaction among medical and nursing staff. PRIME, 7, 71-87.
Belias, D., Koustelios, A., Vairaktarakis, G., &Sdrolias, L. (2015). Organizational culture and
job satisfaction of Greek banking institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
175, 314-323.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400-404.
Bentler, P. M., and Bonett, D. G. (1987). This week’s citation classic. Current contents, Social
and Behavioral sciences, 19, 16.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods. USA: Oxford University Press.
Buker, H., & Dolu, O. (2010). Police job satisfaction in Turkey: Effects of demographic,
organizational and jurisdictional factors. International Journal of Comparative and Applied
Criminal Justice, 34(1), 25-51.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
Cano, J., & Castillo, J. X. (2004). Factors explaining job satisfaction among faculty. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 45(3), 65-74.
Christen, M., Iyer, G., & Soberman, D. (2006). Job satisfaction, job performance, and effort: A
reexamination using agency theory. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 137-150.
Churchill, G. A. J. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: why are women so happy at
work?. LabourEconomics, 4(4), 341-372.
Daire, H., Joseph, C., Michael, R. M. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for
Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
209
Dawson, C., Veliziotis, M., & Hopkins, B. (2017). Temporary employment, job satisfaction
and subjective well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 38(1), 69-98.
DeVaney, S. A., & Chen, Z. (2003). Job satisfaction of recent graduates in financial
services. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from www.bls.gov.
Drakou, A., Kampitsis, X., Xaraxousou, Y., &Glynia, E. X. (1997). Coach’s job satisfaction -
literature review. Magazine of Sport and leisure management, 1(2), 2-24.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Giannikis, S. K., & Mihail, D. M. (2011). Modelling job satisfaction in low-level jobs:
Differences between full-time and part-time employees in the Greek retail sector. European
Management Journal, 29(2), 129-143.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, New & Jersey. In: M. Pont and L. McQuilken (2002).
Testing the Fit of the BANKSERV Model to BANKPERF Data. ANZMAG conference
proceedings.865.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C., & Babin, B. J. (2006). Multivariate
Data Analysis, 6th ed. New Delhi: Pearson Education.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate
data analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hirschfeld, R. R. (2000). Does revising the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales of the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire short form make a difference?. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60(2), 255-270.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural equation modeling,
6(1), 1-55.
Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (What makes a job good or bad?). Journal of Applied
psychology, 63(3), 267.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and psychological
measurement, 34(1), 111-117.
Kathawala, Y., Moore, K. J., &Elmuti, D. (1990). Preference between salary or job security
increase. International Journal of Manpower, 11(7), 25-31.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Software review: Software programs for structural equation modeling:
Amos, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of psychoeducational assessment, 16(4), 343-364.
Koustelios A. (1991). The relationships between organizational cultures and job satisfaction in
three selected industries in Greece (doctoral dissertation, United Kingdom. University of
Manchester. Faculty of education).
Kouvoussis, E. (2016). Job Satisfaction of Lower-Ranking Officers serving at the Financial
Department of the Hellenic Armed Forces. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 9(1),
64-71.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel
Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 22, 5-
55.
Llusar, J. C. B., &Zornoza, C. C. (2002). Development and validation of a perceived business
quality measurement instrument. The Quality Management Journal, 9, 23-38.
210 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Long, J. L., & Swortzel, K. A. (2007). Factors influencing job satisfaction of Extension agents
in the Mississippi State University Extension Service. In Proceedings of the 2007 AAAE
Research Conference, 34, pp. 41-53.
Lottrup, L., Stigsdotter, U. K., Meilby, H., & Claudi, A. G. (2015). The workplace window
view: A determinant of office workers’ work ability and job satisfaction. Landscape
Research, 40(1), 57-75.
Md Yusof, Z., Misiran, M., & Harun, N. H. (2014). Job satisfaction among employees in a
manufacturing company in North Malaysia. Asian journal of applied sciences, 2(1), 79-87.
Mudor, H., & Phadett, T. (2011). Conceptual framework on the relationship between human
resource management practices, job satisfaction, and turnover. Journal of Economic and
Behaviors Studies, 2(2), 41-49.
Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. (2016). An empirical study on absenteeism in Garment
industry. Management Science Letters, 6(4), 275-284.
Akansel, N., Özkaya, G., Ercan, I., & Alper, Z. (2011). Job satisfactions of nurses and
physicians working in the same health care facility in Turkey. International Journal of
Caring Sciences, 4(3), 133.
Ngo, H. Y., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2009). Family friendly work practices, organizational
climate, and firm performance: A study of multinational corporations in Hong
Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 665-680.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Onoratο, Μ., & Zhu, J. (2015). The relationship between authentic leadership and employee
job satisfaction: A cross-industry-sector empirical study. International Leadership Journal,
81-103.
Ouyang, Z., Sang, J., Li, P., & Peng, J. (2015). Organizational justice and job insecurity as
mediators of the effect of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction: A study from China.
Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 147-152.
Özpehlivan, M., &Acar, A. Z. (2016). Development and validation of a multidimensional job
satisfaction scale in different cultures. Cogent Social Sciences, 2(1), 1237003.
Parvin, M. M., & Kabir, M. N. (2011). Factors affecting employee job satisfaction of
pharmaceutical sector. Australian Journal of business and management research, 1(9), 113.
Platsidou, M. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence of Greek special education teachers in
relation to burnout and job satisfaction. School Psychology International, 31(1), 60-76.
Rao, S. S., Solis, L. E., & Raghunathan, T. S. (1999). A framework for international quality
management research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total
Quality Management, 10, 1047-1075.
Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1992). Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and
Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(2),
357-367.
Roodt, G., Rieger, H., &Sempane, M. E. (2002). Job satisfaction in relation to organizational
culture. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(2), 23-30.
Saeed, R., Lodhi, R. N., Iqbal, A., Nayyab, H. H., Mussawar, S., & Yaseen, S. (2013). Factors
influencing job satisfaction of employees in telecom sector of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal
of Scientific Research, 16(11), 1476-1482.
Samad, S. (2006). The contribution of demographic variables: job characteristics and job
satisfaction on turnover intentions. Journal of International Management Studies, 1(1), 1-12.
211
Schumacher, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation
modelling, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sell, L., & Cleal, B. (2011). Job satisfaction, work environment, and rewards: Motivational
theory revisited. Labour, 25(1), 1-23.
Skitsou, A., Anastasiou, M., Charalambous, G., & Andrioti, D. (2015). Job Satisfaction of
Nurses in a Psychiatric Hospital, in Cyprus. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(3),
683-697.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work
and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Oxford, England: Rand Mcnally.
Spector, P.E. (1985) Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job
Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693-713.
Stamps, P. L. (1997). Scoring workbook for the index of work satisfaction. Northampton.
Market Research, 1997b, 33p.
Stewart, D. W. (1981). The application and misapplication of factor analysis in marketing
research. Journal of Marketing Research, 51-62.
Sudha, V., & Beena Joice, M. (2017). Factors determining job satisfaction among private
sector bank employees. International Education and Research Journal, 3(3), 31-32.
Suhr, D. (2006). Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis? Proceedings of the 31st Annual
SAS? Users Group International Conference, pp. 200-231. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Swamy, D. R., Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Rashmi, S. (2015). Quality of Work Life: Scale
Development and Validation. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(2), 281-300.
Swarnalatha, C., & Sureshkrishna, G. (2012). Job satisfaction among employees of automotive
industries in India. International Journal of Future Computer and Communication, 1(3),
245-248.
Tabatabaei, S., Ghaneh, S., Mohaddes, H., &Khansari, M. M. (2013). Relationship of job
satisfaction and demographic variables in pars ceram factory employees in Iran. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 1795-1800.
Tariq, M. N., Ramzan, M., & Riaz, A. (2013). The impact of employee turnover on the
efficiency of the organization. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 4(9), 700-711.
Tasios, T., & Giannouli, V. (2017). Job Descriptive Index (JDI): Reliability and validity study
in Greece. Archives of Assessment Psychology, 7(1), 61-91.
Tatsuse, T., & Sekine, M. (2011). Explaining global job satisfaction by facets of job
satisfaction: the Japanese civil servants study. Environmental health and preventive
medicine, 16(2), 133-137.
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2012). Organizational psychology & behaviour. Athens: Rosili.
Van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., & Frings‐Dresen, M. H. W. (2003).
Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—a systematic
review. Occupational medicine, 53(3), 191-200.
Vidal, M. E. S., Valle, R. S., & Aragón, M. I. B. (2007). Antecedents of repatriates' job
satisfaction and its influence on turnover intentions: Evidence from Spanish repatriated
managers. Journal of Business Research, 60(12), 1272-1281.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., & England, G. W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation, 22, 120.
Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for
Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 45(3), 197-210.
212 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Yousef, D. A. (2017). Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Attitudes toward
Organizational Change: A Study in the Local Government. International Journal of Public
Administration, 40(1), 77-88.
Nanjundeswaraswamy T S
JSS Academy of Technical
Education,
Bangalore
Karnataka
India
nswamy.ts@gmail.com
nswamy.ts@jssateb.ac.in
213
Appendix 1:
Table 6. Discriminate Validity
214 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
Appendix 2:
I. General Information
1. Name of the Industrial unit/ firm
............................................................................
Address
............................................................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
Telephone No.
............................................................................
Fax
............................................................................
Email
............................................................................
Year of Establishment
............................................................................
2. Name of the person interviewed
............................................................................
Designation
............................................................................
Age
............................................................................
Experience
............................................................................
Gender
Male Female
3. Level of Education
Technical Non-Technical
Post Graduation
Graduation
Diploma
ITI
Others
Specify................................................................
4. Cost of the Project (current value of the plant
and machinery)
1 to 10 Lakhs
11 to 25 Lakhs
26 to 50 Lakhs
51 Lakhs to 1 Crore
5. Number of Employees working in the Plant
02 to 10
11 to 25
26 to 50
51 to 100
Others
Specify................................................................
6. Average salary paid
Less than 5000
5000 to 10 000
10,000 to 20,000
More than 20,000
Other
Specify................................................................
215
Appendix 3:
II Job Satisfaction
Ranking: 5 - Strongly agree, 4 - Agree, 3 - uncertain, 2 - Disagree, 1 - Strongly disagree
1. I feel I am being paid a fair salary for the work I
do
2. I am satisfied with my annual salary increments
3. I am satisfied with allowances
4. Our company follows a fair promotion policy
5. In our company, performance is one of the
important factors for promotion.
6. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion.
7. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other
places.
8. My supervisor is unfair to me.
9. My supervisor shows too little interest in the
feelings of subordinates.
10. Our superior believed that development of
Subordinates is an important part of the job
11. My superior take a decision without consulting
People working under him.
12. My superior encourages me to participate in
Decision Making and express my ideas and opinions.
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
216 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
13. I am not satisfied with benefits what I receive.
14. The benefits we receive are as good as other
Organizations offer.
15. The benefits packages that I receive from my
company are on par and comparable with those of my
co-workers.
16. I am satisfied with the benefits provided by the
company to the accident victims.
17. I am satisfied with the recreational facilities
provided by my company
18. I am satisfied with the canteen facilities provided
by my company
19. I am satisfied with the medical benefits provided
by my company
20. I am satisfied with the transport facilities
provided by my company
21. When I do a good Job, I receive the recognition
from my company.
22. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated.
23. I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they
should be
24. In our company, there is a mechanism to reward
good work done by employees
25. Recognition and reward system practised in our
company is fair and justified.
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
217
26. I like the people I work with.
27. I find I have to work harder at my job because of
the incompetence of people I work with
28. I enjoy with my co-workers.
29. There is too much bickering and fighting at
work.
30. I have a smooth relationship with my superior
and co-worker
31. Communication seems good within the
organization.
32. Work assignments are not fully explained.
33. The goals of the organization are not clear.
34. I often feel that I do not know what is going on
within the organization
35. I have too much to do at work.
36. Many of my company rules and procedures make
doing a good job difficult.
37. I am satisfied with the working conditions
38. The company provides all the safety wearable’s
and equipment
39. The company follows all statutory norms with
respect to working hours and break time
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
218 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
40. The training and development programs have
increased my confidence
41. My company arranges a sufficient number of
training programs
42. The training and development programs have
increased my morale.
43. The training and development programs have
helped me in attaining better technical ability.
44. The training and development programs have
helped me in adapting to change easily.
45. The training and development programs have
increased my job satisfaction.
46. Our company provides ample opportunities for
professional advancement for employees.
47. I am satisfied with the career opportunities
available in our company
48. My job prevents me from giving the time I want
to my spouse or family or friends
49. I don’t get much support from my organization
which is most important to pay attention to family
responsibilities.
50. My job responsibility does not allow me to get
enough sleep, exercise and healthy food
51. I can't see the final outcome of my work as
expected
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
219
52. I am not happy with what my company is
making me work on which I don’t like to do
53. I am stressed because my manager gives me
unachievable deadlines
54. There is cooperation among all the departments
for achieving the goals.
55. I feel free to offer comments and suggestions on
my performance.
56. There are a good teamwork and cooperation in
my organization.
57. Sufficient encouragement is provided by the
teammates at work.
58. I have a clear understanding of the goals and
objectives of my organization
59. My job/responsibility is clearly described
60. My manager encourages decision making power
from employees
61. Manager/supervisor consider employees input
into organisational decisions.
62. I have the freedom to make important decisions
regarding my work
63. I feel I am secured in this organization
64. I feel quite secure about my job
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
4
5
2
3
1
220 T. S. Nanjundeswaraswamy
