1999 overall job satisfaction

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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
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)

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

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.

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.

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 = `èxtremely dissatisfied'', 2 = ``very
dissatisfied'', 3 = ``dissatisfied'', 4 = `ìndifferent'', 5 = ``satisfied'', 6 = ``very
satisfied'', 7 = `èxtremely 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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''

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

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

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.

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
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.

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
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.

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 Blömeke, Jessica Hoth, Martina Döhrmann, Andreas Busse, Gabriele Kaiser, Johannes König. 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]

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 Blömeke, 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]

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 Özalp Türetgen, Özlem 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 Ángel 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, Sandra‐M. Sánchez‐Cañizares, Tomás López‐Guzmán, 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, René 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]

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 Wännström, Åke Nygren, Marie Åsberg, 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 Palací. 2007. Múltiples focos de identificación en las organizaciones: comparación
de su poder predictivo sobre los resultados grupales, profesionales y organizacionales. Revista de Psicología
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 Palací. 2005. La ruptura de contrato psicológico entre los soldados profesionales
españoles y su relación con la decisión de permanecer o abandonar. Revista de Psicología 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 JØrn Juhl, Peder Østergaard. 2004. The Drivers of Customer
Satisfaction and Loyalty. The Case of Denmark 2000–2002. 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]

67. Robert Loo. 2002. A caveat on using single‐item versus multiple‐item 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 co‐workers’ behaviour. Employee Relations 22:1, 88-106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

1999 overall job satisfaction

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 1999 overall job satisfaction

Similar to 1999 overall job satisfaction (20)

More from Henry Sumampau

More from Henry Sumampau (12)

1999 overall job satisfaction