单项目与多项目工作满意度量表在预测生活满意度与离职倾向中的效度

Sunday B. Fakunmoju
{"title":"单项目与多项目工作满意度量表在预测生活满意度与离职倾向中的效度","authors":"Sunday B. Fakunmoju","doi":"10.1177/2319510X21997724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of single-item (SI) measures to operationalise a construct has endured extensive methodological critique, and its practical advantages over multiple-item (MI) measures pale in comparisons to the theoretical advantages of MI measures. Among constructs that have been operationalised with a single item, job satisfaction remains one of the favourites, although empirical knowledge about its validity is limited to data derived from management, marketing and human resources fields. Little is known about its validity among human service professionals. Using two cross-sectional surveys, the present article describes validity of SI versus MI measures of job satisfaction in predicting life satisfaction and turnover intention among social workers across organisations and professional specialisations, including supervisors, managers and administrators. Results in both studies suggested that SI measure of job satisfaction was methodologically and analytically suitable for examining job-related outcomes. It established convergent validity with MI job satisfaction measures and discriminant validity with job dissatisfaction measures. It demonstrated comparable demographic outcomes, association and predictive relationship with life satisfaction and turnover intention in the same magnitude as MI job satisfaction. It accounted for comparable variance in life satisfaction and turnover intention and generated bivariate, multivariate and mediation model outcomes that are systematically similar to those of MI job satisfaction measures. The article stipulates conditions for the use of SI job satisfaction measures, offers suggestions about how to resolve methodological impasse in choosing between SI and MI measures, and concludes with recommendations that include criteria for choosing between SI and MI measures for research.","PeriodicalId":283517,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of Single-item Versus Multiple-item Job Satisfaction Measures in Predicting Life: Satisfaction and Turnover Intention\",\"authors\":\"Sunday B. Fakunmoju\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2319510X21997724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of single-item (SI) measures to operationalise a construct has endured extensive methodological critique, and its practical advantages over multiple-item (MI) measures pale in comparisons to the theoretical advantages of MI measures. Among constructs that have been operationalised with a single item, job satisfaction remains one of the favourites, although empirical knowledge about its validity is limited to data derived from management, marketing and human resources fields. Little is known about its validity among human service professionals. Using two cross-sectional surveys, the present article describes validity of SI versus MI measures of job satisfaction in predicting life satisfaction and turnover intention among social workers across organisations and professional specialisations, including supervisors, managers and administrators. Results in both studies suggested that SI measure of job satisfaction was methodologically and analytically suitable for examining job-related outcomes. It established convergent validity with MI job satisfaction measures and discriminant validity with job dissatisfaction measures. It demonstrated comparable demographic outcomes, association and predictive relationship with life satisfaction and turnover intention in the same magnitude as MI job satisfaction. It accounted for comparable variance in life satisfaction and turnover intention and generated bivariate, multivariate and mediation model outcomes that are systematically similar to those of MI job satisfaction measures. The article stipulates conditions for the use of SI job satisfaction measures, offers suggestions about how to resolve methodological impasse in choosing between SI and MI measures, and concludes with recommendations that include criteria for choosing between SI and MI measures for research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":283517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X21997724\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X21997724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用单项(SI)措施来实施一个结构已经经受了广泛的方法论批评,与多项(MI)措施的理论优势相比,其实际优势相形见绌。在已被单个项目操作的构式中,工作满意度仍然是最受欢迎的构式之一,尽管有关其有效性的经验知识仅限于来自管理、市场营销和人力资源领域的数据。很少有人知道它在人类服务专业人员中的有效性。通过两项横断面调查,本文描述了工作满意度的SI与MI测量在预测跨组织和专业领域的社会工作者(包括主管、经理和行政人员)的生活满意度和离职倾向方面的有效性。两项研究的结果都表明,工作满意度的SI测量在方法上和分析上适合于检查与工作相关的结果。建立了MI工作满意测量的收敛效度和工作不满意测量的区别效度。它显示了可比较的人口统计结果,与生活满意度和离职倾向的关联和预测关系,其程度与MI工作满意度相同。它解释了生活满意度和离职意向的可比方差,并产生了双变量、多变量和中介模型的结果,这些结果与MI工作满意度测量的结果系统地相似。文章规定了使用SI工作满意度测量的条件,提供了关于如何解决在SI和MI测量之间选择的方法僵局的建议,并总结了包括在SI和MI测量之间选择研究标准的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity of Single-item Versus Multiple-item Job Satisfaction Measures in Predicting Life: Satisfaction and Turnover Intention
The use of single-item (SI) measures to operationalise a construct has endured extensive methodological critique, and its practical advantages over multiple-item (MI) measures pale in comparisons to the theoretical advantages of MI measures. Among constructs that have been operationalised with a single item, job satisfaction remains one of the favourites, although empirical knowledge about its validity is limited to data derived from management, marketing and human resources fields. Little is known about its validity among human service professionals. Using two cross-sectional surveys, the present article describes validity of SI versus MI measures of job satisfaction in predicting life satisfaction and turnover intention among social workers across organisations and professional specialisations, including supervisors, managers and administrators. Results in both studies suggested that SI measure of job satisfaction was methodologically and analytically suitable for examining job-related outcomes. It established convergent validity with MI job satisfaction measures and discriminant validity with job dissatisfaction measures. It demonstrated comparable demographic outcomes, association and predictive relationship with life satisfaction and turnover intention in the same magnitude as MI job satisfaction. It accounted for comparable variance in life satisfaction and turnover intention and generated bivariate, multivariate and mediation model outcomes that are systematically similar to those of MI job satisfaction measures. The article stipulates conditions for the use of SI job satisfaction measures, offers suggestions about how to resolve methodological impasse in choosing between SI and MI measures, and concludes with recommendations that include criteria for choosing between SI and MI measures for research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信