A MYCHQMETRQC STUDY 0*? TIME)
lMDfiCES 3F 30$ SATI$FAU€3CN

flash for the: chm of M. A.
MEI-{56AM STATE UNBV‘ERSWY

Moria Lee Chm-k
1955

TH. £515

HHIIUHIIUIIIIHIIHHIHHHHHIWUI’HIIHllJllHlHl

293 10543 9875

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A Psychometric Study of Two Indices of Job Satisfaction.
presented by

Gloria Cheek

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

L degree in W

 
  

J

Major professor

Date May 19. 1955

0-169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

)V1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to
LIBRAfiJES remove this checkout from
“ your record. FINES w1'11

be charged if book is

returned after the date
stamped be10w.

 

 

 

 

 

i/

 

 

 

Tfifiblé

A PSYCHOMETRIC STUDY OF TWO INDICES
0? JOB SATISFACTION

By
Gloria Lee Cheek

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1955

7‘1 j

I 1* ,7
It $ i . ‘
._, _ I" 9 A

Approved by .__!I_ I "f 3‘24 “'1 /""~~._.:l‘ -:‘:,,,5d_fi_‘ ;, _:"~‘ “

A '

ULUL’LG U00 UliL-IUA

1

Two Job satisfaction inventories and five criterion
questions were admdnistered non-anonymously to 165 workbrs
in a Michigan furniture factory. The purpose of the study
was to compare the inventories with each other, establish‘
reliability and validity coefficients for them, examine the
criterion, and to explore the possibility of constructing
shorter forms of the inventories.

A method of stratified random.sampling was used to
separate the 165 workers into a lll-worker validation group
and a Sh-worker cross-validation group. Appropriate statis-
tical procedures were then followed to carry out the purpose
of the study.

The findings indicated that the inventories correlated
significantly with each other, and significantly with a
three, a five, and a four item criterion. Cross-validation
was successful for both inventories separately on the five
and four item criteria, and in combination on the three,

five, and four item criteria. The inventories were both

\

.-

found to have high internal conSistency. The criteria were
improved by removal of one item.which did not seem.to measure
the same thing as the other four items.

New forms of the inventories were made up on the basis
of item reliability and on the basis of item.validity as
established on the four item criterion. The new forms were

found to have validity coefficients which were not

Gloria Lee Cheek
2

significantly different from validity coefficients found
for the original forms. Internal consistency of the new
forms of the inventories remained high although the item

numbers of the inventories were greatly reduced.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer of this thesis would like to eXpress her
sincere gratitude for the aid and helpful advice given to
her throughout this study by Dr. James S. Karslake, her
major professor, and Dr. Carl F. Frost. Without the ex-
perienced guidance of these professors, the task of
carrying out this project and writing the thesis would have
been much more difficult.

This thesis is one of several being written on
various aspects of Job satisfaction testing. The writer
would like to eXpress her appreciation for the assistance
and moral support given her by one of the other graduate

students working in this area, Mr. William A. Schell.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

'U

D
CG

0

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .

DEFINITIONS 0 O i. O O .. O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recent Test-Analysis Literature
Recent Test-Analysis Research
HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

so ~o a> o~ tr \» u: re

The Inventories

p
p

The Criteria

H
N

The Subjects

H
b.)

Statistical Analysis

H
U'l

FINDINGS

N
P

RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

N
N

COWTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

E’-

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b)
p

BI BLI OGRAP m 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . 0
APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX.G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . .
APPENDIX H . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“PMDIX J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
APPm-DIX K O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O

0
U1 Uh)
ofigfifififififie:

TABLE
I.

II.

III.

IV.

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Comparison of means scores obtained by Groups I
and II on the inventories and criteria . . . . . . 17

Validity and cross-validity findings for all forms
of the job satisfaction inventories . . . . . . . 18

Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficients for all
fonms of the inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . l9

Spearman-Brown inflation and deflation of original
reliability and validity coefficients for differing
inventory lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

INTRODUCTION

The plan for this study grew out of an interest by
the writer in how job satisfaction is currently being
measured in industry and in whether or not the measuring
instruments now in use might be improved. The problem
of this study was to select one or more inventories of
Job satisfaction in current use and do a psychometric
study on them. The purpose of such a study was speci-
fically to compare the inventories with.each other, es-
tablish their reliability and validity coefficients, and
to explore the possibility of constructing them in shorter
form. A ‘

A perusal of the literature concerning the measure-
ment of Job satisfaction led to the selection of two in-
ventories in current use for analysis. The inventories
chosen were the Hoppock Job satisfaction scale as revised
by Bullock, and an employee attitude inventory designed
by the Science Research Associates. (Appendices A and B).
Three criterion questions used by Bullock and two criterion
questions added by this writer formed the composite of
questions used in the examination of validity in this study.
(Appendix C).

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions apply to this study:

Validity - An item.or inventory is valid to the extent
that it measures what it is supposed to measure.

gaggs-Validity - An item or an inventory has cross-
validity to the extent that validity will hold from sample
to sample of the parent population.

Reliability - An item.or an inventory is reliable to
the extent that it measures the same thing if applied over
and over in the same situation.

Job Satisfaction - Job satisfaction is a positive
feeling held to some degree by an employee towards his
job and all factors that he sees as related to his job.

BACKGROUND

During the last few decades, there has been a growing
interest in the human relations approach to better produc-
tivity in industry. Numerous studies have led to the
inference that there is a high, positive relationship be-
tween worker satisfaction with a job, and productivity.

(h, 6, 8, 9, ll, 1h, 16, 1?, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27,
28, 33, 3h, 35, 36, 38). Because of this inferred relation-
ship, interest has grown in the problem.of how Job satis-
faction can be measured.

Publication of research attempting to analyze Job
satisfaction dates mainly from the time of world War I.
These publications have not generally provided tools of
practical value for measuring job satisfaction. On the
whole, the early research has contributed many lists of
factors "felt” to be important components of morale. Only
recently has any work been done in actual factor analysis
of inventories which are supposed to measure Job satisfac-
tion. Using the Science Research Associates Employee In-
ventory, Baehr (3) found four basic factors which seemed
to be held in common by widely different groups of emw
ployees. The names given to these factors were, Immediate
Supervision, Job Satisfaction, Integration in the Organiza-

tion, and Friendliness and Cooperation of Fellow Employees.

Ash (2) also did a factor analysis on categories within
the Science Research Associates Employee Inventory. He found
five factors which he called,Personality Integration, Job
Rewards, Management Effectiveness, Imediate Supervision, and
General Job Satisfaction.

Wherry (36) re-worked the same data used by Baehr and
Ash. He reported the following factors: a General Factor,
Working Conditions and Environment, Financial Reward, Super-
vision, and Effective Management and Administration.

Both early and recent research concerning factors imp
portant in Job satisfaction contain many areas of agreement
in the factors found, although validation of the factors
statistically is not reported. The research to date in this
area is limited, but is certainly not without merit, since
the similarity in factors found can form a base for the

design of more objective research on Job satisfaction.

Recent Test-Analysis Literature

'Hithin the last few years, the writers of some publica-
tions have expressed problems encountered in validation re-
search and have suggested various methods and procedures to
be used in such research. Concerning methods, Long and
Sandiford (2h) report twenty-two methods which may be used
for analysis of reliability or validity of tests.

Anastasi (1) has pointed out problems that may be

encountered in criterion selection for validation studies.

After a thorough analysis of current literature on test

_validation, she notes that,
"...validity is not a function of the test but
of the use to which the test is put. A test may

have high validity for one criterion and low or
negligible validity for another."

She quotes Guilford's statement that a test may be valid
for anything with which it correlates. In other words,
Anastasi brings out the point that a test is valid for use
only to the extent that it measures the behavior we are in-
terested in. The problem.pointed out here is that of selecting
a criterion for validation which will be in line with the
intended use of the test.

Nagle (29). McConnel (27), Sanford (2h), and Bullock (7)
all state that objective measures of behavior are best for I
criteria when the inventories being validates are subjective
in nature. McConnel (27) notes that,

"Attitude surveys, whether conducted by paper and

pencil tests or interviews, are essentially reactions

to artificial situations. Both the paper and pencil

and the interviewer‘s questions are stimuli, but they

are not the same stimuli which call forth the kind

of behavior which is ultimately the thing of real

interest.”

Concerning the problem of cross-validation of inven-
torie , the Psychological Corporation 131) states that
cross- alidation is necessary ”to protect us from being

fooled to putting confidence in a relationship which

 
  

happens 0 hold true for the group we started with but which
will let

s down in the long run." Cureton (10) also brings

out the idea that to establish the validity of a revised in-
ventory, by again using the same group the original inventory

was validated upon, is a highly risky procedure.‘

Recent Test-Analysis Research

On all of the job satisfaction inventories reported in
the literature, where any sort of statistical analysis was
attempted, some form.of reliability coefficient was established,
whether in the form of test-retest reliability or internal
consistency of the scale. Bullock (7) reported a split-half
reliability, for his version of the Hoppock scale, of 0.81.
The Science Research Associates Employee Inventory (12) was
reported to have a test-retest reliability of 0.89. i

There have been a few publications in the last few years
concerning attempts to validate job satisfaction inventories.
The Thurstone technique of validation by the judgment of
”experts” is reported by Wood (38) and by Bullock (7). Bray-
field and Rothe (6) and Bullock (T) have used t-tests to de-
termine whether or not there is a significant mean difference
between scores obtained by the most satisfied workers and
scores obtained by the least satisfied workers. Brayfield
and Rothe (6) validated an inventory by correlating it with
another job satisfaction inventory. They found a correlation
of 0.92 between the fioppock job satisfaction inventory and

their own.

The use of criterion questions for the validation of
job satisfaction inventories has been reported by Hoppock (15),
Kerr (16, 17): and Bullock(7). Hoppock used "self-estimate"
criterion questions for the validation, Kerr (16, 71) used A
job-tenure rate for his criterion, and Bullock (7) used three
objective data criterion questions. i i

The University of Chicago Research Group (12) reported
a “good correspondence" between scores obtained on the
Science Research Associates Inventory and the "considered
judgments of experienced observers.” They also reported
establishment of validity for the inventory by comparison of
test results with the results of non-directive interviews on
a cross-section of employees.

This writer could not find evidence of cross validation
studies on job satisfaction inventories reported in the

literature.

 

HYPOTHESES

l. The two job satisfaction inventories used in this
study will correlate highly with each other and with the

criteria.

2. Validity coefficients obtained for each of the two
inventories will be significantly other than zero and will

be upheld when they are cross-validated.

3. Short forms of the inventories made up on the basis
of the items on each inventory which agree best with the
criteria will be more valid than short forms of the inven-
tories made up on the basis of the items which agree best

with each inventory as a whole.

PROCEDURE

The procedure followed in this study was to administer
two job satisfaction inventories and five criterion questions
to the workers in a furniture factory. The findings were
then statistically analysed. A detailed description of the
inventories, the criterion questions, the subjects used, and

the statistical procedure follows.

The Inventories

The two job satisfaction inventories chosen for use in;
this study were, the Employee Inventory published by the
Science Research Associates in 1952 (and hereafter in this
study referred to as the "SRA") and the Bullock version of
the Hoppock job satisfaction scale published by the Bureau
of Business Research at Ohio State University in 1952 (and
hereafter in this study referred to as the "OSU"). The SRA
has enjoyed wide application as a tool for measuring employee
attitudes concerning satisfaction with various aspects of the
work situation.

The General Manual of the SBA (12) contains the
ftrllowing statement concerning the test:

”The SRA Employee Inventory was developed to provide

an accurate measure of employee attitudes toward
the work environment. It is an inexpensive, easily.

10

interpreted, quickly scored questionnaire designed

for use in all types of companies, including fac-

tories, offices, and retail stores." I

"The seventy-eight items in the SBA Employee Inven-

tory reflect the kinds of things employees say about

their jobs in a wide range of business and indus-

trial situations.” "It is phrased in simple language

that is understandable to all employees with a fourth

grade education or better."

From.information derived in non-directive interviews
by the Industrial Research group at the University of
Chicago, fifteen major categories were chosen and then
item construction took place within the chosen categories.
The items were not arranged on the inventory proper according
to category. The item.arrangement was such, however, that
scoring could be done from.the answer pads according to cate-
gory. The possible responses to each item were, "Agree",
"?”, and "Disagree". The items were worded so that on some,
a response of "Agree" would indicate satisfaction, and on
some a response of "Disagree" would indicate satisfaction.
A response of "?" to any item indicated other than satisfac-
tion. By the selective placement of carbon on the answer
pads, only satisfied responses were recorded, and scores were
computed.by adding the number of satisfied responses. The
highest possible score indicating greatest satisfaction
was seventy-eight.

The OSU inventory, according to Bullock (7), "is com-
posed of ten items requiring evaluations of the employing

organization, the job itself, or the respondent's own

position in the work group." A scale of the type used by

.|. . .. Ili‘liillil‘liil'l} l‘i,‘

11

Likert (23) was used for the five alternative responses to
each item. Each set of five alternatives was arbitrarily
given values of l, 2, 3, h, and 5 with 5 indicating the
greatest amount of satisfaction and 1 the least on each ques-
tion. The highest possible score indicating greatest satis-

faction on the job was 50.

The Criteria

Five questions were administered which were assumed to be~
objective measures of job satisfaction.j)The first three were
designed by Bullock (7) (Appendix D), and the last two were
designed in connection with this study (Appendix E). Each
question had three possible responses. "Yes", "?”, and "No".
For some of the questions "Yes” was the answer to indicate .
satisfaction and for some of the questions "No" was the answer
to indicate satisfaction. "?” was always considered to indi-
cate other than satisfaction.

The five questions were used in the following three _’
ways: First, as a three question criterion to partially
replicate Bullock's attempt to validate the Hoppock material,
(Appendix D). Second, as a five question criterion on the
assumption that five were a more adequate criterion than
thmce, (Appendix E). Third, as a four question criterion
lubon finding through item analysis that one question was
&Saentia11y irrelevant and should be discarded. (Appendix F).

12

{The hypotheses were examined primarily with reference to

the four item criterion.

In every instance the respondents were divided into two
groups, the satisfied and less satisfied, on the basis of

their responses to the criterion questions. (See Appendix G

Lfor the division).

The Subjects

"I

’A

f The two job satisfaction inventories and five criteriond
questions were administered to 168 of the 175 employees of}
a furniture manufacturing company in a small town in Michigan.
Seven ill, night, or part-time workers were not present during
the testing and an opportunity was given to these employees
to respond by mail. Three of these seven responded. A total
of six responses had to be thrown out because they were in-
complete. The total sample with complete test results was
165. A

The entire company participated in the study, including
executives, foreman, office, and factory workers. The execu-
tives were given the inventories first, and then the foreman
took the inventories in a group. Following administration
<of'the scales to the foremen, an article was written for the
(30mpany newssheet explaining to the workers what the pro-
<3edures would be, the purpose of the testing, and words to
<iispell as much as possible fears and distrugt concerning

t&10 testing. Two days later, the entire Company was tested

r.

13

in groups of 30 or less. Students working on this study
administered the scales in the absence of members of manage-
ment. Care was taken to establish an atmosphere of confidence
and trust, since the administration had to be nonanonymous for
the purpose of another student's thesis.

The furniture company had used the services of a con-
sulting psychologist for some time when the survey was given,
and many "reforms" in management practices, personnel policy,
and wage administration had been suggested and at least par-
tially carried out at the time of the study. However, the
workers were paid on a group-incentive basis and at the time
of the survey, the announcement had just been made that, for
the first time in many months, there would be no bonus because
production had- gone down.

The 165 subjects were divided into two groups (I) and
(II) by a method of stratified random sampling. There were
3111 subjectsin Group I, and 5k in Group II. Studies of item
and test reliability and validity were all based upon the
subjects in Group I. Group II was used wholly for the purpose

(if cross-validating anything found or developed on the basis

(\jff’Group I performance.

Statistical Analysis

I

Both.Group I and Group II scores were computed and com-

IJared for the two inventories and for the criterion questions.

lube procedure was then as follows:

l. A Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlation
between scores on the two job satisfaction inventories was
computed.

2. Items were analyzed by the Kelley method (2h) to
determine item.reliability, and to determine item validity
on the basis of the four item criterion.

3. Using items found to be reliable at the 5% level of
significance or higher, a new, shorter form of each of the
two inventories was formed. Using items found to be valid at
the 5% level of significane or higher, a new,shorter form of
each of the two inventories was formed. Thus, each of the
two original forms of the job satisfaction inventories had
two corresponding short forms each-~one composed of items
considered reliable, the other composed of items considered
valid.

k. Point-biserial coefficients of correlation were
used to establish validities of the original forms of the
SBA and OSU separately and in combination, and of the four
short forms of the inventories.

5. Cross validities for all forms of the inventories
were established.

6. Kuder-Richardson formula 21 was used to determine
the internal consistency of all forms of the SBA and OSU.

7. The Spearman-Brown formula was used to compare reli-
abilities and validies of the short forms with the longer _

forms of the inventories.

IIII‘ ‘I. (I‘ll

15

FINDINGS

Table I shows Group I and II mean scores and standard
deviations on each of the two inventories and the three forms
of criterion. .E ratios established show no significant dif-
ferences between Groups I and II on any of the means.

The Pearson correlation between the original forms of
the SBA and OSU (SRA78 and OSUlO) was 0.755.

Use of the Kelley method to determine item reliabilities
resulted in a 53 item SRA (SRASB) (Appendix H), and a 9 item
OSU (OSU9) (Appendix I). Use of the Kelley method to deteré
mine item.validities on the basis of the four item criterion
resulted in a 15 item SRA (SRAlS) (Appendix J) and a 6 item
0311 (03116) (Appendix K). i '

Table II shows point biserial validity coefficients and
Pearson cross-validity coefficients of the SRA78 and OSUlO'
alone and in combination, with the 3 item.(Y3), 5 item.(Y5),
and h item.(Y£) criteria. Point biserial validity coefficients
are also shown for SEAS}, smls, 03119, and osu6 with the It
item criterion. Pearson cross-validity coefficients are re-
ported for SEAS3 and OSU9 on the h item criterion.

Regression equations for predicting criterion scores

on the basis of inventory scores were as follows:

l6

r3 = 0.0196XSRA78 + 1.375
= e + e6
Y3 o oucoxoSUIO o 75
r3 = 0.028103“;10 + 0.0103}:SRA78 + 0.798

Y5 = 0.0535108U10 + 1.256

In a °°°73xssa73 - 1.529

In = 0.05hxbsulo + 0.h15

In = 0-0100133573 - 0.0146:OSU10 - 1.31h
Yh - 0.055153.53 + 0.526

In a 0.0611OSU9 + 0.353

Y = 0.056xsRAS3 - 0.001ubeU9 + o.h38

Table III shows Kuder-Richardson internal consistency
reliability coefficients for the original and short forms
of the SBA and OSU.

In Table IV, the previously reported reliability and
validity coefficients are compared.with reliability and
validity coefficients which might be expected if the shorter
forms of the inventories were inflated or deflated in length.

17

TABLE I
COMPARISON OF MEANS SCORES OBTAINED BY GROUPS I
AND II ON THE INVENTORIES AND CRITERIA

 

 

 

Group I Group II t ratio

are 55037 59.20 0.20
“PE “4006 13.118
Moan 38.86 39.30 0.05
roan 6.16 6.111;,
M3.crit 2.h6 2.69 ' 0.02
as-crit 0069 0o5h
rig—exalt 3051 3.78 0.65
”E-crit ' 1.09 0.98
Mh-crit 2'51 2.85 0.29
“It-cm 1.06 0.83

_

No t ratio found to be significantly other than zero.

i

TABLE II

18

VALIDITY AND CROSS-VALIDITY FINDINGS FOR ALL FORMS OF

THE JOB SATISFACTION INVENTORIES

 

 

_3 Item Crit.

_5 Item Crit.

 

Q Item Orig;_

 

 

In'°nt°’7 Val. C-Val. Val. C-Val. Val. C-Val.
SRA78 0-h0-—--0.10" 0.u9 0.36 0.56 0.u7
SRA15 0.38

03010 0.u1----0.09" 0.33 0.h5 0.31 0.u8
0509 0.33 0.5h
0306 0.51
33173+osolo 0.u5 0.2h 0.50 0.h3 0.59 0.u8
SRA53+OSU9 0-h3 0.23
"...not significantly other than zero

----...significantly different from each other.

19

TABLE III
KUDER-RICHARDSON RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS
FOR ALL FORMS OF THE INVENTORIES

 

 

Inventory Reliability
SRA53 0.85
SRAIS 0.71
OSU10 0.79
OSU9 0.99
OSU6 0.88

 

All reliability coefficients above were found to be signifi-
cantly other than zero.

20

TABLE IV

SPEARMAN-BROWN INFLATION AND DEFLATION 0F ORIGINAL RELIABILITY

AND VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS* FOR DIFFERING INVENTORY LENGTHS

 

—_
—;

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.—

*0riginals are underlined.

78 53 15 10 9 6
items items items items items items
Validity
Coefficients:
SRA78 0.56 0.h6 0.19 OSU10 0. 1 0.29 0.21
SRA15 _ 0.76 0.68 0.28 0306 0.6h 0.61 0,51
Reliability
Coefficients:
SRA78 0.23 0.90 0.72 OSU10 0.22 0.78 0.69
SRAS3 0.89 0.85 0.61 OSU9 0.99 0,22 0.98

21

RESULTS

1. The two job satisfaction inventories used in this
study correlated highly with each other and significantly
with the three, five, and four item.oriteria.

2. Validity coefficients obtained for each of the two
inventories were significantly other than zero and were up-
held when cross-validated on the five and four item.oriteria,
but not on the three item.oriterion.

3. Short forms or the inventories made up on the basis
of the items on each inventory which agreed best with the
four item.oriterion were 32; significantly more valid than
short forms of the inventories made up on the basis of the
items which agreed best with each inventory as a whole. How-
ever, when the Spearman-Brown formula was used to make the
above comparison with the forms equated in length, the
opposite was true. That is, two inventories of equal length
made up on the basis of the items which agreed best with
the four item criterionlgggg significantly more valid than
inventories made up on the basis of the items which agreed

best with each inventory as a whole.

22

COMMENTS

Since it is possible that the findings of this study
were specific to the industrial situation used and might
differ from.industry to industry, the suggestion should be
made that inter-industry research be conducted.

It should be mentioned that there was a choice of
statistics which could be used to establish validity coeffi-
cients in this study. It was not known if the furniture in-
dustry as a whole would show a normal distribution of job
satisfaction on the inventories used or not. If it was
assumed to be true, biserial correlation coefficients could
have been used for establishing validity in the sample of
the furniture industry used in this study. Such statistics
would have resulted in higher validity coefficients than point
biserial results. However, since satisfaction in the sample
used was not normally distributed, it was felt that the
assumption might also be made that the furniture industry
as a whole might have a non-normal distribution. Since there
was a degree of doubt about the normality of the parent popu-
lation, point-biserial coefficients were chosen because they
gave the more conservative estimates of validity.

It was considered possible that the use of larger

samples might have resulted in higher validity coefficients

also.

23

The Kelley method of upper and lower 27 percents was
chosen for the item analyses because the method is supposed
to eliminate masking of differences between satisfied and
other-than-satisfied groups due to crowding around the 50%
range of the distribution of satisfaction scores. The
method eliminated this masking by taking, “not the difference
between the percentage proportions of the upper and lower
groups answering the item.oorrectly, but the distance, in
sigma units between the ordinates which cut off these
respective proportions from the area of the normal curve”.
(2h, p. 31).

An additional note concerning this study should be made
about its non-anonymity. Since the findings showed questions
77 and 78 on the SRA to be neither reliable nor valid, and
because of the care taken to assure the workers that their
names would be seen only by two graduate students and used
for research purposes only, it was felt that the results
were not influenced by identification. However, in further
research this factor might well be kept in mind, and inter-
pretation of the results of this study should be made with

the procedure followed in mind.

21+

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis that the SBA and OSU would correlate
highly with each other was supported by the findings in this
study. This correlation was predicted on the basis of the
fact that both inventories were supposed to measure job
satisfaction.

The hypothesis that validity coefficients obtained for
each of the two inventories would be significantly other
than zero was supported by the findings. These findings also
supported the Bullock study ('7). Further, it was found
that validity coefficients obtained for each of the short
forms of the two inventories were significantly other than
zero.

The hypothesis that validity coefficients would continue
to be greater than zero when cross-validated was upheld except
in the case of the validity coefficients obtained for the
three item.oriterion on the SRA78 and OSU10° This finding
was in disagreement with the findings of another student using
the same statistics on the same data but with a different
separation of Groups I and II from the parent population.
This writer had no ready explanation for the disagreement
found except to speculate that some form of bias may have
occurred in designating Groups I and II. Some support

may be given to this speculation by another strange finding

25

in this study. That is, on the five and four item criteria,

the OSU and OSU9 both had higher cross-validity coefficients

10
than validity coefficients. Although the difference was not
significant, the trend was apparent and unexpected. It seemed
possible that perhaps the Group II scores used in this study
were atypical of the parent population in some ways.

The hypothesis that short forms of the inventories made
up on the basis of item validity would be more valid than
short forms of the inventories made up on the basis of item
reliability was not upheld. There were no significant
differences in validity coefficients computed for the SRA78,

SRASB, and SRAlS; nor for the OSU , OSU9, and OSU6‘ This

10
finding in itself is worthy of note, however, since it appears
that the short forms could be used just as well as the long
forms to measure job satisfaction, with considerable practical
savings in necessary administration time. Further, use of

the Spearman—Brown formula to compare validity coefficients
with the inventories equated for length, pointed out that the
SRA15 and OSU6 both had significantly higher validity coef-
ficients than would be expected from the original fomm of
either inventory.

The internal consistency of the inventories was high,

and remained so in spite of considerable shortening of the

inventories. The conclusion from this finding was that both

tests were quite homogeneous,-although some items measured

the same thing better than others. This conclusion would

26

lead to the suggestion that further research might well
assign item weights on the basis of how well each item
measured the criterion, and determine validity and cross-
validity on the basis of these weighted scores. It would

be supposed that item weighting might significantly increase
the validity and cross-validity coefficients found.

The items found to be most valid on the SBA came from
nearly every one of the categories on the inventory. The
only missing categories were Employee Benefits, Friendliness
and Cooperation of Fellow Employees, Technical Competence of
Supervision, Opportunity for Growth and Advancement, and
Reactions to the Inventory. Of special interest was the fact
that Identification with the Company contained h items, all
of which were both reliable and valid. It was especially
worthy of note in view of the fact that only one of the
factor analysis studies (37) mentioned named this category
as having weight in any factor found.

Since all valid items except h and h? were also reliable,
and since it was assumed that all reliable items measured
what the test as a whole measured, it appeared that the items
which were reliable, but not valid, accounted for some of the
lack of perfect agreement between what the inventory measured
and what the criterion measured. Possibly the SBA measured
something more than job satisfaction that included job
satisfaction within it.

27

Items in the categories called Pay, Friendliness and
Cooperation of Fellow Employees, and Technical Competence of
Supervision, did not agree well with either the test as a
whole or with the criterion. It would seem probable that the
items within these general categories were not especially re-
lated to job satisfaction in so far as the criterion and
test measure job satisfaction.

The fact that items relating to Pay did not agree with
the rest of the SBA or with the criterion to any great extent
seemed to go along with the finding that the criterion ques—
tion concerning pay did not agree with the other h criterion
questions. Criterion item one asked whether the worker had
received a reward on the job, whereas the other four criterion
questions asked whether or not the worker had expressed be-
havior which might have been assumed to show dissatisfaction
with the job. The conclusion here was that perhaps it cannot
be assumed that receiving a reward on the job necessarily
leads to satisfaction. It appeared that questions concerning
behavior expressing dissatisfaction would be a safer objec-
tive criterion for satisfaction than questions which required
the assumption that satisfaction should result from particular
behavior directed toward the worker.

Concerning the OSU, it may be noted that removal of item
5, which did not agree with either the criterion or the rest
of the inventory, improved the internal consistency of the

inventory to the point where all 9 of the remaining items

28

appeared to really measure the same thing. .An appraisal of
the OSU at face value indicated that items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6,

and 10 measured the same thing. However, the fact that item
5 was neither reliable nor valid seemed to indicate that a
person seeing himself as satisfied or dissatisfied in compari-
son with other peOple (in item 5) was not the same thing as
asking him how satisfied he actually was. This finding is
understandable if it is noted that the worker had no oppor-
tunity to indicate on the question how satisfied he felt
"others" were-~or, indeed, whom he had in mind by ''others".

Item.h on the OSU was supposed, at face value, to be
very similar to the items in Category 13 on the SBA, and it
was not surprising, then, that the item was both reliable
and valid. Question 7 appeared to ask the same question as
item.29 on the SBA, which was also both reliable and valid.
Question 8 seemed to be very closely related to criterion ques-
tions 3 and 5.

The findings indicated that the OSU questions which were
both reliable and valid, seemed either to agree with the SRA,
the criterion, or ask specifically if the worker was satisfied
with his job. This finding allowed further support to the
assumption made previously that the criterion.measured job
satisfaction, and that the area of overlapping measurement
between the SBA and OSU measured job satisfaction. The
findings also allowed the possible conclusion that the ques-

tions on the OSU which were reliable, but not valid, measured

29

job satisfaction, because of the high internal consistency of
the test. Apparently, however, these items did not predict
dissatisfied behavior as well as those items which were both
reliable and valid. Perhaps weighted scores on the OSU would
also improve prediction of the criterion scores, as was pre-
viously suggested concerning the SRA.

It seemed possible that future research in terms of
criterion selection would do well to use the OSU questions
that expressly questioned satisfaction, as guides in deter-
mining the criteria. This suggestion was supported in the
findings by the indication that paper and pencil expressions
of dissatisfaction, on items which specifically questioned
satisfaction, were correlated with whether or not the worker
had shown actual behavior expressing dissatisfaction. To
the extent that such behavior would be undesirable to a company,
it would certainly appear to be worthwhile to ask the ques-
tions concerning satisfaction. Furthermore, future research
might well be concerned with just what dissatisfied behavior
is undesirable to industry--and this undesirable behavior
could then be put in question form and used as a criterion for
validation of further job satisfaction inventories.

Another possibility for further research might be to
more closely inspect the items on the SBA which did not
seem to be reliable or valid in this study, and, by selection
of further criteria, discover what behavior these items on

the SRA will predict. The items on the SBA appeared valuable

30

in making a category profile of attitudes within industry,
but it would have seemed more profitable to know what the
profile meant in terms of what each Category actually
measured. From a practical standpoint, the question may
be asked whether or not we cared what relative standing a
company or department obtained in its answers unless we knew
what desirable or undesirable behavior could be predicted from
the answers given.

The findings of this study further allowed the supposi-
tion that a shorter form.of the SBA could be devised which
would predict undesirable behavior as well or better than the

long form.has done.

1.

2.

3.

h.

5.

6..

7.

9.
10.
11.
12.

13.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anastasi, A. The concept of validity in the interpreta-
tion of test scores. Educ. and Ppychol. Measurement, V”
1950. 10. 67-77.

Ash, P. The SRA Employee Inventory - a statistical analysis.
Personnel Psyghol., l95h: 7. 337- 355.

Baehr, M. E. A factorial study of the SBA Employee
Inventory. Personnel APsychol., 195k, 7. 330-337.

Bartlett, F. C. Men, machines, and productivity. J, of
Occup. Psychgl., 19h8, 22, 190-197.

Blum, M. L. Industrial Ps chology and its Social
Foundations. New York; Harper and Bros., Il9h9, 77.

Brayfield, A. H., and H. F. Rothe. An index of job
satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol., 1951, 35, 307-311.

 

Bullock, R. P. Social factors related to job satisfaction.
.Columbus, Ohio, The Bureau of Business Research, College
of Commerce and Administration, the Ohio State University.
Research Monogrgph No. 70, 1952.

Burns, R. K. Employee morale - its meaning and measurement.
Indus. Rel. Res. Assoc. Bulletin, Dec. 1951, 52-69.

Cornell, W. B. 0r anization and Mana ement in Industr
and Businesg. .New York, Ronald Press 00.. 1935, 153-556.

Cureton, E. E. Validity, reliability, and baloney. Educ.
and Psychol. Measurement, 1950, 10, 9h-96.

David, N. M. Human Problems in Industr . London, Nichol-
son and Watson, 19KB, 80-128.

General Manual for the Em lo ee Inventor . (Third Edition)
‘ChiCago, Science Researca ssociates, 2.

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Pa cholo and
Education. (Second Edition) New York, McGraw-Hill 00.,

19509 15h: 213: 261: 310’3320 389-5h2-

 

1h.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

25.

26.

27.

32

Hamel, L. and H. G. Reif. Schould attitude questionnaires
be signed? Perpppnel ngchol., 1952, 5, 87-91.

Hoppock, R. Job Satipfaction. New York, Harper and Bros.,
1935! 1520

Kahn, R. L., and N. C. Morse. The relation of productivity
to morale. Indus. Rel. Res. Assoc., Dec. 1951, 69-80.

Katz, D. Good and bad practices in attitude surveys in
industrial relations. Indus. Rel. Res. Assoc., Dec. 19h9.
212-22h.

Kerr, W. A. On validity and Jreliability of the job
aegisgaction tear ballot. A p1. Psychol., 19k8, 32,
27 -2 10

. Summary of validity studies of the tear

ballot. PersonnelgPsychol., 1952, 5, 105-113.

Knoeppel, C. E. Organization and Administration. New
York, Industrial’Extension Institute, 1919, vol. 1.

Knowles, A. 3., and R. D. Thomson. Management of Mappower.
New York, The Macmillan 00., 19h3, h-27.

Libo, L. M. Attitude pr rediction in labor relations.
Stanford, California, Studies in Industrial Relations,
No. 10,19h8.

Likert, R. A. A technique for the measurement of
attitudes. Arch. Psychol., 1932, no. lhO.

Long, J. A. and P. Sandiford. The validation of test val
items. Toronto, Canada, The Department of Educational
Research, The University of Toronto. Bulletin No. 3,

1935.

Mace C. A. Satisfactions in work. J. of Occup. Psychol.,
19M, 22, 5-20. ,

MacNiece, E. H. Production Forecasti Plannin and
Control. New York, aohn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1951,
18g-19§ e

McConnel, J. W. Discussion. Indus. Rel. Res. Assoc.
B11110, Deco 1914.9, 2211-226.

28.

29.

3h-

35.

36-

370

38-

33

Munsterberg, H. Psychology and Industrial Efficiency.
New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1913.

Nagle, B. F. Criterion development. Personnel Psychol.,
1953. 6, 271-291.

O'Donnell, P. D. Production Control. New York, Prentice
Hall InC., 1952, 1-23.

Test Service Bulletin. Cross-validation. The Psychologi-
cal Corporation, 19Sh.

Thurstone, L. L., and E. J. Chave. The Measurement of
Attitude. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 19'9.

Tiffin, J. The uses and potentialities of attitude
surveys in industrial relations. Indus. Rel. Res. Assoc..
19h9, 20h-212.

Tredgold, R. F. Human Relations in Modern Industr .
New York, International Universities Press Inc., {950,

39-75 0

Walker, C. R. and R. H. Guest. The Man on the Assembl
Line. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 19 2.

11§-123, 135-16h.

Watts, F. An Introduction to the Psychological Problems
of Industry. London, George Allen and Unwinthd., 1921.

Wherry, R. J. An orthogonal re-rotation of the Baehr and
Ash studies of the SRA Employee Inventory. Personnel
Psychol., 195k. 7, 365-381.

Woods, H. A. Employee attitudes and their relation to
morale. J. Appl. Psychol., l9hu, 28, 285-301.

APPENDIX A

feel about ydur job.

31L

THE OSU

The following statements will help you to describe how you

Think about your experience while working

on this job and check those statements which most accurately
and honestly tell how you feel about it.

1.

2.

h.

Place a check mark in front of the statement which best
tells how good a Job you have.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

The Job is an excellent one, very much above the
average.
The job is a fairly good one.

The job is only average.

The job is not as good as average in this kind of
work 0

The job is a very poor one, very much below the
average.

Place a check mark in front of the;statement which best
describes your feelings about your job.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Check one of
the time you

very satisfied and happy on this job.
fairly well satisfied on this job.

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied--it is
average.

a little dissatisfied on this job.

very dissatisfied and unhappy on this job.

I am

an4:?hnq
8133155

the following statements to show how much of
are satisfied with your Job.

Most of the time.

A good deal of the time.

About half the time.

Occasionally.

Seldom.

Place a check mark in front of the statement which best

tells what

A.

B.

C.
D.

kind of an organization it is to work for.

It is an excellent organization to work for-~one
of the best organizations I know of.

It is a good organization to work for but not one
of the best.

It is only an average organization to work for.
Many others are better.

It is below average as an organization to work for.
Many others are better.

It is probably one of the poorest organizations to
work for that I know of.

35

5. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best
tells how your feelings compare with those of other people
you know.

A.

B.
C.
D.

E.

I dislike my job much more than most people
dislike_theirs.

I dislike my Job more than most people dislike
theirs.

I like my job about as well as most people like
theirs.

I like my job better than most people like theirs.
I like my job much better than most people like
theirs.

6. Place a check mark in front of the statement which best
tells how you feel about the work you do on your job.

B.

C.

D.

E.

The work I do is very unpleasant. I dislike it.
The work I do is not pleasant.
The work is Just about average. I don't have any
feeling about whether it is pleasant or not.

The work is pleasant and enjoyable.

The work is very enjoyable. I very much like to

do the work called for on this job.

7. Check one of the following which best describes any general
conditions which affect your work or comfort on this job.

A.

B.
C.

D.

E

General working conditions are very/bad.

General working conditions are poog3-not so good
as the average for this kind of jo .

General working conditions are about average,
neither good nor bad.

In general, working conditions are good, better
than average.

General working conditions are very good, much
better than average for this kind of Job.

8. Check one of the following statements which best tells
how you feel about changing your job.

A.
B.

C.

D.

E.

I would quit this Job at once if I had anything
else to do.

I would take almost any other Job in which I
could earn as much as I am earning here. .
This job is as good as the average and I would
just as soon have it as any other Job but would
change Jobs if I could make more money.

I am not eager to change Jobs but would do so if
I could make more money.

I do not want to change jobs even for more money
because this is a good one.

36

9. Suppose you had a very good friend who is looking for a
Job in your line of work and you know of a vacancy in
this organization which your friend is well qualified to
fill. Would you:

___A. Recommend this Job as a good one to apply for?

.___B° Recommend this job but caution your friend about

its shortcomings?

___C. Tell your friend-about the vacancy but not anything

else, then let him.decide whether to apply or not?

___D. Tell your friend about the vacancy but suggest
that he or she look for other vacancies elsewhere
before applying?

___E. Try to discourage your friend from applying by

telling the bad things about the job?

10. On the line below, place a check mark to show how well
satisfied you are with this Job. You may place your
mark anywhere on the line either above one of the state—
ments or between them.

' I I i I
Completel PMOre dissatisfied About More satisfied Cempletely
dissatisf ed than satisfied half than satisfied

and half dissatisfied

 

APPENDIX B

SH}! Employee Inventory

Your company would like to know what you think about your job, your
pay, your boss, and the company in general. This Inventory is designed
to help you tell us your ideas and opinions quickly and easily without signing your name. This booklet contains a
number of statements. All you have to do is to mark a cross by each statement to show how you feel. It is easy to
do and you can be completely frank in your answers.

Purpose of the In ventoryi'.

   

How to fill in the In I“ Read each statement carefully and deCide how you feel about ‘lt.
You Will agree With some statements, and you Will disagree With
others. You may be undecided about some. To help you express your Opinion, three possible answers have been
placed beside each statement:

 

AGREE ? DISAGREE

I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. D D E]
Choose the answer most like your own opinion and mark a cross in the box under it.

For example:

This person feels he wants to work in a large city:

AGREE I DISAGREE

I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. E D

This person wants to work in a small town: mm , mum

I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. I: E] E
This person can’t decide between a large city and a small town: Am, , ”3,6,“
I would rather work in a large city than in a small town ................................. D E D
This is not a testis There are no right answers and no wrong answers. It IS your own, honest opinion

that we want.

 

 
 

W or]: rapidly but .9: Do not spend too much time on any one statement.

' 7 ' = . ' “‘ ‘ ' ' ‘ If you cannot decnde about a statement, mark the
“?” box, and go on to the next statement. Some of the statements may not be worded exactly the way you would
like them. However, answer them the best way you can. Be sure to mark every statement. Leave no blanks. Mark
only one answerfor each statement. If you make a mistake, do NOT erase your mark. Put a circle around the
cross inside the box like this X , and mark a cross in the correct box.

    

informatia Do not make any marks in this booklet. Do not sign your name on the Answer
Pad. Be sure to fill in the blanks for general information on the back of the

Anchr Pad. This information will be used only to make the results more meaningful. It will not be used to find out

which Answer Pad is yours. Please turn now to the back of the Answer Pad and fill in the general information.

General

W]: e n you have finial“ Check to see that you have marked every statement. 'If you think anything

' has been left out, or if there is any speCial thing that IS worrying you about
your work, please write or print your cements in the space provided on the Answer Pad. When you are finished,
remove the Answer Pad from the booklet and drop your Answer Pad in the ballot box.

 

Go on to the next page

p—

N

5"

:5

LII

9‘

\l

00

\O

20.

2 .

.—

22.

Make no marks on these pages! 1

. The hours of work here are OK .............................................................

Management does everything possible to prevent accidents in our work ......... . .................
Management is doing its best to give us good working conditions ................................

In my opinion, the pay here is lower than in other companies ...................................

. They should do a better job of handling pay matters here .......................................

I understand what the company benefit program provides for employees ..........................

. The people I work with help each other out when someone falls behind or gets in a tight spot .......
. My boss is too interested in his own success to care about the needs of employees .................
. My boss is always breathing/down our necks; he watches us too closely. . . .. .....................
. My boss gives us credit and praise for work well done ..........................................
. Management here does everything it can to see that employees get a fair break on the job ...........
. If I have a complaint to make, I feel free to talk to someone up—the-line ..........................
. My boss sees that employees are properly trained for their jobs ..................................
. My boss sees that we have the things we need to do our jobs ....................................
. Management here is really trying to build the organization and make it successful ..................
. Management here sees to it that there is cooperation between departments ........................
. Management tells employees about company plans and developments ............................
. They encourage us to make suggestions for improvements here ..................................

. I am often bothered by sudden speed-ups or unexpected slack periods in my work .................

Changes are made here With little regard for the welfare of employees ............................
Compared with other employees, we get very little attention from management ....................

Sometimes I feel that my job counts for very little in this organization ............................

. The longer you work for this company the more you feel you belong .............................
. I have a great deal of interest in this company and its future ....................................
. l have little opportunity to use my abilities in this organization ..................................

. There are plenty of good jobs here for those who want to get ahead .......................

 

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.

39.

41.
42.

43.

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.

' 52.

Do not mark in booklet! z

I often feel worn out and tired on my job .............................
They expect too much work from us around here ......................
Poor working conditions keep me from doing my best in my work .......
For my kind of job, the working conditions are O.K ...................
I’m paid fairly compared with other employees ........................
Compared with other companies, employee benefits here are good .......
A few of the people I work with think they run the place. . . . . . . . . . .....
The pe0ple I work with get along well together ........................
My boss has always been fair in his dealings with me ...................
My boss gets employees to work together as a team ....................
I have confidence in the fairness and honesty of management. .9 ..........
Management here is really interested in the welfare of employees ........

Most of the higher-ups are friendly toward employees ..................

. My boss keeps putting things off; he just lets things ride ................

My boss lets us know exactly what is expected of us ..... . .............
Management fails to give clear-cut orders and instructions ..............
I know how my job fits in with other Work in this organization ..........
Management keeps us in the dark about things we ought to know .......
Long service really means something in this organization ...............
You can get fired around here Without much cause ...... l ...............
I can be sure of my job as long as I do good work .....................
I have plenty of freedom on the job to use my own judgment ...........
Everybody in this organization tries to boss us around .................
I really feel part of this organization .................................
The people who get promotions around here usually deserve them. ......

I can learn a great deal on my present job ....................

 

 

75. 1

7']. i

i—‘h

 

 

 

 

 

53.

54.

55.

56:

57.

58.

59.

6l.

62.

63.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

7l.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.
77.

78.

 

3

My job is often dull and monotonous ........................
There is too much pressure on my job .......................
Some of the working conditions here' are annoying ..............
l have the right equipment to do my work .....................
My pay is enough to live on comfortably ......................

I’m satisfied with the way employee benefits are
handled here ...............................................

 

The company’s employee benefit program is OK ...............
The people I work with are very friendly ......................
My boss really tries to get our ideas about things ...............
My boss ought to be friendlier toward employees ...............
My boss lives up to his promises .............................
Management here has a very good personnel policy .............
Management ignores our suggestions and complaints ............
My boss knows very little about his job .......................
My boss has the work well organized .........................
This company operates efficiently and smoothly ................
Management really knows its job .............................
They have a poor way of handling employee complaints

here. .....................................................
You can say what you think around here ......................
You always know Where you stand with this company ...........
When layoffs are necessary, they are handled fairly .......... . . .
I am very much underpaid for the work that I do ..............
I’m really doing something worthwhile in my job ...............
I’m proud to work for this company ..........................

Filling in this Inventory is a good way If: let
management know what employees thin .............

I think some good may come out of filling in an . . _
Inventory like this one. .........................

Write your comm en ts

in the space provided on the
back of the Answer Pad.

 

ANSWER PAD
{or the

81!)! Employee Inventory
FORM AH

Prepared by
The Employee Attitude Research Group,
The Industrial Relations Center of the University of Chicago

Published by SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
57 West Grand Avenue, Chicago IO, Illinois. Copyright, I951,
by Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago. All
rights reserved. Copyright under the International Copyright
Union. Printed in U.S.A. Patent Pending.

Please use number 7-1582 when reordering
this answer pad.

4

Do not mark the
spaces in this
column unless
you are told to
do so.

 

AGREE 7 OISAGREE

EDD

AGREE 7 DISAGREE

DUE]

AGREE

[:1

7 DISAGREE

DD.

5... ______J.

 

AGREE

D

7 DISAGREE

DE]

 

AGREE 7 DISAGREE

[EDD

AGREE ' ? DISAGREE

DUE]

___m ___i___. *.

 

P——-."'r—“——-‘—

AGREE 7 DISAGREE

DUB

 

F.“ fi___

AGREE 7 D ISAGREE

EDD

 

 

 

 

 

AGREE 7 DISAGREE
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
AGREE 7 DISAGREE

>
O
a
M
M

(:1

3

7 D ISAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE

[:JD

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

CID

7 DISAGREE

[3C]

7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 D I SAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 D|SAGREE
7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

CID

7 D ISAGREE

DC}

7 DISAGREE
7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE
7 DISAGREE
7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE

C1D

 

AGREE 7 DISAGEEE
C] [:1 [:1
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
E] [:1 E]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
D E] El
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
D E] E]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
D D D
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
[:1 Cl C]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
C] E] C]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
E] [:J E]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE

DE]

AGREE
El 1:] E]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
C] D C]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
D [:1 D
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
E] D C]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
C] D [:1
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
E] El D
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
C] C] D
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
E] D D
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
D [:1 E]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
[:1 C] E]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
Cl [:1 C]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
D 1:] Cl
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
Cl C]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
[:1 E] El
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
[:1 C] C]
AGREE 7 DISAGREE
D [3 El
AGREE 7 DISAGREE

DEC]

7 DISAGREE ‘

 

>
O
a
m
m

>
O
a
m
M

D

>
9
as
rn
m

>
2
i:

D

>
G"
a
M
M

' D

E]

1

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE
7 DISAGREE

[1D

7 DISAGREE

[:JD

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DC]

7 DISAGREE

CID

7 DISAGREE
7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

[JD

7 DISAGREE
7 DISAGREE

DC]

.7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE
.7 DISAGREE

DE]

7 DISAGREE
.7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DC]

' 7 DISAGREE
7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DD

7 DISAGREE

DD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANSWER sugar
I

7 AGREE

EDD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 17 5'
I
2 It 54
,' n
3 2’ ‘5 OISAGREE
3 so II . 56
5 31 51
III
to
:54. 32 5‘ INSAGREE
IV Cl
P ‘ ‘ ,
7 33 59 'i
:1
msmntt
L, V
s 34 so D
: as 61 t2
DISAGREE
10 35 VI 62 D
i
L_ n
n a, 53 omens:
:2 3t _ s4 1%.;
VII 34
.i 0mm:
‘3 ” “ D
14 to if“
u
DISAGREE
.fi VIII
15 41 67
[6 42 CR “
‘ IX DISAGREE
L— . ‘
n a .. Cl
is 44 X 70
u
omens:
I_.——
19 ‘5 . ’1 [::]
20 4s 12
XI "
DISAGREE
Ex 47 73 [:1
22 4a 74 '9
‘ DISAGREE
. x11 ' Cl
23 49 75 .
i
it c
i; so 76
XIII . “aw,"
h__ lig- {15“ h,
:5 51 n so
,f . ' OISAGREE
I I. i 97.7... .
"yx— XIV XV [:3
25 52 n .- ,v . q ,

 

 

 

iiisi'

s
‘1

 

7 AGREE

7. AGREE

DD

7 AGREE

DC]

7 AGREE

DE]

7 AGREE
7 AGREE

[:1

7 ' AGREE

. a

l i

General Informatics;

 

I. clout !
l

2.!)ATB

 

d

 

 

 

[3 U,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Information

 

2. DATE

 

 

 

l. (mour-

 

 

 

III- unmn-rn Ann-Ivor Dal-l 1“. Lain

 

Please write your comments here.

 

h2

APPENDIX C

THE CRITERION

The next five questions may be answered in the following way:

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Draw a circle around "Yes" if your answer is "yes", or
a circle around "No“ if your answer is "no". If you
don't know or are not sure draw a circle around the

question mark.

Circle only one answer for each question.

?

No

No

No

No

No

1.

2.

3.

5.

Since working here, have you had any
pay raise or promotion?

Have you ever recommended this organi-
zation or a job with this organization
to one of your friends?

Since working here, have you registered
with any employment agency or applied
fora.job with any other organization?

Since working here, have you had any
grievance in connection with your job?

Have you ever tried to transfer to
another job or department?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

#3

APPENDIX D

THE THREE ITEM CRITERION

1.

2.

3.

Since working here, have you had any
pay raise or promotion?

Have you ever recommended this organi-7
zation or a job with this organization
to one of your friends?

Since working here, have you registered
with an employment agency or applied
for a job with any other organization?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Mr

APPENDIX E

THE FIVE ITEM CRITERION

1.

2.

3.

Se

Since working here, have you had any
pay raise or promotion?

Have you ever recommended this organi-
zation or a job with this organization
to one of your friends?

Since working here, have you registered
with an employment agency or applied
for a job with any other organization?

Since working here, have you had any
grievance in connection with your job?

Have you ever tried to transfer to
another Job or department?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

1.

2.

3.

hS

APPENDIX.F
THE FOUR ITEM CRITERION

Have you ever recommended this organi-
zation or a Job with this organization
to one of your friends?

Since working here, have you registered
with an employment agency or applied
for a job with any other organization?

Since working here, have you had any
grievance in connection with your job?

Have you ever tried to transfer to
another Job or department?

APPENDIX G

R6

NUMBER or weakens SATISFIED OR LESS THAN SATISFIED

ACCORDING TO THE THREE CRITERION FORMS

 

3 Item, 5 Item A Item

Criterion Criterion Criterion
Crit. for 3 out of 3 h or more 3 or more
satisfied out of 5 out of h
Number
satisfied 65 6O 58
Number less
than satisfied R6 51 S3

 

APPENDIX H

53 ITEM SBA

Items 3 20 27
6 21 28

8 22 29

9 23 30

11 214. 32

12 25 33

15 26 36

 

Items

4?me

H
OOCD‘QO‘

APPENDIX I

9 ITEM OSU

LLB

Items:

in 9, 12
15, 17, 23, 22+, 28
29. 1L9, 50, 71. 76

APPENDIX J

15 ITEM SRA

1+9

Items:

1: 2: 1+, 7, 8. 10

APPENDIX K

6 ITEM OSU

SO

’E‘OOM USE Obi?!

i.

 

12117-211; . xi , r

“In“: Luduhut LCI‘ILN {Nyg
FE c.24356 “AA-:Widl .5"!th

13:\~"~'- " 1- \

MAE 1 1, r5

 

 

A ’ 1W , “131..
-Am' 4 ctr x , _1
‘ y L, M
._ “Zr—Aha»
AG 1‘: r

’P/ /_:(‘;'g-"' "-
I .. ”1.; frflhr‘

1131111111 111

 

 

 

 

"‘11111111111111111111111113

. é‘y