The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction--a systematic review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although job satisfaction research has been carried out for decades, no recent overview of job satisfaction instruments and their quality is available. Aim The aim of this systematic review is to select job satisfaction instruments of adequate reliability and validity for use as evaluative tools in hospital environments. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed in the Medline and PsycInfo databases. First, the construct of job satisfaction was operationalized by generating work factors from both theoretical studies and meta-analyses or reviews of empirical studies on job satisfaction. Secondly, emphasis was placed on the internal consistency, construct validity and responsiveness of these instruments.Twenty-nine job satisfaction instruments were retrieved in total. RESULTS: Seven instruments met the defined reliability and validity criteria. Of the seven, the 'Measure of Job Satisfaction' had an adequate content validity. Only the 'Job in General Scale' provided data about 'responsiveness' to change. CONCLUSION: Few instruments have shown both high reliability and high validity, but little is known about their evaluative potential.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
Cited by
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An empirical investigation among ICT-SMEs
Valaei, N., & Rezaei, S. (2016) · Management Research Review · doi:10.1108/mrr-09-2015-0216 · Cited by 659
Rouleau, D., Fournier, P., Philibert, A., Mbengue, B., & Dumont, A. (2012) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/1478-4491-10-9 · Cited by 154
Challenges and opportunities associated with rural mental health practice.
Hastings, S. L., & Cohn, T. J. (2013) · Journal of Rural Mental Health · doi:10.1037/rmh0000002 · Cited by 73
Burnout Evaluation and Potential Predictors in a Greek Cohort of Mental Health Nurses
Konstantinou, A.-K., Bonotis, K., Sokratous, M., Siokas, V., & Dardiotis, E. (2018) · Archives of Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2018.01.002 · Cited by 69
The Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS): A useful tool in workplace health promotion
Nilsson, P., Andersson, H. I., & Ejlertsson, G. (2013) · Work · doi:10.3233/wor-121541 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- van Saane, N.
- Venue
- Occupational Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-05-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 191-200
- ISSN
- 0962-7480 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-8405
- OpenAlex
- W2105549308
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction--a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/occmed/kqg038
- The paper
- van Saane, N. (2003). Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction--a systematic review. Occupational Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqg038
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
