This field study extended research on the measurement properties of the revised Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). Responses from 219 employees performing jobs in the public-sector and LISREL VII confirmatory factor analysis were used to examine the revised JDS's factor structure. Results supported the revised JDS's hypothesized 5-factor structure but indicated the scales' 3-anchor 7-point response format produced a weak artifactor. Results also demonstrated that the revised JDS exhibited strong criterion-related validity for affective but not behavioral outcomes. Suggestions for further improving the measurement properties of revised JDS are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bentler, P. M. and Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
2.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G. R. (1986). The dimensionality of job characteristics: Some neglected issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 419-426.
3.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.
4.
Glick, W. H. , Jenkins, G. D., and Gupta, N. (1986). Method versus substance: How strong are underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes?Academy of Management Journal, 29, 441-464.
5.
Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
6.
Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
7.
Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8.
Harvey, R. J. , Billings, R. S., and Nilan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 461-468.
9.
Idaszak, J. R. , Bottom, W. P., and Drasgow, F. (1988). A test of the measurement equivalence of the revised Job Diagnostic Survey: Past problems and current solutions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 73, 647-656.
10.
Idaszak, J. R. and Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision to the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69-74.
11.
James, L. R. , Mulaik, S. S., and Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills: Sage.
12.
Joreskog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL V7I: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Education Resources.
13.
Kulik, C. T. , Oldham, G. R., and Langer, P. H. (1988). Measurement of job characteristics: Comparison of the original and the revised Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 462-466.
14.
Lee, R. and Klein, A. R. (1982). Structure of the job diagnostic survey for public sector jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 515-519.
15.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
16.
Taber, T. and Taylor, E. (1990). A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Personnel Psychology, 43, 467-500.
