↓ Skip to main content

Is the Job Satisfaction Survey a good tool to measure job satisfaction amongst health workers in Nepal? Results of a validation analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Is the Job Satisfaction Survey a good tool to measure job satisfaction amongst health workers in Nepal? Results of a validation analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1558-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neha Batura, Jolene Skordis-Worrall, Rita Thapa, Regina Basnyat, Joanna Morrison

Abstract

Job satisfaction is an important predictor of an individual's intention to leave the workplace. It is increasingly being used to consider the retention of health workers in low-income countries. However, the determinants of job satisfaction vary in different contexts, and it is important to use measurement methods that are contextually appropriate. We identified a measurement tool developed by Paul Spector, and used mixed methods to assess its validity and reliability in measuring job satisfaction among maternal and newborn health workers (MNHWs) in government facilities in rural Nepal. We administered the tool to 137 MNHWs and collected qualitative data from 78 MNHWs, and district and central level stakeholders to explore definitions of job satisfaction and factors that affected it. We calculated a job satisfaction index for all MNHWs using quantitative data and tested for validity, reliability and sensitivity. We conducted qualitative content analysis and compared the job satisfaction indices with qualitative data. Results from the internal consistency tests offer encouraging evidence of the validity, reliability and sensitivity of the tool. Overall, the job satisfaction indices reflected the qualitative data. The tool was able to distinguish levels of job satisfaction among MNHWs. However, the work environment and promotion dimensions of the tool did not adequately reflect local conditions. Further, community fit was found to impact job satisfaction but was not captured by the tool. The relatively high incidence of missing responses may suggest that responding to some statements was perceived as risky. Our findings indicate that the adapted job satisfaction survey was able to measure job satisfaction in Nepal. However, it did not include key contextual factors affecting job satisfaction of MNHWs, and as such may have been less sensitive than a more inclusive measure. The findings suggest that this tool can be used in similar settings and populations, with the addition of statements reflecting the nature of the work environment and structure of the local health system. Qualitative data on job satisfaction should be collected before using the tool in a new context, to highlight any locally relevant dimensions of job satisfaction not already captured in the standard survey.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 27%
Unspecified 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 17%
Unspecified 13 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Other 16 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,286,929
of 8,192,854 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#591
of 3,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,493
of 258,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#39
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,192,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.