270

ASAC 2007 Nicole Brub (Student)

Ottawa, Ontario Magda Donia (Student)
Marylne Gagn
John Molson School of Business
Concordia University

Nathalie Houlfort
Ecole Nationale dAdministration Publique

Richard Koestner
McGill University

VALIDATION OF THE SATISFACTION WITH WORK SCALE

We validated the Satisfaction with Work Scale (SWWS) in four samples

of workers in both English and French. Confirmatory factor analysis
yielded a one-factor structure, which was shown invariant across
languages and samples. The SWWS was positively related to inclusion
of work in the self and negatively related to turnover intentions.

The organizational behavior literature abounds with job satisfaction measures. The most popular
ones are multidimensional, generally long, and use non-conventional formats that complicate modern
statistical analyses. Many unidimensional instruments are single-item measures, which lack reliability and
validity. Despite the large number of existing measures, none of the popular, well-validated measures
capture peoples cognitive evaluations of how their work brings them well-being. We adapted Diener,
Emmons, Larsen, and Griffins (1985) Satisfaction with Life Scale to the work context to obtain a short
global work satisfaction measure, the Satisfaction with Work Scale (SWWS). This instrument differs
from the most popular global job satisfaction scales because it focuses on the cognitive appraisal of a
persons work situation, or a persons well-being in the work context. Work is an important life domain
that has an impact on ones overall well-being (Vallerand, 1997). Kahneman (2006) found that work is
the life domain in which Americans and French citizens report the lowest levels of well-being. In light of
the need for research on mental health in the workplace (Kelloway & Day, 2005; McDaid, Curran, &
Knapp, 2005; Turner, Barling, & Zacharatos, 2002), this new measure will be a useful indicator of work-
related mental health. In addition, given the growing trend towards non-traditional work arrangements
such as contract work and protean careers (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Hall & Moss, 1998),
work satisfaction is highly relevant as it can be assessed within a particular organizational context, but
also be used as a measure of ones satisfaction with a particular job or career. Therefore, we need an
instrument that considers satisfaction with work rather than job satisfaction, which may be more
appropriate for more stable, traditional jobs. We first review the most popular measures of job satisfaction
and indicate their strengths and weaknesses. We then present the SWWS and demonstrate its reliability
and validity.
 271

Most Popular Job Satisfaction Scales

A multitude of job satisfaction measures exist, including single and multiple item global measures
and multidimensional facet measures. The most often used measure of global satisfaction is the single-
item measure. Because single-item measures lack of reliability and validity, because they overestimate
job satisfaction at the expense of dissatisfaction or indifference, and because their wording is often not
reported in the literature, they are often considered unacceptable (Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Oshagbemi,
1999). Multiple-item global measures abound but no particular instrument of that type stands out in the
literature by virtue of its popularity (e.g.: Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Judge, Bono, Thorensen, & Patton,
2001). Nonetheless, we identified through an extensive literature search those most widely utilized: the
Overall Job Satisfaction Scale (OJS; Brayfield & Rothe, 1951), the Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire (MOAQ) subscale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh 1979), Hoppocks satisfaction
scale (Hoppock, 1935), and The Job in General Scale (JIG; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul,
1989). The most widely used measures of job satisfaction are facet instruments (Spector, 1997), which
tend to be very long. They include the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), and the Job
Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1985).

Facet Job Satisfaction Instruments

Facet instruments organize job satisfaction into facets ranging in quantity from five to twenty.
Although the number of facets they comprise varies, these tools have four themes in common: nature of
the work, rewards, other people and organizational context (Spector, 1997). The facet measuring the
nature of the work, or the work itself, refers to the group of tasks to be accomplished on the job. This
concept of work reflects its intrinsic value how much one enjoys accomplishing the tasks that
comprise the job. In contrast, our definition of work as reflected in the SWWS is distinct from work
tasks. Rather, our conceptualization of work is broader as it reflects one important life domain
(Vallerand, 1997). Vallerands hierarchical model pictures three levels of analyses for assessing
psychological variables: The global level, which in this case would be life satisfaction; the domain level,
which in this case would be the work domain; and the state level, which would represent moment to
moment satisfaction.

The JDI (Smith et al., 1969) is the most widely used job satisfaction instrument (Dormann &
Zapf, 2001; Spector, 1997). The JDI addresses five facets of job satisfaction (the work itself, co-workers,
promotions, pay and supervision), measured as an index for each facet based on three types of responses
(yes, no, and ?). This tool is also recognized as the most carefully developed and validated
instrument (Spector, 1997). It has been used with thousands of subjects in a broad range of occupations
and has been shown to have acceptable reliability (internal consistency coefficients between .80 and .88).
Many researchers who adopt the JDI compute overall satisfaction by summing the five facet scores.
However, the instrument was not designed to measure overall job satisfaction and the practice of
summing facet scores has been criticized (Ironson et al., 1989). Moreover, the use of a 3-point scale
creates problems when wanting to use statistical techniques that assume the use of continuous variables.

The JSS (Spector, 1985) assesses nine facets of job satisfaction and five of the JSS subscales
correlate well with corresponding subscales of the JDI (r = .61 to .80) and with variables related to job
satisfaction, including age, organizational level, absence, organizational commitment, leadership style,
intention to quit and turnover (Spector, 1985). However, overall satisfaction is computed by summing the
subscales, a practice that has been deemed controversial since facets are assumed to have equal weight in
determining global satisfaction (Ironson et al., 1989).
 272

The MSQ (Weiss et al., 1967) measures job satisfaction on 20 facets using a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). The MSQ has been used for over 30 years in a wide range
of jobs. Its facets essentially divide those used in other job satisfaction scales, thus increasing specificity
of each facet. For example, while the JDI and JSS use one facet for satisfaction with the nature of the
work itself, the MSQ separates it into six facets (ability utilization, achievement, activity, creativity,
independence and variety). The MSQ conceptualizes satisfaction as related to either extrinsic or intrinsic
aspects of the job. However, some researchers have criticized the content of the intrinsic and extrinsic
subscales for low discriminant validity (e.g.: Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Landau, 1993).
In addition, some authors point out that satisfaction with work is related to a relatively small group of
more general facets, thus putting in question the need for more specific facets (e.g.: Rice, McFarlin &
Bennett, 1989). Overall job satisfaction is usually determined by summing the items on the MSQ short
form into a single score.

Although facet scales help identify satisfaction facets considered important for many jobs, they
may overlook facets that are important in particular jobs, or for particular groups of workers. Conversely
they may emphasize facets that are less relevant or unimportant for certain jobs or individuals. Most
importantly, summing the facet scores to determine global satisfaction is contentious since this practice
assumes that all relevant facets have been measured and that they have equal weight in determining global
satisfaction (Ironson et al., 1989). In addition, because of their descriptive nature, facet scales may
overemphasize a short-term frame of reference that may not be appropriate when considering long-term
satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951).

Global Job Satisfaction Instruments

Global job satisfaction scales were designed to assess employees overall job satisfaction, rather
than satisfaction with facets of the job. Among global job satisfaction measures, the Overall Job
Satisfaction Scale (OJS; Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) seems to be the most popular and the most
comprehensive. It consists of 18 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree). The OJS emphasizes affective rather than cognitive evaluations of job satisfaction
(Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004). The 18 items are redundant in nature, something respondents can
find unpleasant. However, the scale is available in a five-item version, which asks participants to indicate
the extent to which they agree with the following statements about their job: At this very moment, I am
enthusiastic about my work, Right now, I feel fairly satisfied with my present job, At present, each
minute at work seems like it will never end (reverse scored), At this moment, I am finding real
enjoyment in my work, and, Right now, I consider my job rather unpleasant (reverse scored). The
items represent a state level measure of satisfaction (Vallerand, 1997). Scores for the five items are
averaged to obtain a global job satisfaction score. Judge, Bono, Erez & Locke (2005) reported an internal
consistency of .82 for this scale. However, because the OJS focuses on the affective aspects of job
satisfaction it overemphasizes how well respondents like their jobs and ignores the important role of
rational cognitive evaluations. In addition, it focuses on the job, thus overlooking the importance of work
outcomes in ones life. Finally, it does not specifically ask about work conditions or desire to make
changes at work, two important indicators of satisfaction at work.

The Job in General Scale (JIG; Ironson et al., 1989) is an 18-item measure that was designed
specifically to accompany the JDI. The JIG uses a three choice response format identical to that of the
JDI. The JIG has a reported internal consistency of .91 to .95 and correlates well with other global
measures of job satisfaction (Ironson et al., 1989). The main advantage of the JIG is that it was designed
to accompany the JDI. However, this characteristic is also its main shortcoming since it limits
respondents to responding to single word adjectives rated on a yes, no or ? response format.
 273

Hoppocks (1935) job satisfaction scale measures global satisfaction using four multiple-choice
questions. Respondents are asked to choose one of seven answer choices. For example, the answer
choices for the question: Which one of the following shows how much of the time you feel satisfied with
your job? range from 1) never to 7) all the time. Raja, Johns & Ntalianis (2004) reported a reliability
coefficient of .75 for this instrument. The focus of this scale on the job ignores the importance of work
outcomes in ones life. In addition, it does not ask about work conditions, an important indicator of work
satisfaction. Although it contains an item regarding change, this item specifically measures desire to
change jobs and is thus closer in connotation to turnover intention. Since many people who are
dissatisfied with their job may not be able to leave, focusing on a desire to leave the job may not reflect
most peoples reality. An item that measures desire for change at work in a more general sense would be
more inclusive. This scale also includes an item that requires respondents to compare their liking for their
job with that of other people. However, it does not specify who the comparison others should be.
Consequently, responses could potentially reflect dissimilar or irrelevant comparisons. Finally, the design
of this scale is a multiple-choice format containing seven choices for each item. Choices for two of the
items are long and the number of choices may overwhelm respondents who have limited abilities to read
and weigh the accuracy of multiple choice options (Bernardo, 1997).

The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ) subscale (Cammann et al.,

1979) measures job satisfaction using three items. It uses a seven-choice Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Jex and Gudanowski (1992) reported an internal consistency of .87 for
the MOAQ satisfaction subscale and found that it correlated well with work variables that are commonly
related to job satisfaction such as turnover intent, strain, workload, and situational constraints. However,
this scale focuses on the job rather than on work in its broader sense, emphasises affective aspects of the
job and neglects more cognitive aspects of satisfaction, and does not ask about work conditions or desire
to make changes at work, both important indicators of satisfaction at work.

The Satisfaction with Work Scale (SWWS)

Diener et al. (1985) developed the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) to measure peoples
conscious evaluative judgments of their lives using their own personal criteria. Life satisfaction is defined
as a global evaluation of ones life (Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991) and a cognitive appraisal of
ones well-being. Diener (1994) considers that subjective well-being can be assessed through combining
measures of positive affect, negative affect, and general life satisfaction. He considers affect to represent
an emotional assessment of well-being, and satisfaction to represent its cognitive counterpart. The SWLS
has been well validated and its structure is invariant across age groups (Pons, Alienza, Balaguer, &
Garica-Merita, 2000). Its test-retest reliability was .82 and its internal consistency was = .87 with 176
undergraduate students (Diener et al., 1985). A principal components analysis yielded one factor
accounting for 66% of variance, with loadings ranging from .61 to .84. It was uncorrelated with social
desirability. Some studies using the SWLS examined the impact of work on global psychological well-
being (e.g., Brief, Konovsky, Goodwin, & Link, 1995; Napholz, 1995). Kimball, Shmway, Korinek, and
Arredondo (2002) developed the Satisfaction with Organization Scale (SOS), which measures workers
satisfaction with their employer.

Blais, Lachance, Forget, Richer, & Dulude (1991) adapted a French version of the SWLS to the
work context by changing the wording of the five items to pertain to satisfaction toward a persons work.
This French SWWS was later found to be related to supervisory style, work autonomous motivation, and
organizational citizenship behavior (Lvesque, Blais, & Hess, 2004a, 2004b). We took this French
version and created its English counterpart in an attempt to validate the SWWS (see Table 1). As such,
the SWWS focuses on a cognitive appraisal of a persons work situation, or a persons well-being in the
work context. Given the call for research on mental health in the workplace (Kelloway & Day, 2005;
 274

McDaid et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2002), this new measure will also be a useful indicator of work-related
mental health. Contrary to most measures of global job satisfaction, the SWWS items focus on peoples
work as opposed to their job. Work satisfaction can be assessed within a particular organizational context,
but it can also be used as a measure of ones satisfaction with a particular career. Since our validation
samples consisted of people who worked in specific organizations, we asked them to answer the five
items in relation to their employment in that organization, so that our new measure assessed satisfaction
with work in those particular organizations. The major difference between the SWLS and the SWWS is
the level of analysis (Vallerand, 1997). Whereas the SWLS measures global life satisfaction, which is
considered stable throughout ones life (Pavot et al., 1991), and has been related to personality variables
(Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996), the SWWS measures a domain specific satisfaction, which is likely to
fluctuate more in accordance with changing contextual factors. Alternatively, much research shows that
job satisfaction is affected by personality and that people have a set point (Ilies & Judge, 2003; Judge,
Heller & Mount, 2002). If context specific satisfaction fluctuates over time and situations, we should
observe relatively small test-retest reliability and a weak correlation between life and work satisfaction.
But if context specific satisfaction is stable, we should see higher values. Oishi and Diener (2001) found
that life satisfaction accounted for between 0% and 4% of the variance in academic satisfaction, which
would indicate support for the instability hypothesis.

Table 1

English and French Items of the Satisfaction with Work Scale

1 In general, the type of work I do corresponds En gnral, le type de travail que je fais
closely to what I want in life. correspond de prs ce que je veux dans la vie.

2 The conditions under which I do my work are
excellent.
3 I am satisfied with the type of work I do.
4 Until now, I have obtained the important things I
wanted to get from my work.
5 If I could change anything at work, I would
change almost nothing.
Les conditions dans lesquelles je fais mon travail
sont excellentes.
Je suis satisfait(e) du type de travail que je fais.
Jusqu' maintenant, j'ai obtenu les choses
importantes que je voulais retirer de mon travail.
Si je pouvais changer quoi que
ce soit mon travail, je n'y changerais presque

rien.

Validation of the Satisfaction with Work Scale

Participants and Procedure

Sample 1. Two hundred and two employees from four different organizations who held a variety of
positions, such as college and university teachers, bank tellers, lawyers, secretaries, and administrative
consultants completed a survey at time 1. Of those 202 participants, 102 failed to return the Time 2
questionnaire, given 6 months later. Of the remaining 100 participants who completed both Time 1 and
Time 2 questionnaires, three were discarded due to missing data, for a final count of 97 workers (48 men,
43 women, and 6 unspecified). The mean age of this sample was 42 years. No statistical difference was
found between participants who completed both questionnaires and participants who completed time 1
only. Employees completed the French version of the SWWS and the SWLS in both questionnaires.
 275

Sample 2. With the help of FADOQ (Fdration de lge dOr du Qubec), a non-profit organization for
retirees, 103 retirees from the province of Quebec completed a questionnaire. The mean age of our
sample was 61.8 years old, mean age at retirement was 56.7 and average number of working years was
28.2. Mean yearly income when working was CDN$35,800 and at retirement was CDN$24,700.
Occupation before retirement varied, ranging from technicians to professionals. They completed the
French version of the SWWS and a single-item pictorial measure of inclusion of work into self (adapted
from Aron & Aron, 1992).

Sample 3. One-hundred and sixty-seven employees (77 men, 56 women, and 34 unreported) from a
dental equipment manufacturing company completed the English version of the SWWS, and a 3-item
intent to leave measure (Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). One-hundred and twenty-two were
hourly paid employees who worked on the shop floor, 27 were salaried clerical employees who receive
bonuses based on personal and company non-financial performance, and 18 were managerial employees
who were paid a salary plus bonuses based on personal and company financial performance. Mean age
was 44 years old, average tenure in the organization was 14 years, and average education level was
completed high school.

Sample 4. Two thousand two hundred and seventy-six employees from a Canadian transportation
company completed the same SWWS and the intent to leave measures as in Sample 3. 1537 were
unionized employees, 171 were support staff non-unionized employees, 499 were managers, and 37 were
top managers (32 unreported). Most employees worked in Canada, but many also worked in the U.S. and
internationally. Due to an online-survey coding error, gender was not recorded. Median age was between
35 and 44 years old, median tenure was between 5 and 15 years in the company, and median education
was some college. 2045 completed the English version and 231 completed the French version.

Results

A confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted on the four
samples combined to examine the structure of the SWWS. A first model was tested by loading each of the
5 items onto one latent factor. This model yielded a poor fit, chi-square(5) = 833.37, p < .001, NNFI =
.54, CFI = .77, AGFI = .65, RMSEA = .25. Based on LM tests, we freed up two correlations between
errors, which significantly improved the fit of the model to the data, chi-square(3) = 10.32, p < .05, NNFI
= .99, CFI = .998, AGFI = .99, RMSEA = .03. The final model is depicted in Figure 1. Tests of invariance
were conducted across language groups (fit for completely constrained model robust chi-square(12) =
65.94, p < .001, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, AGFI = .98, RMSEA = .04) and samples (fit for completely
constrained model robust chi-square(30) = 120.08, p < .001, NNFI = .96, CFI = .96, AGFI = .97, RMSEA
= .03).
 276

Figure 1

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the SWWS (4 samples combined)

.86
Item 1 Error 1

.51 .85
.53 Error 2 .45
Item 2

.56 .83
Work Satisfaction
Item 3 Error 3
.76
.42
.65
.47
Item 4 Error 4

.88
Item 5 Error 5

Internal reliabilities, means, and standard deviations are reported in Table 2 for each sample. The
internal reliability for four samples combined was .75 (.73 for English, and .80 for French). The test-retest
reliability in sample 1 was .77, p < .001, which indicates that the SWWS is a rather stable construct over
time. The correlation between the SWWS and the SWLS in sample 1 was .49, p < .001 at time 1 and .54,
p < .001 at time 2, which indicates that SWWS measures a related but distinct construct from general life
satisfaction. In Sample 2, the SWWS was positively correlated with inclusion of other in the self, r = .24,
p < .05, and was negatively correlated with intent to leave, in sample 3, r = -.27, p < .001, and in sample
4, r = -.45, p < .001.

Table 2

Means, standard deviations (SD), and reliabilities of the SWWS by sample

n Mean SD

Sample 1 (t1) 202 4.49 1.14 .82

Sample 1 (t2) 100 4.53 1.17 .85

Sample 2 102 5.19 1.18 .87

Sample 3 167 4.13 1.13 .73

Sample 4 2276 3.81 1.14 .74

 277

Discussion

We validated the Satisfaction with Work Scale, which was adapted from the Satisfaction with
Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), in four varied samples of workers and in two different languages. Results
showed that the SWWS is a reliable, stable, and valid measure of work satisfaction. A confirmatory factor
analysis demonstrated a one-factor structure with some correlated errors. Invariance analyses indicated
that this model was stable across languages and samples. The test-retest reliability of the SWWS was
high, indicating that it is a rather stable construct over time. However, more research is needed to
determine whether it is stable across jobs and over periods of time longer than 6 months. The SWWS was
also positively related to inclusion of work in the self, a measure that indicates how involved people are
with their work, and a measure of intent to leave that has been previously linked to job satisfaction (e.g.,
Clugston, 2000). More research is also needed to determine its relations with other constructs that have
been related to other job satisfaction measures.

To conclude, the Satisfaction with Work Scale provides a good assessment of work satisfaction
that can serve as an indicator of work-related mental health.

References

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N., Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal
Closeness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, (1992), 596-612.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M., Career Success in a Boundaryless Career World,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, (2005), 177-202.
Bernardo, J. M., A Decision Analysis Approach to Multiple-Choice Examinations. Paper presented at
the International Workshop on Decision Analysis Applications, Royal Academy of Sciences,
Madrid, Spain, July 11-12, 1997.
Blais, M.R., Lachance, L., Forget, J., Richer, S., & Dulude, D.M. L'chelle de satisfaction globale au
travail , Poster presented at the 1991 Annual Congress of the Socit qubcoise pour la
recherche en psychologie, Trois-Rivires, Quebec.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F., An Index of Job Satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 35,
(1951), 307 311.
Brief, A. P., Konovsky, M. A., Goodwin, R., & Link, K., Inferring the Meaning of Work from the
Effects of Unemployment, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, (1995), 693-711.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. The Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, (1991).
Clugston, M., The Mediating Effects of Multidimensional Commitment on Job Satisfaction and Intent to
Leave, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, (2000), 477-486.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators
Research, 31, 103-157.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S., The Satisfaction with Life Scale, Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, (1985), 71-75.
Dormann, C., & Zafp, D., Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of Stabilities, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, (2001), 483 504.
Hall, D. T. & Moss, J. E., The New Protean Career Contract: Helping Organizations and Employees
Adapt, Organizational Dynamics, 26, (1998), 22-37.
Hoppock, R., Job Satisfaction, New York: Harper & Row, 1935.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B., Constitution of a Job in
General Scale: A Comparison of Global, Composite, and Specific Measures, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, (1989), 193 200.
 278

Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M., Efficacy Beliefs and Work Stress: An Exploratory Study, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, (1992), 509 517.
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A., On the Heritability of Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Personality,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, (2003), 750-759.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A., Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction:
The role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, (2005),
257-268.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Thorensen, C. A., & Patton, G. K., The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance
Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review, Psychological Bulletin, 127, (2001), 376-
407.
Judge, T. A, Heller, D., & Mount, M. K., Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A
Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, (2002), 530-541.
Kahneman, D. (2006). Keynote speech of the Honorary President of the Canadian Psychological
Association, Calgary, Alberta.
Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L., Building Healthy Workplaces: What We Know so Far, Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 37, (2005), 223-235.
Kimball, T. G., Shumway, S. T., Korinek, A., & Arredondo, R., Using the Satisfaction with
Organization Scale (SOS): Two Samples Compared, Employee Assistance Quarterly, 18, (2002),
47-55.
Lvesques, M., Blais, M. R., & Hess, U., Motivation, Comportement Organisationnels Discrtionnaires
et Bien-Etre en Milieu Africain : Quand le Devoir Oblige ? [Motivation, Discretionary
Organizational
Behaviors, and Well-being in an African Setting : When is it a Duty ?], Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 36, (2004a), 321-332.
Lvesques, M., Blais, M. R., & Hess, U., Dynamique Motivationnelle de lEpuisement et du Bien-Etre
chez des Enseignants Africains [Motivational Dynamics of Burnout and Well-Being in African
Teachers], Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 36, (2004b), 190-201.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E., Discriminant Validity of Well-Being Measures, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, (1996), 616-628.
McDaid, D., Curran, C., & Knapp, M., Promoting Mental Well-Being in the Workplace: A European
Policy Perspective, International Review of Psychiatry, 17, (2005), 365-373.
Napholz, L., Indexes of Psychological Well-Being and Role Commitment among Working Women,
Journal of Employment Counseling, 32, (1995), 22-31.
Oishi, S., & Diener, E., Re-Examining the General Positivity Model of Subjective Well-Being: The
Discrepancy between Specific and Global Domain Satisfaction, Journal of Personality, 69, (2001),
641-666.
Oshagbemi, T., Overall Job Satisfaction: How Good are Single versus Multiple-Item Measures?,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, (1999), 388- 403.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E., Response Artifacts in the Measurement of
Subjective Well-Being, Social Indicators Research, 24, (1991), 35-56.
Pons, D., Atienza, F. L., Balaguer, I., & Garcia-Merita, M. L., Satisfaction with Life Scale: Analysis of
Factorial Invariance for Adolescents and Elderly Persons, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, (2000),
62-68.
Raja, U., Johns, G., Ntalianis, F., The impact of Personality on Psychological Contracts, Academy of
Management Journal, 47, (2004), 350-367.
Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., & Bennett, D. E., Standards of Comparison and Job Satisfaction, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74, (1989), 591-598.
Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R., Antecedents and Consequences of Role Stress: A
Covariate Structure Analysis, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, (1989), 35-58.
 279

Schleicher, D. J., Watt, J. D., & Greguras, G. J., Reexamining the Job Satisfaction-Performance
Relationship: The Complexity of Attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, (2004), 165-177.
Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C., & Landau, M.J., Improving Construct
Measurement in Management Research: Comments and a Quantitative Approach for Assessing the
Theoretical Content Adequacy of Paper-and-Pencil Survey-Type instruments, Journal of
Management, 19, (1993), 385-417.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L., Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement,
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1969.
Spector, P. E., Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction
Survey, American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, (1985), 693-713.
Spector, P. E., Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 1997.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A., Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An Interpretive Model of
Intrinsic Task Motivation, Academy of Management Review, 15, (1990), 666-681.
Turner, N., Barling, J., & Zacharatos, A., Positive psychology at work, In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, (2002), 715-
728.
Vallerand, R. J., Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology, 29 (pp. 271-360). San Diego: Academic Press, 1997.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H., Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire, Minnesota studies for vocational rehabilitation (No. XXII). Minneapolis: Industrial
Relations Center, University of Minnesota, 1967.