Toan Bao, Le

The Australian Demographic & Social Research Institute, ANU

Abstract Results Conclusions

This study examines the relationship between job Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of workers who rated their degrees of satisfaction toward nine facets of their jobs.
• JS is a good predictor of self-rate health among
satisfaction and self-rated health among workers using the Job
Gender Education Age Income workers.
1997 NCL survey. It employs a composite scale of job Satisfaction
satisfaction, and then tests the relationship with ordered Complete Incomplete
Self-Rated
Female Male Bachelor Diploma Vocational Secondary Secondary Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Obs. • The effects, however, is moderated by gender.
logistic. Health
School School
The finding is that the probabilities to report high degree • Income change, even though with interval of $1,000,
of healthy are greater for employees with higher levels of 1. Poor 14 9 5 2 8 4 4 39 10 24,661 23,208 3.6 0.8 23
has a minor effect on self-rated health. This finding
job satisfaction than workers who have low level of job 2. Fair 64 91 28 14 48 19 46 38 9 36,843 27,468 3.7 0.6 155 is consistent with previous research review by
satisfaction. Yet, the effect is significantly moderated by 3. Good 386 364 163 68 183 127 209 37 9 38,206 35,993 3.8 0.5 750 (Gunasekara, Carter, & Blakely, 2011)
gender. Income change has minor effects on self-rated 4. Excellent 348 311 172 101 139 120 127 37 9 42,479 32,353 3.9 0.5 659
health. Taken altogether, policy intervention should be use to
Total 812 775 368 185 378 270 386 37 9 39,651 33,692 3.9 0.6 1,587 bring about worker satisfaction. By doing so, employee
productivity may increase.
Table 2. Factor Analysis for nine items about job satisfaction (N= 1,587)
Introduction Item Factor Uniqueness Alpha KMO
A rich body of literature has evolved to account for the loading
relationship between job satisfaction (JS) and self-rated ill
health among workers (Faragher, Cass, & Cooper, 2005).
Your relationship with your co-workers 0.3379 0.8858 0.7082 0.8365
Negative relationship has been found. That is, the higher
The level of responsibility you have 0.5121 0.7378 0.6914 0.759
level of JS, the lower the illness rate. Then the sign of the
How interesting your work is 0.5625 0.6836 0.684 0.7974
relationship is converted to positive link of JS and healthy
The opportunities for training 0.5908 0.651 0.6746 0.7954
status. This study, however, measures health outcome in
The opportunities for advancement 0.6338 0.5983 0.6665 0.7857 Figure2. Job satisfaction affects Self-Rated Health
terms of degree of healthy status to avoid converted
The flexibility of your working hours 0.3877 0.8497 0.6994 0.8157 under the moderation of gender
interpretation, if any.
The security of your job 0.4221 0.8218 0.6964 0.8407
The amount you earn 0.4484 0.7989 0.6901 0.8335
The level of stress in your job 0.3453 0.8808 0.707 0.7516
Data and method healthy = 1 healthy = 2
© File copyright Colin Purrington. You
Test scale 0.7159 0.797
may use for making your poster, of course,

predicted probability

predicted probability
This study uses the 1997 NLC survey which has a random

0 .2 .4 .6

0 .2 .4 .6
sample of 2,331 people (Baxter, 2000). Of them, 1,587 Table 3. Ordered logistic model analysis of Self-Rated Health and Job Satisfaction
but please do not plagiarize, adapt, or put
people were active in the labour market, had incomes and Self-Rated Health Photo adapted from Brookewilson (2013)
reported their levels of satisfaction toward their jobs. The Coef. Standard Error on your own site. Also, do not upload this
analysis of job satisfaction and self-rated health in this
Gender -1.832** 0.695
1 2 3
JS
4 5 1 2 3
JS
4 5 file, even if modified, to third-party file-
paper is based on the subsample of these 1,587 people.
Ager -0.00714 0.00551 0. Female 1. Male 0. Female 1. Male sharing sites such as doctoc.com. If you
Figrue1. Model of the relationship between job Bachelor 0.494*** 0.144
satisfaction and general self-rated health. Diploma 0.784*** 0.177 have insatiable need to post a template
Vocational 0.122 0.14 healthy = 3 healthy = 4
Controlled onto your own site, search the internet for

predicted probability

predicted probability
Complete Secondary school 0.426** 0.155
Independent

0 .2 .4 .6

0 .2 .4 .6
variables: Rinc1000 0.00374* 0.00178 a different template to steal. File
variable: Age, JS 0.264* 0.123
Job satisfaction education, JS_gender 0.441* 0.179 downloaded from
cut1_cons -3.186
Moderator:
income
cut2_cons -1.01
1 2 3
JS
4 5 1 2 3
JS
4 5 http://colinpurrington.com/tips/academic/p
Although single-
item measure of
Gender cut3_cons 1.494 0. Female 1. Male 0. Female 1. Male osterdesign.
job satisfaction is Income change N 1587
acceptable, Dependent has been Notes: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Notes: Control other variables (age, education, and income at means).
Photo adapted from Daugherty (2012)
variable Rinc100 = ($) Income/1000 , JS_gender: Interaction term between JS and gender Healthy 1: Poor, Healthy 2: Fair, Healthy3: Good, Healthy4: Excellent
composite measure documented as Brant Test of Parallel Regression Assumption P= 0.381
of JS should be Self-rated having a small,
used (Wanous et health positive and
al., 1997). (SRH) statistically
SRH is an ordinal significant
doi:10.1136/oem.2002.006734
JS here is created variable with 4 association of References: Gunasekara, F. I., Carter, K., & Blakely, T. (2011). Change in income and change in self-rated
by factor analysis categorizes: 1. Poor, 2. income with Baxter, J. (2000). The Joys and Justice of Housework. Sociology, 34(4), 609–631. health: Systematic review of studies using repeated measures to control for confounding bias.
of nine items (see Fair, 3. Good, 4. SRH doi:10.1177/S0038038500000389 Social Science & Medicine, 72(2), 193–201. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.029
Table 3). They are Excellent. (Gunasekara, Brookewilson. (2013). News & Stories - Whittlesea Health Community Hub. Retrieved October 8, Sousa-Poza, A., & Sousa-Poza, A. A. (2000). Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the
the most important Order logistic model is Carter, & 2013, from http://healthy.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/blog/posts/healthy-workers-healthy- levels and determinants of job satisfaction. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 29(6), 517–538.
determinants of JS used to test the Blakely, 2011) profits#.UlR92lN5fWs doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00085-8
(Sousa-Poza & probability to have Daugherty, J. (2012). How to Increase Productivity (Interactive Infographic) by @jimmydaugherty. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-
Sousa-Poza, 2000). membership in each Retrieved October 8, 2013, from http://www.business2community.com/strategy/how-to-increase- item measures? Journal of applied Psychology, 82(2), 247.
categorizes in productivity-interactive-infographic-0175018
responding to changes Faragher, E., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health:
in JS a meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62(2), 105–112.