Brief Overall Job Satisfaction Measures I & II

Abstract

The Brief Overall Job Satisfaction Measures I and II are concise psychological scales designed for efficient assessment of an individual’s general attitude toward their current employment. Measure I is a three-item scale combining direct satisfaction queries with a unique percentage estimation component. Measure II is a five-item instrument, primarily developed by Timothy A. Judge and colleagues, adapted from the foundational work of Brayfield and Rothe (1951). Both measures aim to capture a unidimensional view of job satisfaction, often used in organizational behavior and applied psychology research where efficiency in data collection is prioritized.

Keywords

Job Satisfaction, Organizational Behavior, Brayfield and Rothe, Timothy Judge, Brief Scale, Employee Attitude, Subjective Well-Being, Work Psychology.

Authors

Timothy A. Judge, A. H. Brayfield, H. F. Rothe, J. W. Boudreau, R. D. Bretz, E. A. Locke, C. C. Durham, A. N. Kluger, C. A. Thoresen, J. E. Bon, G. K. Patto, R. Klinger.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of these measures is to provide a quick, reliable, and valid assessment of overall job satisfaction. In organizational research, comprehensive multi-faceted scales can be time-consuming; these brief versions allow researchers to capture the core affective and cognitive evaluations of the job experience with minimal respondent burden and high internal consistency.

Specifically, Measure I utilizes a multi-method approach (binary, Likert-type, and percentage estimation) to triangulate the participant’s satisfaction level, while Measure II relies on a streamlined set of statements using a high-resolution 7-point Likert scale. This efficiency makes them particularly useful for large-scale studies focusing on general attitudes and their relationship with distal outcomes like job performance or subjective well-being.

Construct

The construct measured is Overall Job Satisfaction, defined as a global affective response and cognitive evaluation of one’s job experience as a whole. This is intentionally treated as a single, global attitude rather than a composite of specific job facets (e.g., pay, supervision, or co-workers). The measures are rooted in the tradition of assessing global work attitudes, emphasizing the emotional and judgmental response to the work environment rather than specific components.

Measure II, in particular, is derived from the Brayfield and Rothe Index of Job Satisfaction, which is conceptually focused on the degree to which an individual finds enjoyment and enthusiasm in their work, contrasting feelings of satisfaction with those of unpleasantness or boredom. The adaptation by Judge and colleagues maintains this strong focus on the core positive and negative affective evaluations of the job.

Validity

Although the source content does not provide specific validity coefficients, the instruments are widely utilized in organizational research, implying strong face and content validity. Measure II, as an adaptation of the Brayfield and Rothe index, benefits from decades of psychometric testing supporting the original scale’s validity concerning organizational outcomes and behavioral measures.

Research by Judge and colleagues (1994, 1998, 2001, 2008) often employs these brief measures to demonstrate significant relationships between job satisfaction and other key variables, such as job performance, organizational commitment, and life satisfaction, thereby providing consistent evidence for construct validity. The instruments are effective in differentiating between highly satisfied and highly dissatisfied employee populations, suggesting satisfactory criterion-related validity when used in predictive models.

Reliability

Specific reliability coefficients (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha) are typically reported in associated academic literature, and brief, well-constructed scales like Measure II (adapted from Brayfield & Rothe) are known to exhibit high internal consistency, often reported in the 0.80 to 0.90 range. This high internal consistency is critical for brief measures, ensuring that the limited number of items reliably captures the variance of the underlying construct.

The scoring methodology of Measure I, which involves standardizing and averaging the three distinct item types (binary, Likert, and percentage estimation), is specifically designed to enhance the composite reliability of the overall score. This standardization ensures that the final measure represents a robust and consistent indicator of the individual’s central tendency regarding their work attitude.

Factor Analysis

The theoretical foundation and practical design of both Measure I and Measure II strongly suggest a unidimensional construct. They are designed to measure global job attitude and are therefore expected to load onto a single dominant factor representing overall job satisfaction. Their brevity is specifically intended to capture the general attitude efficiently, making detailed multi-factor analysis (typical of longer, facet-based satisfaction scales) unnecessary or inappropriate.

The original Brayfield and Rothe scale, which forms the basis of Measure II, has historically been shown through factor analysis to be highly internally consistent and reflective of a single underlying psychological dimension related to work satisfaction, supporting the use of a single composite score for interpretation in research.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological scales.

Format: Brief Questionnaire (Measure I: 3 items, mixed format; Measure II: 5 items, 7-point Likert scale).

Language Available: English (Original research context).

Population Group: Employed adults; studied extensively in organizational settings, including populations of male ex‎ecutives and general working samples.

Age Group: Adult (Working age).

Population Details: Applicable across various industries and organizational levels, validated primarily in professional and organizational settings in the US and internationally.

Test Methodology: Can be administered via pen-and-paper or electronically. Scoring for Measure I involves standardization of the three items before summation or averaging. Scoring for Measure II requires reverse-scoring for items 3 and 5 before calculating the total or mean score across the 7-point scale.

Keywords

Job Satisfaction Index, Work Attitude, Organizational Psychology, Employee Survey, Affective Assessment, Brayfield-Rothe Adaptation.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The conceptual core of Measure II is adapted from the 1951 work of Brayfield and Rothe. The specific brief measures I and II, as developed and utilized by Timothy A. Judge, were prominent in research published in 1994 and 1998. These measures are typically used freely for non-commercial academic research, as they are published openly online by the primary contemporary author. The original PDF discussing the use of these scales in relation to subjective well-being is available here: http://www.timothy-judge.com/Job%20Satisfaction%20and%20Subjective%20Well-Being-Judge%20&%20Klinger.pdf

Reference’s

Brayfield‚ A. H.‚ & Rothe‚ H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology‚ 35(5)‚ 307-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0055617

Judge‚ T. A.‚ Boudreau‚ J. W.‚ & Bretz‚ R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male ex‎ecutives. Journal of Applied Psychology‚ 79‚ 767-782.

Judge‚ T. A.‚ Locke‚ E. A.‚ Durham‚ C. C.‚ & Kluger‚ A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job satisfaction and life satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology‚ 83(1)‚ 17-34. (Adapted from Brayfield and Rothe, 1951).

Judge‚ T. A.‚ Thoresen‚ C. A.‚ Bono‚ J. E.‚ & Patton‚ G. K. (2001). The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychological Bulletin‚ 127(3)‚ 376-40.

Judge‚ T. A.‚ & Klinger‚ R. (2008). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.)‚ The science of subjective well-being (pp. 393-413). New York‚ NY‚ US: Guilford Press.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Brief Overall Job Satisfaction Measures I&II

Brief Overall Job Satisfaction Measure I

DIRECTIONS: Please respond to the following questions about your current job.

1. All things considered‚ are you satisfied with your present job (circle one)? YES NO
2. How satisfied are you with your job in general (circle one)? 1= very dissatisfied‚ 2= somewhat dissatisfied‚ 3= neutral‚ 4= somewhat satisfied‚ 5= very satisfied

Below‚ please write down your best estimates on the percent time your feel satisfied‚ dissatisfied‚ and neutral about your present job on average. The three figures should add-up to equal 100%.

ON THE AVERAGE:

• The percent of time I feel satisfied with my present job __%
• The percent of time I feel dissatisfied with my present job __%
• The percent of time I feel neutral about my present job __%
• TOTAL __%

* Note: Only the percent time satisfied is scored. Note: These 3 items are standardized so that they are on the same scale‚ and then the three standardized items are added or averaged.

Brief Overall Job Satisfaction Measure II

Some jobs are more interesting and satisfying than others. We want to know how you feel about your job. For each statement below‚ use the following scale to indicate which is most descriptive of your current job:

1 = STRONGLY DISAGREE‚ 2 = DISAGREE‚ 3 = SLIGHTLY DISAGREE‚ 4 = NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE‚ 5 = SLIGHTLY AGREE‚ 6 = AGREE‚ 7 = STRONGLY AGREE

1. I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job.
2. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.
3. Each day of work seems like it will never end. (reverse-scored)
4. I find real enjoyment in my work.
5. I consider my job rather unpleasant. (reverse-scored)