Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

Abstract

The Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) is a psychometric instrument developed by P. E. Lester in 1984 to measure the multidimensional aspects of job satisfaction among educators. Comprising 77 items, the scale is theoretically grounded in the motivational frameworks of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. The TJSQ identifies nine distinct factors contributing to teacher satisfaction: Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Responsibility, Work Itself, Advancement, Security, and Recognition. It has demonstrated strong internal consistency (overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93) and comprehensive validation, including content validation via expert judges and construct validation through orthogonal factor analysis. The TJSQ has been widely utilized in doctoral research and translated into several languages, confirming its utility in educational psychology and management studies.

Keywords

Teacher job satisfaction, TJSQ, psychometrics, educational psychology, organizational behavior, Maslow, Herzberg, supervision, teacher retention, scale development.

Authors

P. E. Lester

Purpose

The primary purpose of the TJSQ is to provide a comprehensive and reliable measure of job satisfaction specifically tailored for teachers working within educational settings. Developed as part of a PhD dissertation, the instrument aimed to move beyond general measures of job satisfaction by focusing on factors unique and critical to the teaching profession, such as administrative policies, student interaction, and pedagogical autonomy.

The instrument is designed to help researchers, administrators, and policymakers identify specific areas of strength and weakness within the school environment. By measuring nine distinct facets of satisfaction, the TJSQ allows for targeted interventions aimed at improving teacher morale, performance, and ultimately, retention rates.

Construct

The TJSQ measures Teacher Job Satisfaction, conceptualized as a multi-faceted construct influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, drawing heavily upon the theoretical foundations established by Maslow and Herzberg. The scale structure reflects nine key dimensions:

• Supervision: Relates to the supervisory style, encompassing both task-oriented behavior and person-oriented behavior, requiring direction, coordination, trust, respect, and support.
• Colleagues: Focuses on the social environment, work group dynamics, mutual support, and the formation of professional and personal relationships among teaching staff, contributing to self-esteem.
• Working Conditions: Addresses the physical environment of the school and the overall clarity and communication of administrative policies.
• Pay: Measures satisfaction with annual income, viewing it as an indicator of recognition and achievement.
• Responsibility: Captures the desire for accountability, involvement in policy or decision-making, and the opportunity to facilitate student learning.
• Work Itself: Reflects the intrinsic pleasure derived from teaching tasks, including opportunities for creativity, autonomy, and utilizing one’s skills.
• Advancement: Concerns opportunities for promotion or changes in status/position, which may be equated with greater wages and power.
• Security: Pertains to institutional policies governing job stability, such as tenure, seniority, layoffs, and retirement provisions.
• Recognition: Involves the attention, appreciation, prestige, and esteem received from supervisors, colleagues, students, and parents.

Validity

Extensive validation procedures were employed during the development of the TJSQ. Content validation was initially performed using a panel of expert judges. This process reduced the preliminary pool of 120 items down to the final 77-item version. Statements required at least 80 percent agreement from the judges to be retained or revised, ensuring the items were highly relevant and specifically geared toward the educational setting.

To enhance clarity and reduce bias, the development team meticulously eliminated vague, ambiguous, or emotionally charged language, double negatives, and ensured all statements were concise (no more than 20 words). Furthermore, approximately 50 percent of the items were formulated positively and 50 percent negatively to mitigate response set bias. Construct validity was established through factor analysis, and the instrument’s robustness was confirmed via a split-sample cross-validation technique.

Reliability

The TJSQ demonstrates high levels of internal consistency. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entire 77-item scale was reported as 0.93, indicating excellent reliability. Reliability coefficients for the nine individual subscales were also strong, ranging from 0.71 to 0.92.

Specific coefficients of internal consistency for the factors include 0.92 for Supervision, 0.82 for both Colleagues and Work Itself, 0.83 for Working Conditions, 0.80 for Pay, 0.73 for Responsibility, 0.81 for Advancement, 0.71 for Security, and 0.74 for Recognition. Detailed statistical data, including means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients if an item were deleted, are provided in the original supporting documentation.

Factor Analysis

Construct validity was confirmed through a factor analysis utilizing a nine-factor orthogonal varimax solution. The acceptance criterion was based on eigenvalues greater than or equal to unity. The analysis successfully isolated the nine theoretical dimensions, totaling 66 core items:

• Supervision (14 items)
• Colleagues (10 items)
• Working Conditions (7 items)
• Pay (7 items)
• Responsibility (8 items)
• Work Itself (9 items)
• Advancement (5 items)
• Security (3 items)
• Recognition (3 items)

Eleven items (4, 12, 26, 36, 38, 41, 46, 49, 50, 66, and 68) had factor loadings below 0.30 and were consequently designated as filler items, excluded from further statistical analysis. The original dissertation reports full details on factor loadings, communalities, item reversals, and eigenvalues.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, psychological scale

Format: 77 items utilizing a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). 22 unfavorable items are reverse-scored.

Language Available: English (Original), Spanish, French, Arabic, and Mandarin.

Population Group: Teachers (K-12 educators).

Age Group: Adult working professionals.

Population Details: The initial standardization sample consisted of a random selection of 620 teachers drawn from elementary, junior high, and senior high schools across New York City, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York, USA.

Test Methodology: Data analysis involved calculating means and standard deviations for the nine factors across various demographic variables (e.g., location, district size, school level). One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed to explore relationships between personal/demographic variables and the nine TJSQ factors.

Keywords

Job satisfaction scale, educational management, teacher morale, psychometric instrument, Cronbach’s alpha, factor structure, Likert scale, Maslow’s theory, Herzberg’s theory.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source. Primary documentation is the PhD dissertation from New York University (1984).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1984 (Development Year)

Permissions/Fees: Information regarding current licensing or usage fees is not provided in the source material. Since the scale was published as a doctoral dissertation, usage may often require direct permission from the author or New York University. The scale has been extensively used in subsequent academic research, primarily doctoral dissertations.

Reference’s

Lester, P. E. (1984). Development of an instrument to measure teacher job satisfaction. PhD dissertation, New York University.

Brown, K. A. (2009). Educators jump ship: A study of leadership style and teachers’ job satisfaction. PhD dissertation, Capella University.

Clark, M. (2006). Teacher job satisfaction in secondary schools in southeastern Georgia. PhD dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi.

Dodson, C. K. (2005). The relationship between school effectiveness and teachers’ job satisfaction in North Mississippi schools. PhD dissertation, University of Mississippi.

Miles, W. L. (2010). Correlational study of leadership style and teacher job satisfaction in two Head Start programs. PhD dissertation, Capella University.

Thompson, D. G. (2008). Teacher job satisfaction and retention in a suburban Georgia school district. EdD dissertation, University of Phoenix.

White, B. J. (2004). Teacher job satisfaction: A comparative study of restructured and non restructured elementary schools in the Philadelphia Public Schools. EdD dissertation, Saint Joseph’s University.

Items of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. Teaching provides me with an opportunity to advance professionally.
2. Teacher income is adequate for normal expenses.
3. Teaching provides an opportunity to use a variety of skills.
4. When instructions are inadequate, I do what I think is best.
5. Insufficient income keeps me from living the way I want to live.
6. My immediate supervisor turns one teacher against another.
7. No one tells me that I am a good teacher.
8. The work of a teacher consists of routine activities.
9. I am not getting ahead in my present teaching position.
10. Working conditions in my school can be improved.
11. I receive recognition from my immediate supervisor.
12. If I could earn what I earn now, I would take any job.
13. I do not have the freedom to make my own decisions.
14. My immediate supervisor offers suggestions to improve my teaching.
15. Teaching provides for a secure future.
16. I receive full recognition for my successful teaching.
17. I get along well with my colleagues.
18. The administration in my school does not clearly define its policies.
19. My immediate supervisor gives me assistance when I need help.
20. Working conditions in my school are comfortable.
21. Teaching provides me the opportunity to help my students learn.
22. I like the people with whom I work.
23. Teaching provides limited opportunities for advancement.
24. My students respect me as a teacher.
25. I am afraid of losing my teaching job.
26. Teaching involves too many clerical tasks.
27. My immediate supervisor does not back me up.
28. Teaching is very interesting work.
29. Working conditions in my school could not be worse.
30. Teaching discourages originality.
31. The administration in my school communicates its policies well.
32. I never feel secure in my teaching job.
33. Teaching does not provide me the chance to develop new methods.
34. My immediate supervisor treats everyone equitably.
35. My colleagues stimulate me to do better work.
36. My students come to class inadequately prepared.
37. Teaching provides an opportunity for promotion.
38. My immediate supervisor watches me closely.
39. I am responsible for planning my daily lessons.
40. Physical surroundings in my school are unpleasant.
41. I do not have the freedom to use my judgment.
42. I am well paid in proportion to my ability.
43. My colleagues are highly critical of one another.
44. I do have responsibility for my teaching.
45. My colleagues provide me with suggestions or feedback about my teaching.
46. Teaching provides me an opportunity to be my own boss.
47. My immediate supervisor provides assistance for improving instruction.
48. I do not get cooperation from the people I work with.
49. My immediate supervisor is not afraid to delegate work to others.
50. Behavior problems interfere with my teaching.
51. Teaching encourages me to be creative.
52. My immediate supervisor is not willing to listen to suggestions.
53. Teacher income is barely enough to live on.
54. I am indifferent toward teaching.
55. The work of a teacher is very pleasant.
56. I receive too many meaningless instructions from my immediate supervisor.
57. I dislike the people with whom I work.
58. I receive too little recognition.
59. Teaching provides a good opportunity for advancement.
60. My interests are similar to those of my colleagues.
61. I am not responsible for my actions.
62. My immediate supervisor makes available the material I need to do my best.
63. I have made lasting friendships among my colleagues.
64. Working conditions in my school are good.
65. My immediate supervisor makes me feel uncomfortable.
66. I prefer to have others assume responsibility.
67. Teacher income is less than I deserve.
68. I go out of my way to help my colleagues.
69. I try to be aware of the policies of my school.
70. When I teach a good lesson, my immediate supervisor notices.
71. My immediate supervisor explains what is expected of me.
72. Teaching provides me with financial security.
73. My immediate supervisor praises good teaching.
74. I am not interested in the policies of my school.
75. I get along well with my students.
76. Pay compares with similar jobs in other school districts.
77. My colleagues seem unreasonable to me.

Scoring Protocol: The TJSQ employs a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. Reverse scoring is applied to 22 unfavorable items to ensure consistent scaling. These items are: 27, 52, 65, 6, 56, 57, 77, 48, 43, 40, 18, 74, 61, 30, 33, 54, 13, 23, 9, 25, 32, and 58.