Job Descriptive Index

Abstract

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is one of the most widely utilized and respected instruments in organizational psychology for measuring employee job satisfaction. Developed initially by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin in 1969, the original scale comprised 72 items across five distinct facets of job experience. The JDI underwent a significant revision in 1985, which involved substituting several items and introducing the supplemental Job in General (JIG) scale, designed to assess overall or global job satisfaction. The JDI is structured as an adjective checklist, requiring respondents to describe specific aspects of their job using simple dichotomous or trichotomous responses (Yes, No, or Cannot Decide).

Keywords

Job Descriptive Index, JDI, job satisfaction, organizational psychology, employee attitude, Job in General, JIG, work measurement, psychometrics

Authors

Patricia C. Smith, L. M. Kendall, C. L. Hulin (as cited in Smith, P. C., et al. (1969))

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is to provide a detailed, multidimensional assessment of an individual’s affective responses to specific facets of their work environment. Unlike measures that only capture global satisfaction, the JDI isolates satisfaction levels pertaining to five critical areas of the job.

The instrument is designed for use in various organizational settings, allowing researchers and practitioners to pinpoint specific areas of dissatisfaction, such as problems related to supervision or pay structure, which can then inform targeted interventions aimed at improving employee morale and retention. The subsequent addition of the Job in General (JIG) scale allows for the comprehensive measurement of both specific facet satisfaction and holistic job satisfaction.

Construct

The JDI measures the psychological construct of job satisfaction, defined as an employee’s affective orientation toward their current work role. The scale adheres to a facet approach, meaning it breaks down the overall satisfaction construct into several distinct components, each measured independently. The original 72-item instrument was designed to capture satisfaction across five key areas:

• Work itself
• Present Pay
• Opportunities for Promotion
• Supervision
• Coworkers

The revised instrument incorporates the 18-item Job in General Scale (JIG) to capture global satisfaction, and the 18-item Stress in General Scale (SIG) to measure overall job stress, thereby expanding the scope of the instrument beyond pure satisfaction facets.

Validity

The validity of the JDI was rigorously assessed during its development, primarily utilizing a multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) approach. This methodological framework is crucial for establishing two key forms of measurement validity.

First, the MTMM confirmed strong convergent validity, indicating that measures designed to assess the same facet (e.g., satisfaction with pay) correlated highly with each other, regardless of the measurement method used. Second, the matrix successfully demonstrated discriminant validity, ensuring that the five distinct scales measured unique constructs (e.g., satisfaction with pay was distinct from satisfaction with supervision), thus confirming the integrity of the facet-based structure of the JDI.

Reliability

The JDI exhibits strong internal consistency across its facets, as demonstrated through corrected split-half correlations. These reliability estimates show high consistency among the items within each scale, confirming that the items cohesively measure their intended facet of job satisfaction. The reported corrected split-half correlations for the original scales are:

• Work: 0.84
• Pay: 0.80
• Promotions: 0.86
• Supervision: 0.87
• Coworkers: 0.88

These values indicate that the JDI consistently measures the constructs over time and across different items. Additionally, comprehensive means and standard deviations are provided for both male and female workers, allowing for detailed comparative analyses and norming.

Factor Analysis

Although the source content does not provide explicit factor analysis results (such as rotation methods or loadings), the structure of the JDI inherently relies on a multi-factor model. The establishment of five distinct scales—Work, Pay, Promotions, Supervision, and Coworkers—confirms that the developers utilized psychometric methods, likely exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis, to ensure that the item clusters loaded distinctly onto separate factors representing the intended facets of job satisfaction. The successful demonstration of discriminant validity via the multitrait-multimethod matrix further supports the factorial independence of these five components.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Attitudinal Inventory (Adjective Checklist)

Format: The JDI uses a straightforward, non-Likert scale format where respondents answer Y (Yes), N (No), or ? (Cannot Decide) for each descriptive word or phrase related to their job facet.

Language Available: English (Primary). Translations into numerous languages exist due to its widespread international use, although specific versions must be verified with the test administrator.

Population Group: Working Adults

Age Group: Typically adults in the workforce (18+)

Population Details: The initial normative sample consisted of 988 individuals drawn from seven diverse organizations. Subsequent large-scale studies expanded this sample base to 2,662 individuals across 21 different organizations, ensuring broad applicability across various industries and demographics.

Test Methodology: The scale is administered by presenting respondents with a list of adjectives or short phrases specific to a job facet (e.g., Work or Pay). They indicate whether the word describes that specific facet of their current job (Y), does not describe it (N), or if they are unsure (?). Scoring is cumulative for each separate scale. For positive items, Y=3, ?=1, N=0. For negative items, the scoring is reversed (Y=0, ?=1, N=3).

Keywords

facet satisfaction, JIG scale, SIG scale, organizational behavior, employee morale, psychometric instrument, multitrait-multimethod

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: Dr. Patricia C. Smith, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original JDI was published in 1969. Revisions and additional scales (JIG, SIG) were introduced in 1985, and an updated manual was released in 1990. Complete forms, scoring keys, instructions, and norms must be obtained directly from the original author or their authorized distributor. The correspondence address for obtaining these materials is listed above.

Reference’s

Smith, P. C., et al. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Curry, C. J. (2007). Predicting the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic job factors on overall job satisfaction for Generation X and Baby Boomers in a regional healthcare organization. PhD dissertation, Georgia State University.

Jeanmarie, T. M. (2008). The relationship between principals’ perceptions of performance appraisal and level of job satisfaction. EdD dissertation, Wayne State University.

Kimbrel, M. J. (2005). Teacher induction programs and beginning teacher job satisfaction. PhD dissertation, University of Nebraska- Lincoln.

Shead, L. M. (2010). An investigation of the relationship between teachers’ ratings of their principals’ leadership style and teachers’ job satisfaction in public education. PhD dissertation, Our Lady of the Lake University.

Terry, D. H. (2011). Job satisfaction and migration difference between teachers with educational degrees and those with alternative certification. PsyD dissertation, Capella University.

Vang, M. (2008). Effects of student achievement on the job satisfaction of public elementary school principals. EdD dissertation, California State University, Fresno and University of California, Davis.

Items of the Job Descriptive Index

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

Think of the work you do at present. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe your work? In the blank beside each word below, write

Y for “Yes” if it describes your work N for “No” if it does NOT describe it ? if you cannot decide

Work on Present Job

• Routine
• Satisfying
• Good

Think of the kind of supervision that you get on your job. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe this? In the blank beside each word below, write

Y for “Yes” if it describes the supervision you get on your job N for “No” if it does NOT describe it ? if you cannot decide

Supervision

• Impolite
• Praises good work
• Doesn’t supervise enough

Think of the pay you get now. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe your present pay? In the blank beside each word below, write

Y for “Yes” if it describes your pay N for “No” if it does NOT describe it ? if you cannot decide

Present Pay

• Income adequate for normal expenses
• Insecure
• Less than I deserve

Think of the majority of the people that you work with now or the people you meet in connection with your work. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe these people? In the blank beside each word below, write

Y for “Yes” if it describes the people you work with N for “No” if it does NOT describe them ? if you cannot decide

Coworkers (People)

• Boring
• Responsible
• Intelligent

Think of the opportunities for promotion that you have now. How well does each of the following words or phrases describe these? In the blank beside each word below, write

Y for “Yes” if it describes your opportunities for promotion N for “No” if it does NOT describe them ? if you cannot decide

Opportunities for Promotion

• Dead-end job
• Unfair promotion policy
• Regular promotions

Think of your job in general. All in all, what is it like most of the time? In the blank beside each word or phrase below, write

Y for “Yes” if it describes your job N for “No” if it does NOT describe it ? if you cannot decide

Job in General

• Undesirable
• Better than most
• Rotten