Job Descriptive Index

Abstract

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is a well-established psychological instrument designed to measure job satisfaction across five specific facets of the work environment. Originally developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin in 1969, the scale initially comprised 72 items. The JDI assesses satisfaction independently across five dimensions: the work itself, pay, opportunities for promotions, supervision, and co-workers. Scores derived from these facets can be aggregated to form a composite measure of overall job satisfaction.

The scale was subsequently updated by Roznowski (1989) to reflect modern changes in work technologies, organizational structures, and job content. This revised version demonstrated generally higher alpha reliabilities compared to the original items. Furthermore, alternative formats exist, such as the 30-item shortened version proposed by Gregson (1990), which utilizes the six highest-loading items for each of the five primary dimensions, based on factor analysis results.

Keywords

Job Descriptive Index, JDI, Job satisfaction, Organizational Psychology, Personnel assessment, Work attitudes, Facet satisfaction, Roznowski, Smith, Hulin.

Authors

Patricia C. Smith, Lorne M. Kendall, Charles L. Hulin (Original Developers); Mary Roznowski (Reviser, 1989)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is to provide a reliable and comprehensive assessment of an individual employee’s satisfaction level concerning specific, measurable facets of their job. Unlike instruments that measure only overall satisfaction, the JDI allows researchers and practitioners to pinpoint the exact sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction within an organizational setting, covering crucial areas such as interpersonal relationships (supervision, co-workers) and structural rewards (pay, promotion).

Construct

The JDI measures the psychological construct of Job Satisfaction, defined as an employee’s affective response to their job situation. This construct is operationalized through five distinct, yet potentially correlated, dimensions or facets of the job environment:

• Satisfaction with the Work Itself: Feelings about the tasks performed and the intrinsic nature of the job.
• Satisfaction with Present Pay: Feelings regarding compensation and equity.
• Satisfaction with Opportunities for Promotion: Feelings about career advancement prospects.
• Satisfaction with Supervision: Feelings about the immediate supervisor’s behavior and competence.
• Satisfaction with Co-workers: Feelings about colleagues and the social environment.

Validity

Evidence supports the construct validity of the JDI through observed correlations with various organizational outcomes and psychological states. Studies have consistently demonstrated positive correlations between satisfaction with the work itself, supervision, promotion, and co-workers (Smart, 1998). Specifically, satisfaction with the work itself was found to correlate positively with the quantity and quality of communication between supervisor and subordinate.

Conversely, satisfaction with the work itself correlated negatively with indicators of stress and poor psychological adjustment, including employee anxiety, irritability, and lack of perceived control over the job (Callen, 1993; Kushnir & Melamed, 1991). Furthermore, the composite measure of job satisfaction derived from the JDI demonstrated a positive correlation with affective commitment to the organization and a negative correlation with turnover intentions (Cropanzano et al., 1993), confirming its utility in predicting crucial workplace behaviors.

Reliability

The JDI demonstrates strong internal consistency across its facets, as evidenced by coefficient alpha values reported across numerous studies (Buckley et al., 1992; Judge & Hulin, 1993; Smart, 1998). The ranges of Coefficient Alpha for the five satisfaction facets are highly acceptable for psychological measurement:

• Satisfaction with the work itself: Alpha values ranged from .75 to .94.
• Satisfaction with pay: Alpha values ranged from .78 to .91.
• Satisfaction with supervision: Alpha values ranged from .87 to .92.
• Satisfaction with promotions: Alpha values ranged from .82 to .87.
• Satisfaction with co-workers: Alpha values ranged from .87 to .92.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytical studies generally support the intended multi-faceted structure of the JDI. Roznowski (1989) confirmed that the updated JDI items loaded clearly onto five distinct factors, with the items of each subscale loading primarily on a single factor corresponding to the intended facet (work, pay, promotion, supervision, co-workers). This provides strong support for the discriminant validity of the facet measures.

However, subsequent research has also explored higher-order structures. Judge (1993a) identified a second-order factor, which was interpreted as representing overall job satisfaction, suggesting that while the facets are distinct, they contribute to a single, overarching construct. Furthermore, research by Gregson (1990) using a modified 30-item version of the JDI found that communication satisfaction was empirically distinct from the measures of job satisfaction obtained via the JDI structure.

Analysis of trait variance by Buckley et al. (1992) indicated that the composite measure of job satisfaction accounted for approximately 43% of the total variance due to trait (actual job satisfaction), with common method and random error comprising the remainder. For the individual facets, trait variance accounted for substantial portions of the variance, ranging from 34% (satisfaction with work itself) up to 61% (satisfaction with promotions).

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report adjective checklist / Attitudinal survey

Format: The original JDI and the updated version consist of 72 items (Roznowski update). Respondents indicate their agreement or disagreement with descriptive adjectives related to each job facet by marking ‘Y’ (Yes), ‘N’ (No), or ‘?’ (Cannot Decide).

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Working Adults / Employees in various organizational settings

Age Group: Typically employed adults (18+)

Population Details: The JDI is widely used across diverse industries and job roles for organizational research and human resource management.

Test Methodology: The scale uses descriptive adjectives or short phrases organized under five separate subscales. Scoring is based on how well the adjectives describe the specific facet of the respondent’s job, yielding five facet scores and one composite score.

Keywords

Organizational behavior, Personnel psychology, Scale development, Affective commitment, Turnover intentions, Work technologies, Measurement properties, Construct validity, Factor analysis.

Authors

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

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

Correspondence Address: Users should contact Professor Patricia Smith, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Job Descriptive Index is a copyrighted measure. Users must seek explicit permission and may be subject to fees for its use. The original scale was published in 1969 (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin). The updated items were presented in 1989 (Roznowski).

Reference’s

• Buckley, M. R., Carraher, S. M., O’Connell, S., & Smith, P. C. (1992). The measurement of job satisfaction: Validity, reliability, and trait variance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6(4), 481-495.
• Callen, K. (1993). *The relationship between job satisfaction and communication*. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University.
• Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(6), 595-606.
• Gregson, T. (1990). The relationship between communication satisfaction and job satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 124(5), 483-491.
• Judge, T. A. (1993a). Does the predictive validity of the Job Descriptive Index vary by job type? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 267-278.
• Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple-source causal analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(6), 577-594.
• Kushnir, T., & Melamed, S. (1991). Job satisfaction, perceived work environment, and psychological distress in nurses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(6), 619-626.
• Lefkowitz, J. (1994). Sex-related differences in the psychological impact of unemployment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(2), 173-191.
• Mossholder, K. W., Bedeian, A. G., Niebuhr, R. E., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1994). The relationship between job satisfaction and communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 1081-1087.
• Roznowski, M. (1989). An examination of the measurement properties of the Job Descriptive Index with experimental items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 805-814.
• Smart, D. (1998). The relationship between job satisfaction, communication, and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(2), 273-288.
• Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). *The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement*. Rand McNally.
• Taber, T. D., & Alliger, G. M. (1995). The structure of job satisfaction: A review of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 730-743.
• Wanberg, C. R. (1995). Predictors of job search behavior and reemployment status among unemployed managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 717-729.

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.

Updated items for the Job Descriptive Index:

Respondents are asked to put Y beside each item if it describes the feature in question, N if the item does not describe that feature, or ? if they cannot decide.

Work on present job:

1. Fascinating
2. Challenging
3. Routine
4. Frustrating
5. Satisfying 
6. Simple
7. Boring
8. Gives sense of accomplishment
9. Creative
10. A source of pleasure
11. Respected
12. Dull
13. Pleasant
14. Interesting
15. Useful
16. Awful
17. Tiresome
18. Important

Present pay:

1. Income adequate for normal expenses
2. Barely live on income
3. Bad
4. Insecure
5. Less than I deserve
6. Underpaid
7. Well paid
8. Unfair
9. Enough for what I need

Opportunities for promotion:

1. Good opportunity for promotion
2. Opportunity somewhat limited
3. Promotion on ability
4. Dead-end job
5. Good chance for promotion
6. Infrequent promotions
7. Regular promotions
8. Fairly good chance for promotion
9. Easy to get ahead.

Supervision on present job:

1. Hard to please
2. Impolite
3. Praises good work
4. Tactful
5. Up-to-date
6. Quick-tempered
7. Tells me where I stand
8. Annoying
9. Stubborn
10. Knows job well.
11. Bad
12. Intelligent
13. Around when needed.
14. Lazy
15. Interferes with my work.
16. Gives confusing directions.
17. Knows how to supervise.
18. Cannot be trusted.

People on your present job:

1. Stimulating
2. Smart
3. Boring
4. Lazy
5. Slow
6. Unpleasant
7. Ambitious
8. Active
9. Stupid
10. Narrow interests
11. Responsible
12. Loyal
13. Intelligent
14. Work well together.
15. Easy to make enemies.
16. Bother me
17. Talk too much.
18. Waste of time