Nguyen Duc Thanh, Pham Quynh Anh, Pham Thi Huyen Chang, Ha Thi Minh Nguyet, Chu Huyen Xiem, Pham Van Hung, Le Bao Chau
{"title":"加强医疗机构的工作满意度测量工具:越南一所大学医院的启示。","authors":"Nguyen Duc Thanh, Pham Quynh Anh, Pham Thi Huyen Chang, Ha Thi Minh Nguyet, Chu Huyen Xiem, Pham Van Hung, Le Bao Chau","doi":"10.1177/20503121241292676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Extensive scrutiny within organizational research has positioned job satisfaction as a pivotal factor contingent upon organizational contexts. Our study aimed to refine job satisfaction measurement tools for diverse healthcare settings using insights from a university hospital in Vietnam, enhancing the validity and applicability of these instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The procedure for the contextualization of a job satisfaction measurement tool was established encompassing six key steps: (1) Developing, selecting, or modifying the questionnaire; (2) Assessing face validity; (3) Ensuring content validity; (4) Designing the research for field testing; (5) Assessing the tool reliability and validity; and (6) Assessing discriminant validity between two tools. This procedure served as the foundation for a cross-sectional study involving 216 healthcare staff at a university hospital in Vietnam.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The modified tool, comprising 35 items (6 fewer than the original 41-item reference tool), was derived through evaluations of face, content, and construct validity, conducted with 216 healthcare staff. The validity of the modified tool was subsequently confirmed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis, demonstrating favorable fit indices for the job satisfaction item, including a Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of 3.15, Comparative Fit Index of 0.86, Tucker Lewis Index of 0.85, and Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation of 0.1. Additionally, the modified tool exhibited a high Cronbach's alpha of 0.97, a good convergence ranged from 0.4 to 0.6 and a good divergence with the maximum shared variance values were lower than the corresponding average variance extracted values. The job satisfaction scores obtained using the modified tool surpassed significantly those of the original reference tool (<i>p</i> < 0.01), with percentages of 52.7% and 43.1%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This contextualization procedure has been demonstrated to be both feasible, practical and yielded valid and reliable results, thus recommending its adoption in other healthcare settings along with further validation and adaptation, including rural settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":21398,"journal":{"name":"SAGE Open Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528810/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enhancing job satisfaction measurement tool in healthcare settings: Insights from a University Hospital in Vietnam.\",\"authors\":\"Nguyen Duc Thanh, Pham Quynh Anh, Pham Thi Huyen Chang, Ha Thi Minh Nguyet, Chu Huyen Xiem, Pham Van Hung, Le Bao Chau\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20503121241292676\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Extensive scrutiny within organizational research has positioned job satisfaction as a pivotal factor contingent upon organizational contexts. Our study aimed to refine job satisfaction measurement tools for diverse healthcare settings using insights from a university hospital in Vietnam, enhancing the validity and applicability of these instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The procedure for the contextualization of a job satisfaction measurement tool was established encompassing six key steps: (1) Developing, selecting, or modifying the questionnaire; (2) Assessing face validity; (3) Ensuring content validity; (4) Designing the research for field testing; (5) Assessing the tool reliability and validity; and (6) Assessing discriminant validity between two tools. This procedure served as the foundation for a cross-sectional study involving 216 healthcare staff at a university hospital in Vietnam.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The modified tool, comprising 35 items (6 fewer than the original 41-item reference tool), was derived through evaluations of face, content, and construct validity, conducted with 216 healthcare staff. The validity of the modified tool was subsequently confirmed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis, demonstrating favorable fit indices for the job satisfaction item, including a Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of 3.15, Comparative Fit Index of 0.86, Tucker Lewis Index of 0.85, and Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation of 0.1. Additionally, the modified tool exhibited a high Cronbach's alpha of 0.97, a good convergence ranged from 0.4 to 0.6 and a good divergence with the maximum shared variance values were lower than the corresponding average variance extracted values. The job satisfaction scores obtained using the modified tool surpassed significantly those of the original reference tool (<i>p</i> < 0.01), with percentages of 52.7% and 43.1%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This contextualization procedure has been demonstrated to be both feasible, practical and yielded valid and reliable results, thus recommending its adoption in other healthcare settings along with further validation and adaptation, including rural settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAGE Open Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528810/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAGE Open Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241292676\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAGE Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121241292676","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Enhancing job satisfaction measurement tool in healthcare settings: Insights from a University Hospital in Vietnam.
Background and objectives: Extensive scrutiny within organizational research has positioned job satisfaction as a pivotal factor contingent upon organizational contexts. Our study aimed to refine job satisfaction measurement tools for diverse healthcare settings using insights from a university hospital in Vietnam, enhancing the validity and applicability of these instruments.
Methods: The procedure for the contextualization of a job satisfaction measurement tool was established encompassing six key steps: (1) Developing, selecting, or modifying the questionnaire; (2) Assessing face validity; (3) Ensuring content validity; (4) Designing the research for field testing; (5) Assessing the tool reliability and validity; and (6) Assessing discriminant validity between two tools. This procedure served as the foundation for a cross-sectional study involving 216 healthcare staff at a university hospital in Vietnam.
Results: The modified tool, comprising 35 items (6 fewer than the original 41-item reference tool), was derived through evaluations of face, content, and construct validity, conducted with 216 healthcare staff. The validity of the modified tool was subsequently confirmed through Confirmatory Factor Analysis, demonstrating favorable fit indices for the job satisfaction item, including a Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of 3.15, Comparative Fit Index of 0.86, Tucker Lewis Index of 0.85, and Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation of 0.1. Additionally, the modified tool exhibited a high Cronbach's alpha of 0.97, a good convergence ranged from 0.4 to 0.6 and a good divergence with the maximum shared variance values were lower than the corresponding average variance extracted values. The job satisfaction scores obtained using the modified tool surpassed significantly those of the original reference tool (p < 0.01), with percentages of 52.7% and 43.1%, respectively.
Conclusion: This contextualization procedure has been demonstrated to be both feasible, practical and yielded valid and reliable results, thus recommending its adoption in other healthcare settings along with further validation and adaptation, including rural settings.