ArticleSAGE open medicine2024
Enhancing job satisfaction measurement tool in healthcare settings: Insights from a University Hospital in Vietnam.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 ( 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.