Measurement of job characteristics: Comparison of the original and the revised Job Diagnostic Survey.

Abstract

Animal Health Services, Wyeth LaboratoriesPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaThis study contrasted the original version of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham,1975) with the revised version recently proposed by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). A total of 224dairy workers completed both versions of the JDS. Results of a confirmatory factor analysis showedthat the revised JDS job characteristics items conformed more closely to the hypothesized five-factorstructure than did the original JDS items. However, results of LISREL analyses indicated that therevised items did not improve the usefulness of the JDS in predicting several outcomes (e.g., satisfac-tion, internal motivation, and productivity).In its most general form, job characteristics theory (Hack-man & Oldham, 1980) posits that five job characteristics (au-tonomy, task identity, task significance, skill variety, and taskfeedback) prompt a number of personal and organizational out-comes. Nearly all of the research that has tested the theory hasused the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham,1975), an instrument designed to measure incumbents' percep-tions of the job characteristics, their satisfaction, and internalmotivation.Much of the research regarding the JDS has focused on thedimensionality of the job characteristics measures (cf. Dun-ham, 1976; Dunham, Aldag, & Brief, 1977). Although a fewstudies have confirmed the five hypothesized job dimensions(e.g., Katz, 1978; Lee & Klein, 1982), most have reported solu-tions inconsistent with the a priori five-factor structure (e.g.,Dunham, 1976; Pierce & Dunham, 1978).Recent research has examined the possibility that the JDSitself might be responsible for these factor structure inconsis-tencies. Idaszak and Drasgow (1987) conducted factor analysesof two samples of employees. Results revealed six-factor solu-tions for both samples—five factors corresponding to the hy-pothesized factor structure and the sixth representing the nega-tively worded, reverse-scored JDS items. Harvey, Billings, andNilan (1985) used confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate thefactor structures suggested in past research. Their results sug-gested that the best fitting solution included the five a prioriThe authors thank Fritz Drasgow, Doug May, and Motohiro Mori-shima for their help with the data analyses. Robert Billings, JeanneBrett, Fritz Drasgow, and Motohiro Morishima provided helpful com-ments on earlier drafts of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to CarolT. Kulik, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mel-lon University, Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213.dimensions plus one or two method factors (factors for the re-verse-scored items and the three-anchor scale items).In response to these criticisms, Idaszak and Drasgow (1987)revised the JDS by rewriting the reverse-scored job characteris-tics items. The factor structure of the revised JDS was theninvestigated for a sample of printing plant employees. The re-sulting factor structure conformed very closely to the a priorifive-dimension structure. As a result, Idaszak and Drasgow con-cluded that the new scales should be used in future researchconcerned with job characteristics.Two limitations of the research on the revised instrumentlead us to believe that this recommendation may be premature.First, the Idaszak and Drasgow (1987) study did not involve acomparison of the original JDS with its revised counterpartwithin the same sample. As demonstrated by Dunham et al.(1977), some samples display a five-factor structure when theoriginal JDS is used. Thus, it is possible that the five-factorstructure observed by Idaszak and Drasgow is a function of thecharacteristics of the sample they used to assess the instrument.Second, it is unknown what impact the JDS revisions mighthave on the criterion-related validity of the JDS. If the JDS revi-sions result in purer measures of the job characteristics, thereshould be stronger associations between the revised measuresand the personal and organizational outcomes than between theoriginal measures and the outcomes.The present research uses confirmatory factor analysis to ex-amine whether the revised JDS items conform more closely tothe a priori factor structure than do the original JDS itemswithin the same sample. We also use LISREL analyses to assessthe relative effectiveness of the two instruments in predictingseveral outcomes. LISREL is useful in examining the psychomet-ric properties of the original and revised JDS because it allowsus to separate the measurement model from the structuralmodel. Specifically, we expect that the structural model wouldnot differ across the two versions of the JDS, but there shouldbe improvements in the measurement model.462