CONFIRMATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS OF THE JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY - GOOD-NEWS AND BAD NEWS
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS OF THE JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY - GOOD-NEWS AND BAD NEWS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.461
复制
发表时间：
1985-01-01
影响因子：
9.9
通讯作者：
NILAN, KJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HARVEY, RJ;BILLINGS, RS;NILAN, KJ
工作诊断调查（JDS）的因素结构的探索性研究的结果是模棱两可的：一些结论是它测量一个单一的潜在因素，另一些人声称它的维度在不同的人群中是不同的，还有一些人发现支持先验的因素结构。本研究对JDS的因子结构进行了验证性试验。数据来自2028名国民警卫队雇员。Hackman-Oldham模型和单因素模型都不能提供可接受的拟合，直到添加了与结构无关的方法方差因子。在纳入方法因子后，验证性因子分析支持Hackman和Oldham的先验结构；然而，当使用不同的拟合优度测量时，结果表明一般因素模型更为简洁。由于使用不同的回答格式（尤其是负面措辞）的主要影响是在JDS项目得分中引入了大量的方法差异，因此建议对JDS进行修改。
The results of exploratory studies of the factor structure of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) have been ambiguous: Some concluded it measures a single underlying factor, others claimed its dimensionality varies across different populations, and still others found support for the a priori factor structure. This study performed confirmatory tests of the factor structure of the JDS. Data were obtained from 2,028 National Guard employees. Neither the Hackman-Oldham nor single-factor models provided acceptable fit until construct-irrelevant method variance factors were added. After incorporating method factors, the confirmatory factor analyses supported Hackman and Oldham’sa priori structure; however, when a different goodness-of-fit measure was used, the results indicated that a general factor model was more parsimonious. Because the primary effect of using different response formats (especially negative wording) was the introduction of substantial amounts of method variance into the JDS item scores, modifications of the JDS are suggested.