Journals / Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3

Validation and Reliability of Working Life Quality Questionnaire: An Applicatıon on Health Employees

Çalışma Yaşamı Kalitesi Ölçeği Geçerlilik Güvenirlik Çalışması: Sağlık Çalışanlarında Bir Uygulama

Pages
903–917
Publication Date
2019-12-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is seen that the data obtained related to other dimensions have discriminant and convergent validity of the scale.As a result, it is seen that the propositions about development dimension should be reviewed.Key Words: Health Workers, Work Quality of Life, Validity and Reliability JEL Classification: M12, M19, M54

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was conducted to determine the validity and reliability of the study quality of life scale.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research data was obtained from 209 health personnel working in a public hospital in the province of Gaziantep. 58% of the participants were female and 42% were male. 47% of participants is single and 42% of them are married. 37% of health care workers are between 21-30 years of age and 45% of them have an ungraduate degree.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is seen that the data obtained related to other dimensions have discriminant and convergent validity of the scale.As a result, it is seen that the propositions about development dimension should be reviewed.Key Words: Health Workers, Work Quality of Life, Validity and Reliability JEL Classification: M12, M19, M54
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Sağlık Çalışanları · Çalışma Yaşam Kalitesi · Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the validity and reliability of the study quality of life scale. The research data was obtained from 209 health personnel working in a public hospital in the province of Gaziantep. 58% of the participants were female and 42% were male. 47% of participants is single and 42% of them are married. 37% of health care workers are between 21-30 years of age and 45% of them have an ungraduate degree. As of working status, 46% are nurses. SPSS 21 package program and AMOS programs were used to analyze the data. The validity and reliability scale was designed by Cacioppe (1980, 1984) to measure the quality of life. In this study, the cronbach alpha of the scale was found to be 0.92. Scale items were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. As a result of the analysis; It is seen that the reliability value related to the development dimension is 0.70 and the mean variance value is below 0.50 and there is no discrimination and convergent validity about this dimension. It is seen that the data obtained related to other dimensions have discriminant and convergent validity of the scale.As a result, it is seen that the propositions about development dimension should be reviewed.Key Words: Health Workers, Work Quality of Life, Validity and Reliability JEL Classification: M12, M19, M54

Özet

Bu araştırma çalışma yaşam kalitesi ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenirliğini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Araştırma Gaziantep ilinde bir kamu hastanesinde çalışmakta olan 209 sağlık personeli dâhilinde yürütülmüştür. Katılımcıların %58’i kadın % 42’si erkektir. Medeni durumlarında %47’si bekâr %42’si evlidir. Sağlık çalışanlarının %37’si 21-30 yaş aralığında iken, %45’i lisans mezunudur. Statü olarak %46’sı hemşiredir. Verilerin analizinde SPSS 21 paket programı ve AMOS programlarından yararlanılmıştır. Geçerlik, güvenirlik çalışması yapılan ölçek Cacioppe (1980, 1984) tarafından çalışma yaşam kalitesini ölçmek amacıyla tasarlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha değerinin 0,92 olduğu saptanmıştır. Ölçek maddeleri doğrulayıcı faktör analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Yapılan analizler soncunda; gelişim boyutu ile ilgili güvenirlik değerinin 0,70’in ve açıklanan ortalama varyans değerinin de 0,50’nin altında olduğu ve bu boyut ile ilgili ayrışım ve benzeşim geçerliğinin olmadığı görülmektedir. Diğer boyutlarla ilgili elde edilen veriler dikkate alındığında ölçeğin ayrışım ve benzeşim geçerliği olduğu görülmektedir. Sonuç olarak gelişim boyutu ile ilgili önermelerin gözden geçirilmesi gerektiği görülmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Sağlık Çalışanları, Çalışma Yaşam Kalitesi, Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik JEL Sınıflandırması: M12, M19, M54

🔖

Cite This Article

MACİT, M., EREN, A. S., KARAMAN, M., DEMİR, İ. E. (2019). Validation and Reliability of Working Life Quality Questionnaire: An Applicatıon on Health Employees. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3, 903–917. https://ajindex.com/articles/4787

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Baba, V. and Jamal, M. (1991). Routinization of job context and job content as related to employees’ quality of working life: A study of canadian nurses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, 379–386.
  2. Bragard, I., Dupuis, G., Razavi, D., Reynaert, C. and Etienne, M. (2012). Quality of work life in doctors working with cancer patients. Occupational Medicine, Vol. 62, Iss 1, 34-40.
  3. Brooks, B.A. and Anderson, M.A. (2005). Defining quality of nursing work life. Nursing Economics, vol. 23, Iss 6, 319-326.
  4. Cacioppe, R. and Mock, P. (1984). A comparison of the quality of work experience in government and private organizations. Human Relations, Vol. 37, Iss 11, 923-940.
  5. Çatak, T. ve Bahçecik, N. (2015). Hemşirelerin iş yaşamı kalitesi ve etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol. 5, Iss 2, 85- 95. Cole, D.C., Robson, L. S.,Lemieux-Charles, L., McGuire, W, Sicotte, C. and Champagne, F. (2005). Quality of working life indicators in canadian health care organizations: A tool for healthy, health care Workplaces? Occupational Medicine, Vol. 55, 54–59.
  6. Colichi, R., Bocchi, S.M., Lima, S.A.M. and Popim, R.C. (2016). Interactions between quality of life at work and family: Integrative review. International Archives of Medicine, Sl, 9. Disponível. Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (1997). Organization development and change. United States of America. International Thompson Publishing. Easton, S. and Van Laar, D. (2013). QoWL (Quality Of Working Life): What, how, and why? Psychology Research, Vol. 3, Iss 10, 596-605.
  7. Efraty, D. and Sirgy, M. (1990). The effects of quality of working life (QWL) On employee behavioural responses. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 22, Iss 1, 31–47.
  8. Eren, A.S. (2018). Anketlerin veri girişlerinin kolay bir şekilde yapılmasını sağlayan bilgisayar tabanlı bir yöntemin tanıtımı. Social Mentality And Researcher Thinkers Journal, Vol. 4, Iss, 8, 76-83.
  9. Gaillard, A. W., Boucsein, W. and Stern, J. (1996). Psychophysiology of Workload. Biological Psychology, Vol. 42, Iss 3, 245-247.
  10. Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a Science of Design. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 46, Iss 1, 1-24.
  11. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975) Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, 159-170.
  12. Hsu, M. and Kernohan, C. (2006). Dimensions of hospital nurses’ quality of work life. Nursing And Healthcare Management and Policy, Vol. 54, Iss 1