Abstract
Researchers have suggested that questionnaire item sensitivity may be a possible source of response bias in investigations using mail surveys. In conducting job satisfaction studies of faculty members in higher education, investigators have assumed that job satisfaction items are not highly sensitive to faculty members and do not vary in their degree of sensitivity. The purpose of the present research was to assess the degree of sensitivity of various job satisfaction items to faculty members and to identify dimensions of faculty members' sensitivity to these items. Results from a questionnaire returned from 354 faculty members at a large university showed that their sensitivity to job satisfaction items centered primarily in three areas: (1) concern with extrinsic job factors, (2) concern with department head actions, and (3) concern with promotion and salary. On the whole, item sensitivity appeared to be rather low. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Butler, R. (1973). Effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires for both sensitive and nonsensitive items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57: 348–349.
Feuille, P., and Blandin, J. (1974). Faculty job satisfaction and bargaining sentiments: A case study. Academy of Management Journal, 17: 678–692.
Ladd, E., and Lipset, S. (1973). Professors, unions, and American higher education. Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
Miskel, C., Glasnapp, D., and Hatley, R. (1975). A test of the inequity theory for job satisfaction using educators' attitudes toward work motivation and work incentives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 11: 38–54.
Nicholson, E., and Miljus, R. (1972). Job satisfaction and turnover among liberal arts college professors. Personnel Journal, 51: 840–845.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F. Dimensions of faculty members' sensitivity to job satisfaction items. Res High Educ 6, 193–199 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991285
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991285