Staff satisfaction and its components in residential aged

care
1. SHU-CHIUNG CHOU1,2,
2. DUNCAN P. BOLDY1,3 and
3. ANDY H. LEE1
+ Author Affiliations
1. 1School of Public Health and
2. 3Freemasons Centre for Research into Aged Care Services, Division of Health Sciences, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, Australia and
3. 2Center for Quality of Care Research and Education, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA,
USA
 Accepted February 6, 2002.

Next Section

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to assess the direction and magnitude of the effects among
the components of staff satisfaction in residential aged care and to examine whether the relationships
amongsatisfaction components vary according to facility type (i.e. nursing homes and hostels). A
hostel is a low care facility in which residents are more independent, have a lower level of care needs,
and receive personal but not nursing care.
Design. A cross-sectional survey design was adopted to collect the required information, and a
stratified random sampling approach was utilized to select facilities. Structural equation modeling was
used to examine relationships among satisfaction components.
Setting. Seventy residential aged care facilities in Western Australia.
Study participants. The sample includes 610 nursing home and 373 hostel care staff.
Results. The relationships among satisfaction components are different for nursing home and hostel
staff. Professional support is found to have a strong and positive effect on all other aspects of
staff satisfaction.
Conclusion. The findings lead to an improved understanding of the interrelationship among
staff satisfaction components, which has important implications through enhancing professional
support. This needs to be recognized and emphasized by managers, care providers, and policy makers
so as to maintain stable personnel and continuity of care.

Key words

 hostel

 long-term care

 nursing home

 professional support

 quality

The proportion of the Australian population aged over 65 years is predicted to grow from 12% at the
turn of the century to over 24% by 2051 [1]. Owing to the growing percentage of elderly citizens, the
demand for quality care facilities is likely to increase in Australia, both for elderly people with
relatively low levels of need as well as for those with relatively high levels of need. Residential care
will continue to play an important and necessary role in the overall provision of aged care services.
This it is important to understand what contributes to staffsatisfaction if present staff are to be retained
and new staff attracted to residential aged care.
Residential aged care facilities provide long-term nursing home or hostel care to frail older people. In
Australia, nursing homes (high care facilities: for residents with higher levels of care needs) provide
support in daily living activities and nursing care. Hostels (low care facilities. residents with lower
levels of care needs) provide similar personal support to more independent residents, but not nursing
care services [2]. Within this context, care staff have long-term relationship with residents and play a
significant role in delivery of services to them.
Concerns about quality and standards of long-term care for older people have received considerable
attention. It has been noted that staff attitudes have a significant impac. on the quality of life of
residents in the labor-intensive long-term care sector [3]. The importance of staff satisfaction is well
documented in the literature. For example, lower job satisfaction has been linked o higher mortality
[4]. Job satisfaction has also been shown to be positively associated with staff retention [5], intention
to stay [6], organizational commitment [7, 8], staff-perceived quality of care [9], and
patient satisfaction [10]. Higher jobsatisfaction is also found to be inversely related to intention to
leave [8, 11,12], absence [6, 8, 13], and turnover [6, 7, 13]. Specifically, various studies have
established the link between job satisfaction and turnover among nurses [14,15], social workers [16],
and administrators/managers [17] in long-term care.
Indeed, whilst staff turnover is difficult to quantify, it is considered a serious problem in the residential
aged care industry [18]. In Australia, many facilities have already experienced difficulties in staff
recruitment and retention, and in maintaining a desirable staff mix [19]. The inability to attract and
retain quality staff may be detrimental to both staff and residents. The extra workload has to be
absorbed by the remaining staff [12], while residents are more prone to disrupted social ties and altered
care regimens [18].
Although staff satisfaction has a direct impact on staff retention, service quality and costs associated
with recruitment and training [18, 20], limited research has been conducted on the components
underlying staff satisfaction. A thorough understanding of the relationship
among satisfaction components will provide useful information for enhancing staff satisfaction. This
is particularly pertinent in residential aged care settings, where residents are vulnerable to poorer
quality of care due to their vulnerability and frailty caused by limited finances, infirmity, lack of
advocates among family and friends [21], increased dependency on staff, fear of retribution if they
complain, etc. This may be more likely to happen in the nursing home setting, where a majority of
residents are cognitively impaired and cannot voice their opinion.
By assessing staff satisfaction and examining the relationships amongsatisfaction components,
important aspects can be identified and targeted for improvement from the staff members' perspective.
In an earlier paper, we assessed the factor structure, reliability, and validity of an existing Measure
of Job Satisfaction (MJS) [22]. Staff satisfaction was confirmed to be a multidimensional construct
composing of five factors: personal job satisfaction, satisfaction with workload, satisfaction with
team spirit (co-workers), satisfaction with training, and satisfaction with professional support. The
purpose of this paper is to assess the direction and magnitude of the relationships between various
staff satisfaction components in residential aged care services in Australia.
As mentioned previously, there are two types of residential aged care facilities in Australia, namely
nursing homes (high care) and hostels (low care). Residents are classified and allocated according to
their care needs. A hostel is a low care facility for frail but semi-independent residents who have lower
levels of care needs and receive personal care such as group meals, housekeeping, and other support
service, but not nursing care. Most hostels broadly fit the definition of 'congregate care' in the US. In
contrast, a nursing home is a high care facility for more dependent residents who have higher levels of
care needs and receive personal and nursing care. Generally, nursing homes employ more qualified
staff who have received less formal training.
In view of the different environment, resident characteristics, care needs, and staff requirements, it is
also anticipated that nursing home and hostel staff will have different patterns of relationships
between satisfaction components. Consequently, two research questions are addressed in this study.
Research question 1. What is the relationship among the components of staffsatisfaction in residential
aged care?
Research question 2. Do the relationships among staff satisfactioncomponents vary according to
facility type (i.e., hostel and nursing home)?
The primary purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships among
staffsatisfaction components. Consideration of the link between staffsatisfaction and quality of care
(e.g. resident satisfaction) is the subject of a subsequent investigation, which will be reported
elsewhere.
Previous SectionNext Section

Methods

Research design and participants

As described in Chou et al. [22], a cross-sectional survey design was used to collect the required data.
In order to select a variety of residential aged care facilities in Western Australia, a stratified random
sampling approach was utilized to select facilities by taking the following factors into consideration:
size (small, medium, or large), location (metro and non-metro), and type of facility (nursing home or
hostel). Dementia-specific and aboriginal-specific facilities were excluded from the study because of
their special needs. All staff involved in direct resident care, including the Director of Nursing,
manager, registered nurses, enrolled nurses, nursing assistants, and therapists within a selected facility,
were invited to participate. Further details regarding the sampling strategy are given in Chou et al. [22].
The study sample of 983 staff was recruited from a wide variety of residential aged care facilities
between April 1998 and April 1999.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Curtin University of
Technology.
Measure of job satisfaction

Staff satisfaction was assessed through the self-complete MJS questionnaire [22]. Twenty-two items
covering five aspects (factors) of staff satisfaction (i.e. personal job satisfaction, satisfaction with
workload, team spirit/co-workers, training, and professional support) were used for this study. These
five factors were obtained via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis; details are given in a
previous paper [22]. Items are on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very
satisfied). A satisfaction score for each factor was obtained by proportionally weighted factor score
regression to combine individual items. A higher score would indicate a greater satisfaction with
respect to that factor.

Statistical analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) of staff satisfaction was undertaken in two stages, measurement
model and structural model fitting [23, 24]. Since the five staff satisfaction scores were slightly
skewed with non-zero kurtosis, a weighted least squares procedure was considered appropriate for
parameter estimation. In addition, when the items are ordinal, a polychoric matrix should be used for
SEM analysis [24, 25]. The SEM approach is considered appropriate for the present study because the
procedure permits the assessment of measurement properties of the satisfaction constructs. SEM
permits specification and simultaneous estimation among multiple dependent and independent latent
variables [26] and provides a better understanding of the complex relationships
among satisfaction components.

Measurement model

A one-factor congeneric measurement model was first fitted to each of the five constructs to assess
their validity and reliability, using LISREL [23]. A fitted congeneric model allows large numbers of
observed variables to be reduced to a single composite scale and subsequently reduces the number of
variables to be included in the SEM [27]. In order to keep the measurement models simple, it was
aimed to retain only four or five items per factor. The composite scale reliability was determined for
each latent factor [27-29]. The estimated regression coefficients and measurement error variances for
the fivesatisfaction factors were then fixed in the measurement part of the SEM.

Structural model

The relationships among the five key staff satisfaction components were then investigated through the
structural part of the SEM. A conceptual model was formulated, representing the expected relationships
among the fivesatisfaction components: personal job satisfaction (n1), satisfaction with workload
(n2), satisfaction with team spirit/co-workers (n3), satisfactionwith training (n4),
and satisfaction with professional support (n5). The hypothesized relationships, graphically presented
in Figure 1, have been identified based on our review of the literature and informal discussions with
relevant care staff, stakeholders, and other researchers (see ref. [2] for details).
 View larger version:
 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Fig. 1.
Hypothesized structural relationships among staffsatisfaction components.

For example, in human resources management it has been suggested that jobsatisfaction is positively
associated with peer and supervisor support, but negatively related to routinization and workload [30].
Similarly, work support, such as supportive social interaction from supervisors, management and co-
workers, can have a positive effect on employee well-being in terms of jobsatisfaction [31]. On the
other hand , stress related to poor support (e.g. lack of human resources or senior support) and overload
were found to be associated with reduced job satisfaction, whereas satisfaction from 'working with
people' and 'management' appeared to be correlated with high job satisfaction[32]. The importance of
interpersonal relationships was also evident in another study, where professional respect from other
disciplines was shown to be a significant determinant of overall job satisfaction [33]. The (alternative)
hypotheses are stated below.
H1. Satisfaction with professional support (PSUP, n5) has a positive effect on
personal job satisfaction. (PSAT, n1), satisfaction with workload (WKLOAD, n2), team spirit/co-
workers (TEAMSP. n3), and training (TRAINING, n4).
H2. Satisfaction with team spirit has a positive effect on
personal jobsatisfaction and satisfaction with workload.
H3. Satisfaction with training has a positive effect on satisfaction with workload.
H4. Satisfaction with workload has a positive effect on personal jobsatisfaction.
H5. The relationships among staff satisfaction components depends on facility type (nursing or hostel).
These hypotheses were tested via SEM using the LISREL package [34]. The parameters estimated
were the regression coefficients in this structural equation part of the SEM. Some of the above
relationships were modified in view of the model fitting results. In addition to theoretical and practical
considerations, the assessment of model adequacy was based on the following goodness-of-fit criteria:
Normed chi-square (x2/df)<3, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <0.05, non-normed
fit index (NNFI) >0.90, comparative fit index (CFI) >0.90, goodness of fit index (GFI)>0.90 and
adjusted goodness of fit index (ADFI)>0.90 [23, 24, 35, 36].
Previous SectionNext Section

Results

Staff characteristics, educational background and work condition

A total of 983 care staff from 70 facilities returned their completed questionnaires, representing an
overall response rate of 57%. Response bias at the facility level was addressed through implementing a
rigorous stratified random sampling procedure. Every effort was also made to recruit a 'reasonable'
number of facilities within each stratum, resulting in an adequate coverage of a variety of staff from a
variety of aged care facilities. The response rate for nursing homes was 54% (range 20-81%) and for
hostels 66% (range 14-100%). Only three nursing homes and three hostels had a response rate less than
30%. Unfortunately, no demographic information is available about non-responders due to
confidentiality assurances; therefore, it is not known if they differed in any systematic way from
participants. Survey details are given in Chou et al. [22].
Information on staff demographic characteristics, educational background, and opportunities are
represented in Table 1. Ninety four percent of respondents were female and their mean age was 44
years. Forty-three percent of respondents carers of nursing assistants, with 16% being registered nurses,
mainly in nursing homes. Only 2% of the respondents in hostels were registered nurses.
 View larger version:
 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Table 1.
Staff characteristics, educational background, and opportunities by facility type

Staff were asked to indicate their highest level of schooling or training. Approximately 32% had left
school before year 12 and less than 5% of respondents had a postgraduate qualification. More than half
the respondents had completed at least one aged care-related course, with significantly more hostel
staff (67% having completed such a course than nursing home staff (505) (P<0.001).
Interestingly, a significantly lower proportion of nursing home staff had attended ongoing education
during work time. Moreover, a higher proportion of nursing home staff (59%) were in fact interested in
more professional development activities relevant to their current work, suggesting a higher desire for
training, compared with hostel staff (52%).

Measurement properties

Weightings of staff satisfaction items provided by the factor score regression are given in Table 2.
Each of the five measurement models fitted satisfactorily. The high composite reliabilities for the
staff satisfaction constructs suggest that all observed variables (items) were valid and reliable
measures of the underlying latent constructs (satisfaction factors). Moreover, all observed variables
have a good item reliability (above 0.5) and were significant a the 1% level, implying a high level of
convergent validity. Convergent and discriminant validities, which support the appropriateness of
collapsing the 22 MJS items into five domains, are also demonstrated and discussed in Chou et al. [22].

View larger version:

 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Table 2.
Staff satisfaction component reliability and items (n = 983)

Staff satisfaction levels

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the five staffsatisfaction variables. The nursing
home staff had lower scores on all aspects of satisfaction than the hostel staff. A series of independent
sample t-tests confirmed such differences as significant, with P<0.01 in each domain except team sprit
(see Table 3). Consequently, it was judged necessary to examine whether or not the hypothesized
structural regression paths vary according to nursing home and hostel staff.

View larger version:

 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Table 3.
Staff satisfaction component scores for nursing home and hostel groups

Structural regression paths by facility type

In testing the equality of structural regression paths across nursing home and hostel, a multi-group
model with the coefficients constrained to be equal between the groups (i.e. the groups are expected to
behave similarly) was estimated first. The model with coefficients unconstrained (i.e. expected to
behave differently) was then estimated. The hypothesis of invariant structural regression paths can be
assessed by a likelihood ratio test between the constrained and unconstrained models [37]. A non-
significant difference supports an invariant pattern of structural regression paths.
The sample of staff was split into nursing home (n=610) and hostel (n=373) groups. The result
indicated a significant difference in fit between the constrained and unconstrained models. It may
therefore be concluded that the structural regression paths did vary between the two groups (H5). This
provided support for the separate modeling of nursing home and hostel staffsatisfaction components.
Hostel model

Tests of the initially hypothesized structural model for hostel staff identified that path B24 (training -
workload) was not statistically significant at the 5% level, indicating that H3 was not supported by the
data. All other paths were significant at the 1% level, thus confirming H1, H2, and H4. A post hoc
analysis suggested an additional structural path B41 (personal job satisfaction - training). The model
was re-specified and re-estimated (see Table 4).

View larger version:

 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Table 4.
Goodness-of-fit summary for staff satisfaction models

The fitted hostel staff satisfaction model presented in Figure 2 illustrates the fundamental relationships
among the five satisfaction domains. In order to keep the diagram simple, only the structural part of
the SEM is shown. A summary of the direct, indirect, and total effect sizes for the final hostel model is
given in Table 5. The total effect size of 'professional support' on all other aspects of
staff satisfaction ranged from 0.442 to 0.658. This suggests that professional support can play a central
role in driving all other aspects of staffsatisfaction.

View larger version:

 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Fig. 2
Fitted hostel staffsatisfaction structural model. Key as for Figure 1.

Nursing home model

For the nursing home group, path B23 (team spirit - work-load) was not statistically significant at the
5% level. All other paths were significant at the 1% level. The SEM results thus confirmed H1, H3, and
H4, but not H2. A post hoc analysis again suggested an additional structural path B41
(personal jobsatisfaction - training). The model was subsequently revised and re-estimated.
Table 5 shows that the fit of the revised nursing home model is satisfactory.
The fitted nursing home model is graphically presented in Figure 3. Table 6provides the direct,
indirect, and total effect sizes derived from the SEM. Similar to hostels, (satisfaction with)
professional support has a strong and positive effect on all other aspects of staff satisfaction (total
effect sizes ranging from 0.479 to 0.653).

View larger version:

 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Table 5.
Decomposition of standardized effects for hostel staffsatisfaction

View larger version:

 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Fig. 3
 Fitted nursing home staffsatisfaction structural model. Key as for Figure 1.

View larger version:

 In this page

 In a new window
 Download as PowerPoint Slide

Table 6.
Decomposition of standardized effects for nursing home staffsatisfaction

Comparison between nursing home and hostel staff satisfaction

The main difference between nursing home and hostel models relates to the non-significant path B23
(team spirit - workload) and the significant path B24 (training - workload) in the nursing home model.
Professional support is more strongly related to other aspects of staffsatisfaction in the nursing home
group except for the workload aspect. The magnitude of the two paths, B12 (workload -
personal job satisfaction) and B13 (team spirit - personal job satisfaction), is larger in the hostel
group than the nursing home group. The effect of personal job satisfaction on training is also stronger
for hostel staff.
Previous SectionNext Section

Discussion

Personal job satisfaction

Personal job satisfaction is directly influenced by workload, team spirit, and professional support for
both nursing home and hostel groups. Staff are likely to feel good about their job if they are satisfied
with these aspects. This is consistent with literature findings [7, 32, 33].

Team Spirit (co-workers)

Satisfaction with team spirit (co-workers) can be affected directly by professional support. Facility
management should therefore take an active role in establishing a positive and supportive working
environment. Incidentally, it has been suggested that the director of nursing or senior nurse is pivotal to
team cohesiveness, as well as offering a stable, satisfied, and friendly environment for staff [19].

Training

The training items address satisfaction with training opportunity and perceptions of its
adequacy. Satisfaction with training is directly influenced by personal job satisfaction and
professional support. Staff will perceive to have adequate training opportunity if their needs are met
through on-site jobsupport directly from their supervisor or indirectly from their co-workers and feel
content with their job. This has implications on creating a learning environment for staff rather than
just a place for daily routine work.

Professional support

That professional support has a strong and positive effect on all other aspects of staff satisfaction is
consistent with other studies [30, 31, 38]. Care staff should be provided with sufficient support,
enabling them to express their concerns, receive proper guidance and supervision, as well as obtain fair
treatment from their bosses. Once again, facility management can play a key role in assisting staff to
perform their duties successfully [39].
Although professional support, referring to support from supervisors/managers (see Table 2), appears
to be a major component driving staff satisfaction, further investigation is needed to develop
appropriate policy or practices for supporting staff adequately, perhaps through focus group meetings,
the use of a suggestion box, or a regular staff survey. Furthermore, policies prescribed to increase
professional support in a facility may affect staff differently, depending on their job level. Facility
managers who intend to enhance professional support by particular interventions should monitor their
effects on satisfaction on all levels of staff.

Variation by facility type

Several notable differences were observed between nursing homes (high care) and hostels (low care).
Firstly, the mean composite scores for personal jobsatisfaction, workload, training, and professional
support were significantly lower for nursing home staff compared with hostel staff. Secondly, the
structural regression paths varied between the two groups. The main difference related to the effect of
training on workload, which was insignificant in the hostel group, and the effect of team spirit on
workload, which was absent in the nursing home group. Such differences must be taken into
consideration when developing effective strategies to improve staff satisfaction in each setting.

Training and workload

Education and training are important approaches for preparing, updating, and enriching staff, with the
expectation that they will then manage and perform their job better. The absence of a training effect on
workload in the hostel group might be due to the fact that hostel staff had a better educational
background and opportunities. For example, a significantly higher proportion of hostel than nursing
home staff had already completed an aged care-related course (67% versus 50%) and had adequate
opportunities to attend ongoing education during work time (76% versus 65%). L If staff are well
trained and satisfied with their training opportunities they will be better equipped to manage their work.
For nursing homes, the significant effect of training on workload may simply reflect the lack of training
opportunities during work time and the high workload of staff. Often, nursing home staff have to
struggle to finish their daily routine with more dependent residents who require extra care. Such heavy
workload is evident from the fact that, after adjusting for resident dependency, relatively fewer care
hours (about one-third less) were provided compared with hostels (t=4.52, df=39.44, P<0.001).
Workload is thus more of an issue in nursing homes. While staff may have difficulty finding time to
engage in training activities, training can enhance their professional development and in turn enable
them to better manage their work.
It has been suggested that commitment to in-service training can have a greater impact on quality
outcomes than the initial training of staff [3]. The sample statistics revealed that 59% of nursing home
staff were interested in further training relevant to their work. Moreover, the lack of opportunities to
attend in-service training during work time, and the fact that only half of the respondents had
completed an aged care-related course, indicate that nursing home staff do need additional training to
support their work.

Team spirit and workload

In general, nursing home staff were quire satisfied with their colleagues (team spirit mean score = 4.2).
However, this does not appear to enhance theirsatisfaction with workload. It is a common practice for
nursing home facilities to employ a large proportion of casual or agency staff, who work short or split
shifts, to supplement the limited number of regular staff. Within such an environment, where staff
come and go on a regular basis, there is little time or commitment to build up cooperative relationships,
and/or to facilitate team spirit.
Indeed, some nursing home respondents remarked that the use of casual staff sometimes create
additional workload for permanent staff, which has ramifications and possible detrimental effect on the
quality of care.

Limitations

As discussed previously, this research has some limitations. First of all, findings were based on
Western Australia data only, although Western Australia does have a full range of staffing
arrangements. In addition, the moderate response rate may weaken our conclusions about relationships
among satisfactioncomponents. Lack of information about non-responders is another limitation.
Recommendations

The results confirm the findings in the literature that management and leadership are pivotal to
staff satisfaction. Facility managers should consider implementing strategies and policies designed to
enhance staff jobsatisfaction, particularly in long-term care settings, where turnover is a problem. The
following strategies are suggested as examples that we believe will probably strengthen professional
support and promote staff satisfaction in residential aged care settings.
1. Organizing regular in-service training program that provide opportunities for
staff to update their practice, skills, and knowledge, especially in nursing home
settings.
2. Arranging regular staff meetings that allow staff at all levels to discus concerns
and difficult issues, exchange information and ideas, and support each other to
solve encountered problems.
3. Educating facility managers and senior staff about the important role that they
play and encouraging them to make changes when necessary and to have a
close and supportive relationship with staff.
4. Establishing a resource centre at the facility level, providing education and
training materials such as textbooks and videos, for staff to access as required
for encouraging self-initiated learning.
5. Sharing information, such as research reports, quality improvement tools, and
education and training materials, at regional, state or national level by
establishing an aged care support and resource center.
Overall it is important for facility managers to discuss with staff about how they might best
provide professional support.
Previous SectionNext Section

Conclusion

This study has shown that by increasing professional support all aspects of
staffsatisfaction can be enhanced. Since staff satisfaction has a positive impact on staff
retention [5, 6, 11], this finding is significant in terms of maintaining a stable staff and hence
continuity of quality care. Finally, effective strategies to improve staff satisfaction need to be
formulated separately for nursing homes and hostels, taking into account the different
relationships among satisfactioncomponents in each setting.
Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the staff and administrators of the 70 residential
aged care facilities who participated in this study. Without their cooperation and assistance
this research could not have been completed. The authors also wish to thank two anonymous
references for their thoughtful and constructive suggestions.
 Oxford University Press
Previous Section

References

1. ↵
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Population Projections, Canberra. Australian Government Publishing
Service, 1999.
2. ↵
Boldy D. Grenade L. Seeking the consumer view in aged care hostels - development of an Approach. In
Heumann LF, Miller S (eds): Sixth Internationa. Conference on Systems Sciences in Health Social
Services for the Elderly and Disabled, 22-25 May1997. Urbana-Champaign. University of Illinois,
1997; pp. 121-125.
3. ↵
 Pearson A, Hocking S, Mott S, Riggs A. Staff I. Australian nursing homes: their qualifications,
experience and attitudes. Contemporary Nurse 1993; 2: 15-22.
4. ↵
Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Sochalske J. Hospital organization and outcomes. Qual Health
Care 1998; 7: 222–226.
MedlineWeb of Science
5. ↵
Goodell TT, Coeling HVE. Outcomes of nursesU job satisfaction. J Nurs Admin1994; 24: 36l–41.
6. ↵
Borda RG, Norman IJ. Factors influencing turnover and absence of nurses: a research review. Int J
Nurs Stud 1997; 34: 385–394.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
7. ↵
Blegen MA. Nurses' job satisfaction: a meta-analysis of related variables. Nurs Res 1993; 42: 36–41.
MedlineWeb of Science
8. ↵
Spector PE. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of
thejob satisfaction survey. Am J Community Psychol 1985; 13: 693–713.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
9. ↵
Ametz BB. Staff perception of the impact of health care transformation on quality of care. Int J Qual
Health Care 1999; 11: 345–351.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. ↵
Weisman C, Nathanson C. Professional satisfaction and client outcomes. Med Care1985; 23: 1179–
1193.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
11. ↵
Irvine DM, Evans MG. Job satisfaction and turnover among nurses: integrating research findings
across studies. Nurs Res 1995; 44: 246–253.
MedlineWeb of Science
12. ↵
Francis-Felson LC, Coward RT, Hogan TL, Duncan RP, Hilker MA, Horne C. Factors influencing
intentions of nursing personnel to leave employment in long-term care settings. J Appl
Gerontol 1996; 15: 450–470.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. ↵
Borda RG, Norman IJ. Testing a model of absence and intent to stay in employment: a study of
registered nurses in Malta. Int J Nurs Stud 1997; 34: 375–384.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
14. ↵
Coward RT, Hogan TL, Duncan RP, Home CH, Hilker MA, Felsen LM. Jobsatisfaction of nurses
employed in rural and urban long-term care facilities. Res Nurs Health 1995; 18: 271–284.
MedlineWeb of Science
15. ↵
McGilton K, Pringle D. The effects of perceived and preferred control on nursesUjob satisfaction in
long-term care environments. Res Nurs Health 1999; 22: 251–261.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
16. ↵
Gleason-Wynn P. The Effects of Organizational, Client, and Personal Variables
onJob Satisfaction and Intention for Job turnover Among Nursing Home Social Workers. Ph.D. thesis.
Arlington, TX: The University of Texas, 1994.
17. ↵
Gillies DA, Foreman M, Pettengill MM. Satisfaction of nurse managers in long-term care. J Gerontol
Nurs 1996; 22: 33–40.
18. ↵
Brennan PL, Moos RH. Physical design, social climate, and staff turnover in skilled nursing facilities. J
Long-Term Care Admin 1990; 18: 22–27.
19. ↵
Pearson A, Hocking S, Mott S, Riggs A. Management and leadership in Australian nursing
homes. Nurs Pract 1992; 5: 24–28.
Medline
20. ↵
 Shader K, Broome ME, Broome CD, West ME, Nash M. Factors influencingsatisfaction and
anticipated turnover for nurses in an academic medical center. J Nurs Admin 2001; 31: 210–216.
CrossRef
21. ↵
Schmitt MH. Quality of care issues and nursing research that gives voice to the vulnerable. Res Nurs
Health 2000; 23: 177–178.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
22. ↵
Chou S-C, Boldy DP, Lee AH. Measuring job satisfaction in residential aged care.Int J Qual Health
Care 2002; 14: 49–54.
Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. ↵
Joreskog K, Sorbom D. LISREL 8 User's Reference Guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International Inc., 1996.
24. ↵
Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts,
Applications and Programming. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1998.
25. ↵
Joreskog K, Sorbom D, Du Toit S, Du Toit M. LISREL 8: New Statistical Features. Chicago IL.
Scientific Software International Inc., 1999.
26. ↵
Bollen KA, Long JS. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1993.
27. ↵
Holmes-Smith P, Rose KJ. The development and use of congeneric measurement models in school
effectiveness research: improving the reliability and validity of composite and latent variables for
fitting multilevel and structural equation models. In Holmes-Smith P. (ed). International Congress for
School Effectiveness and Improvement; January 1994. Melbourne. World Congress Centre, 1994; pp.
3-6.
28. Rowe KJ, Rowe KS. Investigating the relationship between studentsU attentive-inattentiv. behaviors in
the classroom and their literacy progress. Int J Educ Res 1999; 31: 1–138.
CrossRef
29. ↵
Munck ME. Model building in comparative education: applications of the LISREL method to cross-
national survey data. In International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
Monograph Series No. 10. Stockholm. Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1979.
30. ↵
Currivan DB. The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of
employee turnover. Hum Resource Manage Rev 2000; 9: 495–524.
31. ↵
Munro L, Rodwell J, Harding L. Assessing occupational stress in psychiatric nurses using the
full job strain model: the value of social support to nurses. Int J Nurs Stud1998; 35: 339–345.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
32. ↵
Prosser D, Johnson S, Kuipers E, Szmukler G, Bebbington P, Thornicroft G. Perceived sources of work
stress and satisfaction among hospital and community mental health staff, and their relations to mental
health, burnout and job satisfaction.J Psychosom Res 1997; 43: 51–59.
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
33. ↵
Marriott A, Sexton L, Staley D. Components of job satisfaction in psychiatric social workers. Health
Social Work 1994; 19: 199–205.
MedlineWeb of Science
34. ↵
Jöreskog K, Sörbom D. LISREL 8.30. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software international Inc.,1999.
35. ↵
Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford
Press, 1999.
36. ↵
Maruyama GM. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc., 1998.
37. ↵
Hayduk LA. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances.Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.
38. ↵
 Susskind AM, Borchgrevink CP, Kacmar KM, Brymer RA. Customer service employees' behavioral
intentions and attitudes: an examination of construct validity and a path model. Int J Hospitality
Manage 2000; 17: 53–77.
39. ↵
Beaulieu R, Shamian J, Donner G, Pringle D. Empowerment and commitment of nurses in long-term
care. Nurs Economic 1997; 15: 32