See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/200824104

Discriminant Validation of Measures of Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement,

and Organizational Commitment

Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · May 1988

DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.73.2.139

CITATIONS READS

568 11,636

3 authors, including:

Daniel Wayne Russell

Iowa State University
190 PUBLICATIONS 29,165 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Big Brothers Big Sisters View project

family and community health View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Wayne Russell on 28 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1988, Vol. 73, No. 2,139-145 0021-9010/88/$00.75

Discriminant Validation of Measures of Job Satisfaction, Job

Involvement, and Organizational Commitment

Paul P. Brooke, Jr., and Daniel W. Russell James L. Price

College of Medicine Department of Sociology
University of Iowa University of Iowa

Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commit-
ment was empirically evaluated using data collected from a sample of 577 full-time employees of a
327-bed Veterans Administration Medical Center, The LISREL vi computer program was used to
conduct a confirmatory factor analysis of items from measures of these three concepts and to evalu-
ate relations between other job-related variables and the three attitudinal measures. Results of these
analyses indicated that the measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational com-
mitment assess empirically distinct concepts.

Despite the plausibility of commonly accepted conceptual
distinctions between the attitudes of job satisfaction, job in-
volvement, and organizational commitment (Kanungo, 1982;
Locke, 1976; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982), surprisingly little
rigorous empirical evidence of their discriminant validity has
been reported (Blau, 1985;Morrow, 1983). In keeping with sep-
arate research traditions regarding each construct, studies have
reported correlations in the range of .50 between job satisfac-
tion and job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, or job involvement and organizational commit-
ment (Cheloha & Farr, 1980; Gechman & Wiener, 1975; Hall
& Schneider, 1972; Mowday et al., 1982; Mowday, Steers, &
Porter, 1979; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Weissenberg & Gruen-
feld, 1968; Wood, 1974). Research has also indicated similar
patterns of relations between measures of these three attitudinal
variables and other job-related variables (e.g., absenteeism and
turnover; see reviews by Brooke, 1986a, 1986b). However, the
three variables have rarely been included in the same study or
measured simultaneously within a single sample (Kanungo,
1982; Morrow, 1983; Mowday et al., 1979; Rabinowitz & Hall,
1977; Steers, 1977). In the absence of rigorous empirical evi-
dence of their discriminant validity, the substantial associations
that have consistently been found between measures of the three
constructs and the similarities in their relations with other vari-
ables raise the possibility that job satisfaction, job involvement,
and organizational commitment may not be empirically dis-
tinct.
The increasing emphasis on multivariate models of organiza-
Paul Brooke is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Medical Ser-
vice Corps. This article is based on his doctoral dissertation in Hospital
and Health Administration at the University of Iowa, which was per-
formed under the guidance of James Price and Daniel Russell.
The research was conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Army
Long-Term Civilian Training Program. Opinions expressed herein do
not reflect an official position of the Department of Defense.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dan-
iel W. Russell, Graduate Program in Hospital and Health Administra-
tion, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242.
tional behavior in such areas as employee absenteeism (Brooke,
1986a; Steers & Rhodes, 1978, 1984) and turnover (Bluedorn,
1982; Mobley, 1982; Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986a) make it
likely that researchers will incorporate measures of job satisfac-
tion, job involvement, and organizational commitment in sin-
gle studies that address comprehensive models of organiza-
tional behavior. It therefore becomes important that an empiri-
cal basis be demonstrated for the assumption that these
measures assess distinct attitudinal constructs.
Distinctions Between the Constructs
The attitudes of job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951;
Locke, 1976), job involvement (Kanungo, 1982; Lawler& Hall,
1970; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977), and
organizational commitment (Mowday etal., 1979; Steers, 1977)
have generally been considered to represent distinct constructs
(Blau, 1985; Hammer, Landau, & Stern, 1981; Kanungo, 1982;
Locke, 1976; Mowday etal., 1982;Siegel&Ruh, 1973; Wiener
& Vardi, 1980). As a positive emotional state reflecting an
affective response to the job situation (Locke, 1976), job satis-
faction traditionally has been distinguished from job involve-
ment, which is defined as a cognitive belief state reflecting the
degree of psychological identification with one's job (Kanungo,
1982; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Locke, 1976; Rabinowitz & Hall,
1977). Although both constructs refer to the specific job, dis-
tinctions between the emotional state of liking one's job (job
satisfaction) and the cognitive belief state of psychological iden-
tification with one's job (job involvement) have been advanced
for some time (Locke, 1976; Kanungo, 1982).
Organizational commitment has been defined as the relative
strength of an individual's identification with and involvement
in a particular organization, which is characterized by belief in
and acceptance of organizational goals and values, willingness
to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and a desire to
maintain membership in the organization (Mowday et al.,
1982, p. 27). Mowday et al. (1982) argued that, with its focus
on the organization as a whole rather than the specific job and
emphasis on congruence between individual and organizational

139
140 P. BROOKE, JR., D. RUSSELL, AND 3. PRICE
goals, the attitude of attachment or loyalty to the employing
organization represented by organizational commitment is
conceptually distinct in its focus and time frame from the job-
specific attitudes of job satisfaction and job involvement. Sim-
ilar arguments for distinguishing organizational commitment
from the other two constructs on the basis of differences in their
referent objects have also been advanced (Kanungo, 1982;
Locke, 1976; Price & Mueller, 1986b; Steers, 1977).
Moderate zero-order correlations in the range of .30 to .56
between job satisfaction (particularly overall satisfaction or sat-
isfaction with the work itself), job involvement, and organiza-
tional commitment have been observed repeatedly in studies
that have investigated relations between these constructs (Chel-
oha&Farr, 1980; Gechman & Wiener, 1975; Hall & Schneider,
1972; Mowday et al., 1979, 1982; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977;
Weissenberg & Gruenfeld, 1968; Wood, 1974). In one of the
rare studies that included measures (abbreviated) of all three
constructs within a single sample, Hammer et al. (1981) re-
ported correlations of .47 between job satisfaction and job in-
volvement, .51 between job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, and .37 between job involvement and organiza-
tional commitment. In the absence of a well-developed theory
of causal relations among the three constructs (Bateman &
Strasser, 1984; Kanungo, 1982; Locke, 1976; Mowday et al.,
1982; Steers, 1977), consistent correlations of this magnitude
between different measures of the constructs have given rise to
concern over the potential for serious concept redundancy be-
tween job satisfaction and job involvement (Cheloha & Farr,
1980; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Saal, 1978) and between job in-
volvement and organizational commitment (Morrow, 1983).
Because the presence of even acceptable levels of random mea-
surement error (i.e., reliabilities of .80) considerably attenuates
the extent to which correlations reflect actual relations between
true scores on measures (Carmines & Teller, 1979), it seems
reasonable to assert that the moderate intercorrelations that
have been observed in previous studies represent lower bound
estimates of the actual relations among these constructs.
Although they both refer to the specific job and have generally
been considered to share common antecedents (Rabinowitz &
Hall, 1977), previous empirical evidence in support of retain-
ing a distinction between job satisfaction and job involvement
appears to be fairly persuasive. Lawler and Hall (1970) reported
factor analytic and correlational evidence that supported their
conceptual distinction between job satisfaction and job involve-
ment. Items pertaining to these two constructs and a third index
of intrinsic motivation loaded on three separate factors with
clearly interpretable structures. In addition, the three variables
differentially correlated with selected job characteristics. Al-
though they have not reported the use of factor analysis to assess
discriminant validity, several subsequent correlational studies
have concluded that job satisfaction and job involvement can
be differentiated (Blau, 1985; Gechman & Wiener, 1975; Gorn
& Kanungo, 1980; Wood, 1974).
The case for discriminant validity between organizational
commitment and the other two attitudinal constructs is not as
well developed. The arguments made by the proponents of the
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al.,
1982, pp. 27-28) contain semantic ambiguities that suggest two
areas of concern. First, organizational commitment is described
as an affective response. Such a description raises a question
as to whether organizational commitment is different from job
satisfaction, which is also described as an affective response.
Second, Mowday et al. (1982) incorporate the "willingness to
exert effort" as one of the dimensions of organizational com-
mitment. As a commonly accepted definition of motivation
(Price, 1972; Price & Mueller, 1986b), the willingness to exert
effort traditionally has been viewed as a closely related outcome
of job involvement (Kanungo, 1982; Lawler & Hall, 1970; Ra-
binowitz & Hall, 1977).
In their validation of the Organizational Commitment Ques-
tionnaire, Mowday et al. (1979, 1982) clearly sought to deal
with the issue of discriminant validity among measures of job
satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment.
However, none of their studies collected data regarding the three
variables within a single sample. Thus, the authors were forced
to rely on the analysis of correlations within and between sam-
ples to support their argument that the three constructs are em-
pirically distinct.
Her extensive review and comparison of the major forms of
"work commitment" used in organizational research (which in-
cluded job involvement and organizational commitment) led
Morrow (1983) to three conclusions that are relevant to the
present discussion. First, all of the measures analyzed were
marked by some concept redundancy. Second, the issue of
whether respondents can empirically discriminate among what
researchers see as logically distinct conceptualizations about
their values, jobs, and organizations has not yet been resolved.
Third, at a minimum, empirical comparisons of different forms
of "work commitment" within a single sample are in order
(Morrow, 1983, p. 497).
The present investigation was designed to evaluate the dis-
criminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, job involve-
ment, and organizational commitment within a single sample.
Two sets of analyses were conducted to address this issue. First,
a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted that tested
whether measures of these constructs were assessing distinct at-
titudinal dimensions. Second, relations between these three at-
titudinal variables and a number of other job-related variables
were examined. If measures of these three attitudinal variables
are assessing distinct constructs, then we would expect to find
that the three measures are differentially related to other job-
related variables.
Method
Sample
Data for the present analysis were collected as part of a larger study
of employee absenteeism among a sample of full-time employees of a
327-bed Veterans Administration Medical Center located in the upper
Midwest (Brooke, 1986b). In addition to blue-collar workers, clerical
employees, and registered nurses, the sample included managers and
non-nursing clinical staff. Questionnaires were distributed to all full-
time employees (excepting physicians and dentists) through the organi-
zational distribution system and returned by mail to Paul Brooke at the
University of Iowa.
A total of 577 usable responses to the survey yielded a response rate of
74.5%. This response rate compares favorably with other mail surveys
(Dillman, 1978). The sample consisted of 197 men (34.1%) and 380
 DISCRIMINANT VALIDATION OF ATTITUDE MEASURES
women (65.9%), of whom 346 (60.0%) were administrators and clinical
staff, 151 (26.2%) were registered nurses, and 80 (13.8%) were nonpro-
fessional employees. Sample representativeness appeared to be ade-
quate on the basis of comparisons of sample and population distribu-
tions by sex, pay category, and organizational subunit.
Measures
Multiple-item survey measures were used to operationalize the three
attitudinal variables of interest and other variables (i.e., routinization,
centralization, distributive justice, role stress, work involvement, and
kinship responsibility) that have generally been considered to be related
to job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment
(Kanungo, 1982; Locke, 1976;Mowdayetal., 1982; Rabinowitz& Hall,
1977). In addition to the survey measures, pay (annual salary obtained
from an organizational roster) was also included in the analysis.
Job satisfaction was operationalized using a 6-item index that Price
and Mueller (1981,1986b) adapted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951) to
measure the extent of global satisfaction with the job. These items have
demonstrated satisfactory levels of reliability and validity in other re-
search (Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986a; Sorensen, 1985; Wakefleld,
1982). Job involvement was assessed using the 10-item index developed
by Kanungo (1982) to measure the degree to which the individual iden-
tifies with his or her present job. Kanungo (1982) reported evidence
supporting the reliability and validity of this measure. Organizational
commitment was operationalized using the 9-item version of the Organ-
izational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Porter, Steers,
Mowday, and Boulian (1974) to measure the extent to which the individ-
ual identifies with organizational goals, is willing to exert effort on be-
half of the organization, and intends to remain a member of the organi-
zation (Mowday etal., 1982). The reliability and validity of the 15-item
version of this index have been demonstrated (Ferris & Aranya, 1983;
Mowday et al., 1979). Acceptable results on the basis of the 9-item ver-
sion have also been reported (Angle & Perry, 1981; Price & Mueller,
1981,1986a; Sorensen, 1985; Wakefield, 1982).
Routinization was assessed using a 6-item index developed by Price
and Mueller (1981) to measure the degree to which tasks are repetitive.
This index has consistently demonstrated satisfactory levels of reliabil-
ity and validity in other research (Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986a; Sor-
ensen, 1985; Wakefield, 1982). Centralization was operationalized using
a 4-item index developed by Price and Mueller (1981) to measure the
degree to which power is concentrated in the organization. These items
have demonstrated satisfactory levels of reliability and validity in other
studies (Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986a; Wakefield, 1982). Distributive
justice was assessed using a 6-item index adopted from Price and
Mueller (1981,1986a). This index measures the degree of fairness with
which organizational rewards are related to performance inputs by or-
ganizational members. Sorensen (1985) reported satisfactory levels of
reliability and validity for this index in a previous study.
Role stress was operationally denned using a combined index of role
ambiguity (three items) and role conflict (three items) adopted from
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, and Snoek (1964) and Rizzo, House, and Lirtz-
man (1970). A confirmatory factor analysis of the six items using the
LISREL VI program supported the existence of two factors that were cor-
related at .88, suggesting that the measures were not assessing distinct
constructs. Hem loadings for a one-factor model ranged from .60 to
.75. On the basis of this empirical evidence and a reexamination of the
conflict items, it was concluded that all six items were measuring a single
construct rather than the two distinct constructs that had been in-
tended.
Work involvement was measured using a 6-item index developed by
Kanungo (1982) to measure the extent to which the work role occupies
a position of centrality in the individual's life. Work involvement refers
to a personal code of ethics regarding work in general (normative beliefs)
141
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
Variable M SD
Pay" 9.90 0.32
Job satisfaction 20.71 4.67
Job involvement 27.29 6.26
28.29
Organizational commitment 5.78
Routinization 14.60 3.65
10.33
Centralization 3.29
Distributive j ustice 17.75 6.12
Role stress 15.09 4.23
Work involvement 17.64 4.26
Kinship responsibility 2.34 1.53
8
This variable represents the natural log of pay, which was used in the
analysis.
and is distinguished from job involvement, which refers to cognitive
beliefs regarding a specific job (Kanungo, 1982, p. 116). A confirmatory
factor analysis of the items measuring work involvement and job in-
volvement replicated the findings of Kanungo (1982) concerning the
presence of two correlated but distinct factors.
Kinship responsibility refers to family obligations arising from kin-
ship groups within the local community. Following the approach of
Price and Mueller (1981,1986a), this variable was operationalized as a
composite index based on the sum of marital status (0 = not married,
1 = married), presence of children under 7 years of age (0 = none, 1 =
one child, 2 = two or more children), presence of children from 7 to 17
years of age (0 = none, 1 = one child, 2 = two or more children), presence
of adult relatives other than spouse (0 = none, 1 = one ormorerelatives),
respondent's relatives residing within 25 miles (0 = none, 1 = one or
more), and spouse's relatives residing within 25 miles (0 = none, I =
one or more). The reliability and validity of this measure appear to be
adequate on the basis of previous research (Curry, Wakefield, Price,
Mueller, & McCloskey, 1985; Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986a). Descrip-
tive statistics for these measures on the basis of the study sample are
provided in Table 1.
Analytic Methods
The analysis used the maximum likelihood methods of LISREL vi (Jor-
eskog & Sorbom, 1984) to assess the discriminant validity of the three
attitudinal variables. This computer program is designed to conduct
structural equation analysis using latent variables. As such, the LISREL
program represents a combination of factor and causal modeling analy-
ses. In testing causal models, the program uses measured or manifest
variables as indicators of latent variables or factors. Relations among
the latent variables are evaluated to test the hypothesized causal model.
By using latent variables or factors in testing a causal model, the effects
of random measurement error, which tend to attenuate measures of
association, are removed from the analysis. As a result, the LISREL pro-
gram provides less biased estimates of structural coefficients or corre-
lations than do procedures that are based on measured or manifest vari-
ables.
As its second major advantage, the LISREL program provides an over-
all chi-square test of the extent to which the hypothesized model (or
alternative models) are able to account for relations among the mea-
sured variables. This chi-square statistic is computed on the basis of
the differences between the sample covariance matrix (i.e., the relations
among the measured variables that are observed in the data) and a "re-
produced" covariance matrix (i.e., relations among the measured vari-
ables that are predicted on the basis of the parameters of the model).
One problem with the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic is that it is
142 P. BROOKE, JR., D. RUSSELL, AND J. PRICE
sensitive to sample size and violations of the assumption of multivariate
normality (Bentler, 1983; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984). As a result, trivial
differences between the sample and reproduced covariance matrices are
likely to produce a statistically significant chi-square in a model with as
many variables and a sample size as large as those of the present study
(Bentler, 1980; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Cutrona, Russell, & Jones,
1984).
Because of this limitation of the chi-square test, the evaluation of
the goodness of model fit was based on considerations other than the
statistical significance of the chi-square. One statistic that was com-
puted was the ratio of the chi-square to degrees of freedom (Carmines
& Mclver, 1981; Hoetler, 1983). A ratio of less than 2.0 is generally
considered indicative of an excellent model fit. Second, the normed fit
index (A), developed by Bentler and Bonett (1980), was computed by
comparing the chi-square for the model to the chi-square for a null
model that hypothesized complete independence among the measured
variables. One advantage of A is that it is not affected by sample size or
the number of degrees of freedom for the model.
Finally, we also evaluated differences in the chi-square statistics for
alternative models. The latter approach had particular relevance for
testing discriminant validity, because it is a means of evaluating the ex-
tent to which alternative models provide an improved fit to the data.
Bentler (1980) has suggested that, if one can specify an alternative model
that is a subset of an initial model, the difference in chi-square values
between the two models is distributed as a chi-square with degrees of
freedom equal to the difference in degrees of freedom for the models
(Bentler, 1980, pp. 428-429). As discussed later, the analysis of differ-
ences in chi-squares between alternative models formed a statistical ba-
sis for testing hypotheses related to the discriminant validity of the three
attitudinal measures.
Two procedures were used to evaluate discriminant validity. The first
involved a confirmatory factor analysis of the items pertaining to the
indices of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commit-
ment. This analysis compared the fit of a three-factor model (where the
factors represented each of the attitudinal constructs) that permitted
correlations between the factors to the fit of an alternative model that
hypothesized a single factor as underlying the attitudinal variables.
The second procedure investigated relations between other job-re-
lated variables (i.e., routinization, centralization, distributive justice,
role stress, work involvement, kinship responsibility, and pay) and the
three attitudinal variables of interest (i.e., job satisfaction, job involve-
ment, and organizational commitment). This analysis tested the hy-
pothesis that the correlations were the same between these job-related
variables and each of the attitudinal variables. Assuming that the mea-
sures are assessing distinct constructs, we would expect to find that mea-
sures of these constructs relate differently to measures of other job-re-
lated variables. This second procedure represents a more rigorous test
of discriminant validity for the three attitudinal measures. Because
each measure uses a different method of assessment (e.g., differing re-
sponse formats), distinct but correlated factors could be found from the
confirmatory factor analysis that simply reflected different methods of
assessment. In order to establish discriminant validity, therefore, it is
also necessary to demonstrate different patterns of association with
measures of other job-related variables for each attitudinal variable.
The technique for testing the hypothesis that the relations are equal
between each of the job-related variables and the three attitudinal vari-
ables involved comparing the chi-square statistics for two models. In
the first model, the correlations between the job-related variables and
job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment were
freely estimated using the LISREL program. In the second model, the
correlations between the job-related variables and the three attitudinal
variables were specified as being equal (e.g., routinization had the same
relation with job satisfaction, job involvement, and commitment). A
nonsignificant difference in the goodness of fit between these two
Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Factor loadings
Indicator SAT JI COM
SAT1 .825
SAT2 .808
SATS .894
JI1 .794
JI2 .829
JI3 .800
COM1 .860
COM2 .829
COM3 .876
Note. SAT = Job Satisfaction; JI = Job Involvement; COM = Organiza-
tional Commitment. All factor loadings were statistically significant,
p<.001.
models would constitute a failure to reject the null hypothesis. Inability
to reject the hypothesis of equal correlations would raise serious con-
cerns regarding the discriminant validity of these measures.
For these LISREL analyses, the individual items from the measures
were combined to form three indicators per construct. This was done
to reduce the ratio between the number of subjects and the number of
parameters to be estimated by the model. Bentler (1985) has recom-
mended that a ratio of at least five subjects per parameter be maintained
in order to derive reliable estimates of the parameters. These ratios
ranged from 5.95 to 31.38 for the models that were tested.
In order to develop three indicators for each construct, a one-factor
model was fit to the items from each measure using the LISREL program.
Three indicators for each variable were then formed on the basis of the
factor analysis results. Those items with the highest and lowest loadings
were combined first, items with the next highest and lowest loadings
were combined next, and so on, until all items pertaining to a given
construct had been assigned to one of the three indicators. Scores for
each indicator were then computed as the mean of the scores on the
pertinent items. Pay and kinship responsibility were treated as manifest
variables that were assumed to be measured without error. A covariance
matrix of these indicators using listwise deletion of missing values
formed the input for the LISREL analyses.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The first model that was tested hypothesized that three corre-
lated factors underlie the measures of job satisfaction, job in-
volvement, and organizational commitment, with the factors
representing each of the attitudinal constructs. Estimates of the
factor loadings for the indicators of each variable are presented
in Table 2. This model yielded a x2(24, N = 565) = 58.25, p <
.001, for a chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of 2.43 and a
normed fit index (A) of .981. On the basis of criterion that A be
greater than or equal to .90 described by Bentler and Bonett
(1980), this model appeared to provide an excellent fit to the
data. Correlations between factors were as follows: .591, be-
tween job satisfaction and job involvement; .552, between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment; and .547, between
job involvement and organizational commitment.
A second model was fit to these data that hypothesized a sin-
 DISCRIMINANT VALIDATION OF ATTITUDE MEASURES
Table 3
LISREL Estimates of Relations Between Job-Related Variables
and Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and
Organizational Commitment
Job Job Organizational
Job-related variable satisfaction involvement commitment
Pay .247** .265*' .107*
Routinization -.554*' -.425** -.244**
Centralization -.560" -.385** -.391"
Distributive justice .393** .364" .462"
Role stress -.386** -.101* -.308**
Work involvement .339** .728" .431"
Kinship responsibility .050 -.047 .128*
*p<.05.**p<.001.
gle factor underlying the measures. This model specified that
the instruments represented alternative measures of the same
construct. If such a model fit the data as well as the three-factor
model, then we would conclude that the measures lacked dis-
criminant validity. This model provided a very poor fit to the
data, x2(27, N = 565) = 1050.01, p < .001, for a chi-square/
degrees of freedom ratio of 38.89 and a A of .655. A comparison
of the fit of these two models indicated that the three-factor
model provided a significantly better fit to the data, %2(3, N =
565) = 991.76, p < .001. Thus, we can reject the hypothesis that
a single factor underlies these measures.
Correlations With Other Job-Related Variables
Table 3 presents the LISREL estimates of correlations between
the seven job-related variables (i.e., routinization, centraliza-
tion, distributive justice, role stress, work involvement, kinship
responsibility, and pay) and the attitudes of job satisfaction, job
involvement, and organizational commitment. The model
summarized in Table 3 yielded a x2(256, N = 565) = 594.29,
p < .001, for a chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of 2.32 and
a A of .936.
A review of the correlations presented in Table 3 provides
some evidence of differences in relations for the three attitudi-
nal constructs. Routinization had a strong negative relation
with job satisfaction and job involvement, whereas the negative
association with organizational commitment was much smaller
in magnitude. Role stress had strong negative correlations with
job satisfaction and organizational commitment, whereas the
association with job involvement was very weak. Work involve-
ment had positive correlations with all three attitudinal vari-
ables, but was much stronger in its relation with job involve-
ment. Kinship responsibility was significantly related to organi-
zational commitment, but not to the other two attitudinal
constructs. Individuals who reported greater kinship responsi-
bility also indicated greater commitment to the organization.
Finally, pay was moderately positively related to job satisfaction
and job involvement, whereas the association with organiza-
tional commitment was less strong.
A statistical test of the equality of relations between the job-
related variables and the attitudinal variables was conducted by
specifying a model in which the correlation of each job-related
143
variable with job involvement and organizational commitment
was constrained to equal the correlation of the job-related vari-
able with job satisfaction. Thus, for example, the correlation of
routinization with job involvement and organizational com-
mitment was specified as being equal to the correlation between
routinization and job satisfaction. This model also fit the data
well, yielding a *2(270, N = 565) = 824.61, p < .001, for a chi-
square/degrees of freedom ratio of 3.05 and a A of .911. A com-
parison of the fit between this model representing a hypothesis
of no differences between the attitudinal variables and the
model presented in Table 3 yielded a x2( 14, N = 565) = 230.32,
p < .001. The magnitude and statistical significance of this
difference in chi-squares was evidence that constraining the cor-
relations between the job-related variables and the attitudinal
variables to be equal resulted in a significantly poorer represen-
tation of the relations present in the data. Therefore, these re-
sults indicated that the measures of job satisfaction, job in-
volvement, and organizational commitment were assessing em-
pirically distinct constructs that were related differently to the
other job-related variables that were included in the analysis.
Discussion
The results of these analyses provide evidence that respon-
dents are able to distinguish between the extent to which they
like their job (satisfaction), the degree to which they are ab-
sorbed in or preoccupied with their job (involvement), and the
degree of attachment or loyalty they feel toward their employ-
ing organization (commitment). Confirmatory factor analysis
of the items from the three attitudinal measures provided evi-
dence of three empirically distinct constructs that were moder-
ately intercorrelated. These results are consistent with pre-
viously cited analyses of associations between the three vari-
ables. They also replicate the favorable findings of Mowday et
al. (1979, 1982) regarding the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire, and of Kanungo (1982) concerning the index of
job involvement.
The ability to reject statistically a null hypothesis of equal
relations between the three attitudinal variables and seven job-
related variables also provides empirical support for the dis-
criminant validity of the measures of job satisfaction, job in-
volvement, and organizational commitment. These results are
further supported by the consistency of observed differences in
the correlations with theoretical arguments for conceptual dis-
tinctions between these job-related attitudes. For example, al-
though for routinization there were significant negative re-
lations with all three attitudinal variables, this variable was
strongly related to job satisfaction and job involvement and
only weakly related to organizational commitment. These find-
ings are consistent with the hypothesized job-specificity of job
satisfaction and job involvement and, therefore, support dis-
tinctions between organizational commitment and these other
attitudinal measures. The strong negative relation between role
stress and job satisfaction in conjunction with the weak relation
between role stress and job involvement is evidence that these
two job-specific attitudes are empirically distinct. There were
positive relations for work involvement with all three attitudi-
nal variables, but this variable was much more strongly related
to job involvement than to job satisfaction or organizational
144 P. BROOKE, JR., D. RUSSELL, AND J. PRICE
commitment. This is consistent with the long tradition that has
considered work values resulting from prior socialization into
"middle class work norms" to be a major determinant of job
involvement (Kanungo, 1982). The positive relation between
kinship responsibility and organizational commitment along
with the nonsignificant relation between kinship responsibility
and job satisfaction and job involvement are consistent with
the argument that attachment to the employing organization is
influenced by considerations of kinship ties to the local commu-
nity (Mowdayetal., 1982).
Note that the present results may overstate both the strength
of relations among the three job attitude variables and their re-
lations with the other job-related variables that were included
in the study. Because all of these data involved the same basic
method of assessment (i.e., self-reports of employees), shared
method variance may have inflated the relations among the la-
tent variables. Such a method artifact would not, of course,
affect our conclusions regarding discriminant validity of the at-
titudinal measures. However, use of multiple methods of assess-
ment (e.g., behavioral observations, ratings by observers) would
be necessary to develop more accurate estimates of the relations
among the latent variables. The latent variable methods used
in the LISREL program are uniquely suited to analyzing such
multimethod data.
Three suggestions for future research derive from the present
findings. First, there is a need to replicate these findings. The
use of a single federal hospital as the research site is a potential
limitation on the generalizability of these results. Attempts
should be made to replicate these analyses in other types of hos-
pitals and among organizations in other industries. Second, fu-
ture research efforts aimed at assessing relations between other
job-related variables and the three attitudes should include at
least two additional variables—work group integration and op-
portunities for alternative employment—whose absence from
the present analysis constitutes a limitation. Third, the present
analysis specifically avoided statements or hypotheses regarding
possible causal relations among the attitudinal constructs. On
the basis of the empirical evidence of discriminant validity
demonstrated in this study, future research should build on the
conceptual distinctions between these three attitudinal vari-
ables, which have long been suggested by the literature, and in-
vestigate the possibility of causal interrelations as an explana-
tion for the substantial associations that have repeatedly been
found to exist between job satisfaction, job involvement, and
organizational commitment.
References
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organi-
zational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the ante-
cedents of organizational commitment. Academy of Management
Journal, 27, 95-112.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal
modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Bentler, P. M. (1983). Some contributions to efficient statistics in struc-
tural models: Specification and estimation of moment structures.
Psychometrika, 48, 493-517.
Bentler, P. M. (1985). Theory and implementation ofEQS:A structural
equations program. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 588-606.
Blau, G. J. (1985). A multiple study investigation of the dimensionalty
of job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 9-36.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and
meaning. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of orga-
nizations (pp. 75-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.
Brooke, P. P., Jr. (1986a). Beyond the Steers and Rhodes model of em-
ployee attendance. Academy of Management Review, 11, 345-361.
Brooke, P. P., Jr. (1986b). A causal model of employee absenteeism.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Carmines, E. G., & Mclver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unob-
served variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Born-
stedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp.
65-116). Beverly Hills, CAi Sage.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assess-
ment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cheloha, R. S., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Absenteeism, job involvement and
job satisfaction in an organizational setting. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 65,467-473.
Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. P., Mueller, C. W., & McCloskey,
J. C. (1985). Determinants of turnover among nursing department
personnel. Research in Nursing and Health, 8,397-411.
Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., & Jones, R. D. (1984). Cross-situational
consistency in causal attributions: Does "attributional style" exist?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,1043-1058.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design
method. New York: Wiley.
Ferris, K. R., & Aranya, N. (1983). A comparison of two organizational
commitment scales. Personnel Psychology, 36, 87-98.
Gechman, A. S., & Wiener, Y. (1975). Job involvement and satisfaction
as related to mental health and personal time devoted to work. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 60, 521-523.
Corn, G. J., & Kanungo, R. N. (1980). Job involvement and motiva-
tion: Are intrinsically motivated managers more job involved? Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 265-277.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identi-
fication as a function of career pattern and organizational type. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340-350.
Hammer, T. H., Landau, J. C., & Stem, R. N. (1981). Absenteeism
when workers have a voice: The case of employee ownership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 66, 561-573.
Hoetler, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-
of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325-344.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL vi user's guide. Moores-
ville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., &Snoek, J. D. (1964). Organi-
zational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New \fork: Wi-
ley.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation. New York: Praeger.
Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics
to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 1293-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement
of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.
Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences and
control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research:
 DISCRIMINANT VALIDATION OF ATTITUDE MEASURES 145

The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8,
486-500.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organi-
zation linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and
turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement
of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14,
224-247.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among
psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,603-609.
Price, J. L. (1972). Handbook of organizational measurement. Lexing-
ton, MA: Heath.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Professional turnover: The case of
nurses. New York: Spectrum.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986a). Absenteeism and turnover among
hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986b). Handbook of organizational
measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D. T. (1977). Organizational research on job
involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and
ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 15, 150-163.
Saal, F. E, (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 63, 53-61.
Siegel, A. L., & Ruh, R. A. (1973). Job involvement, participation in
decision making, personal background and job behavior. Organize
tionat Behavior and'Human Performance, 9, 318-327.
Sorensen, W. fl. (1985). A causal model of organizational commitment.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational com-
mitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22,46-56.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee
attendance: Aprocess model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-
407.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1984). Knowledge and speculation
about absenteeism. In P. S. Goodman & R. S. Atkin (Eds.), Absentee-
ism (pp. 229-275). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wakefield, D. S. (1982). Organizational commitment of full-time and
part-time registered nurses: A contingency approach. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University oflowa.
Weissenberg, P., & Gruenfeld, L. W. (1968). Relationship between job
satisfaction and job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52,
469-473.
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationship between job, organizational
and career commitments and work outcomes: An integrative ap-
proach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 81 -
96.
Wood, D. A. (1974). Effect of worker orientation differences on job atti-
tude correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 54-60.
Received April 23, 1986
Revision received June 23, 1987
Accepted July 9, 1987 •

Call for Nominations for Behavioral Neuroscience

The Publications and Communications Board has opened nominations for the editorship of
Behavioral Neuroscience for the years 1990-1995. RichardF. Thompson is the incumbent edi-
tor. Candidates must be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts
in early 1989 to prepare for issues published in 1990. Please note that the P&C Board encour-
ages more participation by women and ethnic minority men and women in the publication
process and would particularly welcome such nominees. Submit nominations no later than
August 1, 1988 to

Martha Storandt
Department of Psychology
Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri 63130

Other members of the search committee are Byron Campbell, Mortimer Mishkin, Mark Rosen-
zweig, and Shepard Siegel.

View publication stats