Assessment of job satisfaction in people with intellectual disabilities: Towards best‐practice recommendations
Background The current body of research on job satisfaction of people with intellectual disability is based on highly diverse measures, originating both from the general population and people with intellectual disability. This heterogeneity represents a possible confounder. Best‐practice approaches...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities 2018-09, Vol.31 (5), p.804-819 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 819 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 804 |
| container_title | Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities |
| container_volume | 31 |
| creator | Kocman, Andreas Weber, Germain |
| description | Background
The current body of research on job satisfaction of people with intellectual disability is based on highly diverse measures, originating both from the general population and people with intellectual disability. This heterogeneity represents a possible confounder. Best‐practice approaches for the assessment of job satisfaction are hence needed.
Method
Using systematic literature review, job satisfaction measures were identified and analyzed with regard to their applicability for people with intellectual disability. Identified best‐practice measures (JDI/JIGS as well as RSM‐WS) were subsequently applied in the course of a pilot study with 129 employees of sheltered workshops. Comprehension, reliability and validity were assessed.
Results
The three identified instruments exhibit high reliability and validity. Comprehension was sufficient for JDI and JIGS but better for RSM‐WS.
Conclusions
The JDI/JIGS represent a feasible measures of job satisfaction allowing for comparisons with the general population. In samples with more severe intellectual disabilities, the RSM‐WS is preferable. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jar.12434 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1981733422</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1187017</ericid><sourcerecordid>2124455221</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3754-a52692eca013f2dc1487496777e89b96bc2066dc33d1cb1d42ceb17fcf9aa7b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhS1ERcuFBQ8AssQGFmn9lzjp7qoq0KpSJVTWlu1MhK-SOHgSXXXHI_CMPAm-pHSBVG_s0Xw6czyHkDecnfJ8znY2nXKhpHpGTriq6kJyVT_Pb1mxQkghjslLxB1jrOalfkGORSNqUXN1QqYtIiAOMM40dnQXHUU7B-ysn0McaRjpBHHqge7D_D2XM_Q9-HmxPW0DWhf6MAfAc3oX9za1SB3g_PvnrykdFDzQBD4OWb-1B0F8RY462yO8frg35Nuny7uLL8XN7eeri-1N4aUuVWFLUTUCvGVcdqL1-UNaNZXWGurGNZXzglVV66VsuXe8VcKD47rzXWOtdo3ckA-r7pTijyV7MkNAn83bEeKChjc111IqITL6_j90F5c0ZndG5LWqshSCZ-rjSvkUERN0ZkphsOnecGYOMZgcg_kbQ2bfPSguboD2kfy39wy8XQFIwT-2L685rzXLvjbkbO3vQw_3T08y19uv68g_YxmdQQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2124455221</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of job satisfaction in people with intellectual disabilities: Towards best‐practice recommendations</title><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Kocman, Andreas ; Weber, Germain</creator><creatorcontrib>Kocman, Andreas ; Weber, Germain</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The current body of research on job satisfaction of people with intellectual disability is based on highly diverse measures, originating both from the general population and people with intellectual disability. This heterogeneity represents a possible confounder. Best‐practice approaches for the assessment of job satisfaction are hence needed.
Method
Using systematic literature review, job satisfaction measures were identified and analyzed with regard to their applicability for people with intellectual disability. Identified best‐practice measures (JDI/JIGS as well as RSM‐WS) were subsequently applied in the course of a pilot study with 129 employees of sheltered workshops. Comprehension, reliability and validity were assessed.
Results
The three identified instruments exhibit high reliability and validity. Comprehension was sufficient for JDI and JIGS but better for RSM‐WS.
Conclusions
The JDI/JIGS represent a feasible measures of job satisfaction allowing for comparisons with the general population. In samples with more severe intellectual disabilities, the RSM‐WS is preferable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1360-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3148</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jar.12434</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29282814</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley-Blackwell</publisher><subject>assessment ; Best Practices ; Employee Attitudes ; Employment ; Evaluation Methods ; Intellectual disabilities ; Intellectual Disability ; Job Descriptive Index ; Job in General Scale ; Job Satisfaction ; Pilot Projects ; Reliability ; Residence Satisfaction Measure ; Severe Intellectual Disability ; Validity ; Workshops</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities, 2018-09, Vol.31 (5), p.804-819</ispartof><rights>2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3754-a52692eca013f2dc1487496777e89b96bc2066dc33d1cb1d42ceb17fcf9aa7b93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3754-a52692eca013f2dc1487496777e89b96bc2066dc33d1cb1d42ceb17fcf9aa7b93</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5892-4087</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjar.12434$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjar.12434$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1187017$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29282814$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kocman, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, Germain</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of job satisfaction in people with intellectual disabilities: Towards best‐practice recommendations</title><title>Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities</title><addtitle>J Appl Res Intellect Disabil</addtitle><description>Background
The current body of research on job satisfaction of people with intellectual disability is based on highly diverse measures, originating both from the general population and people with intellectual disability. This heterogeneity represents a possible confounder. Best‐practice approaches for the assessment of job satisfaction are hence needed.
Method
Using systematic literature review, job satisfaction measures were identified and analyzed with regard to their applicability for people with intellectual disability. Identified best‐practice measures (JDI/JIGS as well as RSM‐WS) were subsequently applied in the course of a pilot study with 129 employees of sheltered workshops. Comprehension, reliability and validity were assessed.
Results
The three identified instruments exhibit high reliability and validity. Comprehension was sufficient for JDI and JIGS but better for RSM‐WS.
Conclusions
The JDI/JIGS represent a feasible measures of job satisfaction allowing for comparisons with the general population. In samples with more severe intellectual disabilities, the RSM‐WS is preferable.</description><subject>assessment</subject><subject>Best Practices</subject><subject>Employee Attitudes</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Evaluation Methods</subject><subject>Intellectual disabilities</subject><subject>Intellectual Disability</subject><subject>Job Descriptive Index</subject><subject>Job in General Scale</subject><subject>Job Satisfaction</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Residence Satisfaction Measure</subject><subject>Severe Intellectual Disability</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Workshops</subject><issn>1360-2322</issn><issn>1468-3148</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhS1ERcuFBQ8AssQGFmn9lzjp7qoq0KpSJVTWlu1MhK-SOHgSXXXHI_CMPAm-pHSBVG_s0Xw6czyHkDecnfJ8znY2nXKhpHpGTriq6kJyVT_Pb1mxQkghjslLxB1jrOalfkGORSNqUXN1QqYtIiAOMM40dnQXHUU7B-ysn0McaRjpBHHqge7D_D2XM_Q9-HmxPW0DWhf6MAfAc3oX9za1SB3g_PvnrykdFDzQBD4OWb-1B0F8RY462yO8frg35Nuny7uLL8XN7eeri-1N4aUuVWFLUTUCvGVcdqL1-UNaNZXWGurGNZXzglVV66VsuXe8VcKD47rzXWOtdo3ckA-r7pTijyV7MkNAn83bEeKChjc111IqITL6_j90F5c0ZndG5LWqshSCZ-rjSvkUERN0ZkphsOnecGYOMZgcg_kbQ2bfPSguboD2kfy39wy8XQFIwT-2L685rzXLvjbkbO3vQw_3T08y19uv68g_YxmdQQ</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Kocman, Andreas</creator><creator>Weber, Germain</creator><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5892-4087</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>Assessment of job satisfaction in people with intellectual disabilities: Towards best‐practice recommendations</title><author>Kocman, Andreas ; Weber, Germain</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3754-a52692eca013f2dc1487496777e89b96bc2066dc33d1cb1d42ceb17fcf9aa7b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>assessment</topic><topic>Best Practices</topic><topic>Employee Attitudes</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Evaluation Methods</topic><topic>Intellectual disabilities</topic><topic>Intellectual Disability</topic><topic>Job Descriptive Index</topic><topic>Job in General Scale</topic><topic>Job Satisfaction</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Residence Satisfaction Measure</topic><topic>Severe Intellectual Disability</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Workshops</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kocman, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, Germain</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kocman, Andreas</au><au>Weber, Germain</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1187017</ericid><atitle>Assessment of job satisfaction in people with intellectual disabilities: Towards best‐practice recommendations</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Res Intellect Disabil</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>804</spage><epage>819</epage><pages>804-819</pages><issn>1360-2322</issn><eissn>1468-3148</eissn><abstract>Background
The current body of research on job satisfaction of people with intellectual disability is based on highly diverse measures, originating both from the general population and people with intellectual disability. This heterogeneity represents a possible confounder. Best‐practice approaches for the assessment of job satisfaction are hence needed.
Method
Using systematic literature review, job satisfaction measures were identified and analyzed with regard to their applicability for people with intellectual disability. Identified best‐practice measures (JDI/JIGS as well as RSM‐WS) were subsequently applied in the course of a pilot study with 129 employees of sheltered workshops. Comprehension, reliability and validity were assessed.
Results
The three identified instruments exhibit high reliability and validity. Comprehension was sufficient for JDI and JIGS but better for RSM‐WS.
Conclusions
The JDI/JIGS represent a feasible measures of job satisfaction allowing for comparisons with the general population. In samples with more severe intellectual disabilities, the RSM‐WS is preferable.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley-Blackwell</pub><pmid>29282814</pmid><doi>10.1111/jar.12434</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5892-4087</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1360-2322 |
| ispartof | Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities, 2018-09, Vol.31 (5), p.804-819 |
| issn | 1360-2322 1468-3148 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1981733422 |
| source | Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | assessment Best Practices Employee Attitudes Employment Evaluation Methods Intellectual disabilities Intellectual Disability Job Descriptive Index Job in General Scale Job Satisfaction Pilot Projects Reliability Residence Satisfaction Measure Severe Intellectual Disability Validity Workshops |
| title | Assessment of job satisfaction in people with intellectual disabilities: Towards best‐practice recommendations |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T09%3A13%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20job%20satisfaction%20in%20people%20with%20intellectual%20disabilities:%20Towards%20best%E2%80%90practice%20recommendations&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20research%20in%20intellectual%20disabilities&rft.au=Kocman,%20Andreas&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=804&rft.epage=819&rft.pages=804-819&rft.issn=1360-2322&rft.eissn=1468-3148&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jar.12434&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2124455221%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2124455221&rft_id=info:pmid/29282814&rft_ericid=EJ1187017&rfr_iscdi=true |