Validating the Instrument, Muteveri`S Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale
- Ebel Muteveri
- Joyzy Pius Egunjobi
- 5034-5040
- Jun 18, 2025
- Education
Validating the Instrument, Muteveri`S Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale
Ebel Muteveri and Dr. Joyzy Pius Egunjobi
Psycho-Spiritual Institute of Lux Terra Leadership Foundation, Marist International University College, a constituent College of the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000390
Received: 19 May 2025; Accepted: 23 May 2025; Published: 18 June 2025
ABSTRACT
To test the reliability and validity of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale, a cross-sectional online survey (20 items) was distributed via Google Forms to teachers at Mt Mellery Mission School in Nyanga District of Zimbabwe. Validity and reliability were tested. The internal consistency for items and the entire scale, as well as other measures of reliability, were tested. In addition, construct validity and criterion-referenced validity were measured. The construct validity, criterion-referenced validity, internal consistency reliability, and split-half reliability showed good results. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale achieved a correlation between Forms = 0.962; Spearman-Brown Coefficient rSB = 0.981; Guttman Split-Half Coefficient rsb = 0.978; Cronbach’s Alpha α = 0.937. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale is valid and reliable.
Keywords: Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale, Reliability, Validity.
INTRODUCTION
Teacher job satisfaction plays an important role in educational effectiveness, influencing teacher retention, classroom performance, and student outcomes. Recognising this, Muteveri created the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale (TJSS), a systematic questionnaire used to assess several aspects of job satisfaction among teachers across five dimensions: commitment, dedication, confidence, adaptability, and healthy teacher-student relationship. This study aimed to validate the instrument by analysing its theoretical underpinning and construct validity and reliability using statistical methods.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory: The Theoretical Basis
In 1959, Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman published the two-factor model of work motivation, which was based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and inspired the motivation-hygiene theory (Jones, 2011). The Two-Factor Theory of Motivation, often known as Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory, was created by American psychologist Frederick Herzberg (1923–2000). His study significantly impacted the knowledge of workplace motivation, job satisfaction, and management techniques (Herzberg, 2015). According to Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction, two sets of criteria influence whether an individual is happy or unhappy in their job.
- Motivators (Intrinsic Factors): such as achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and growth. These drive satisfaction when present.
- Hygiene Factors (Extrinsic Factors): such as salary, working conditions, policies, and interpersonal relationships. Their absence causes dissatisfaction, but their presence does not guarantee satisfaction.
The TJSS reflects this model by incorporating dimensions such as commitment, dedication, confidence, adaptability, and healthy teacher-student relationships, which resonate with intrinsic motivators promoting job satisfaction.
The Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale
Muteveri (2025) created the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale (TJSS) as a standardised tool to gauge several aspects of teachers’ job Satisfaction. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959), which highlights the difference between internal and extrinsic motivators of job satisfaction, served as the basis for the scale’s construction. Nonetheless, the goal of Muteveri’s scale is to measure the inherent qualities that are more closely linked to dedication and good attitudes in the teaching profession.
The 20 items that make up the TJSS are scored on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting “strongly disagree” and 5 denoting “strongly agree.” Respondents were invited to consider their attitudes and experiences as teachers. Because the scale is easy to administer and interpret, it can be used in a wide range of administrative and educational research settings.
The TJSS was divided into five major aspects by Muteveri, each of which represented a fundamental aspect of teacher satisfaction:
- Commitment (Items 1–4): This dimension assesses a teacher’s sense of accountability, attendance, and long-term plan to stay in the field. One important predictor of retention and performance is loyalty and emotional commitment to the teaching job, which is reflected in this (Ingersoll, 2001).
- Dedication (Items 5–8): These questions gauge a teacher’s enthusiasm for their work, drive to help pupils achieve better results, and general sense of fulfillment from their job. Herzberg’s motivational variables, like performance and acknowledgement, are in line with dedication and have a favourable impact on job satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959).
- 3. Confidence (Items 9–12): This subscale measures how confident a teacher is in their capacity to lead classes, interact with students, and use creative teaching techniques. Self-efficacy, a key determinant of job satisfaction and instructional effectiveness, is intimately related to confidence (Bandura, 1997).
- 4. Adaptability (Items 13–16): These assess a teacher’s ability to adjust to changes in the curriculum, technology, and needs of students, among other aspects of the learning environment. In dynamic educational systems, flexibility is essential for long-term job satisfaction (Day & Gu, 2007).
- Healthy Teacher-Student Relationships (Items 17–20): This dimension evaluates the degree of mutual respect, trust, and communication in the interpersonal relationships between educators and students. Higher teacher morale and job satisfaction have been repeatedly associated with positive teacher-student connections (Hamre & Pianta, 2006).
The TJSS’s holistic design guarantees that it examines professional and psychological dimensions of satisfaction and captures relational and adaptive capacities, providing a nuanced picture of the teacher’s work experience.
Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to examine the evidence for the internal consistency and criterion-referenced validity of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale by Muteveri (2025).
METHODOLOGY
A quantitative research approach was used to collect data from teachers at Mt Mellery Mission School, using Muteveri’s Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale. A purposive sample of teachers was chosen, and their responses were examined using SPSS to determine the instrument’s reliability and internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess reliability, which measures internal consistency among items within each subscale and throughout the entire scale. Descriptive statistics and item-total correlations were also analysed. 11 Teachers (2 Females and 9 Males) participated in the pilot test. Census was used to include all 11 Teachers in the study.
FINDINGS
Eleven respondents were sampled for the study, and all the teachers responded, meeting a 100% response rate. According to Dessel (2013), a response rate of 20% is considered good for an online survey, and a response rate of 30% is considered very good. The response rate of this study is considered extremely good.
The study measured teacher job satisfaction, focusing on five key domains: Commitment, Dedication, Confidence, Adaptability, and Healthy Teacher-Student Relationships. The majority of teachers scored high to very high, indicating a positive outlook. They expressed strong commitment to student success, confidence in classroom management, adaptability to curriculum changes, and high scores for Healthy Teacher-Student Relationships. The results suggest teachers are professionally motivated, emotionally resilient, and relationally engaged with their students.
Reliability statistics of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale
A test was conducted to find out the reliability of the internal consistency of Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale. The results were coded and analysed. The SPSS version 23 was used to carry out this statistical analysis. For the criterion-referenced validity test, a sample of the participants with the same characteristics as those for the study (11 teachers) responded to the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale. The data was coded, and the weighted mean was used to correlate the values to the weighted mean of the participants with the same characteristics as those for the study (11 teachers).
According to Cronbach (1951), the alpha analysis of α ˂ 0.5 is considered undesirable; α ≤ 0.6 is considered poor; α ≤ 0.7 is considered acceptable; α ˂ 0.9 is considered good; and α ≥ 0.9 is considered excellent.
Table 1: Reliability Statistics for Internal Consistency
No of items | Cronbach’s Alpha | Mean | Standard deviation |
20 | 0.937 | 4.55 | 0.522 |
As seen in Table 1, the reliability test results show that Muteveri’s Job Satisfaction scale had a total of 20 items and an alpha of α = 0.937 (M = 4.55, SD = 0.522), which is considered good.
Table 2. Correlations between Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction
SELFEFFICACY | JOBSATISFACTION | ||
SELFEFFICACY | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .688* |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .019 | ||
N | 11 | 11 | |
JOBSATISFACTION | Pearson Correlation | .688* | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .019 | ||
N | 11 | 11 | |
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
As seen in Table 3, findings revealed that there was a strong positive and significant relationship (r = 0.688, p = 0.019) between the teacher self-efficacy scale and the teacher job satisfaction scale among the survey population. Since the p-value (0.019) was less than 0.05, hence there is a relationship. The criterion-referenced test results show that the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale is valid. This finding indicates the possibility of using Self-Efficacy as a predictor of Teacher Job Satisfaction. In other words, this strong positive correlation affirms the TJSS’s criterion-referenced validity, supporting the established link between job satisfaction and self-efficacy.
Table 4. Split-Half Item correlation
Cronbach’s Alpha | Part 1 | Value | 0.864 |
N of Items | 10a | ||
Part 2 | Value | 0.877 | |
N of Items | 10b | ||
Total N of Items | 20 | ||
Correlation Between Forms | 0.962 | ||
Spearman-Brown Coefficient | Equal Length | 0.981 | |
Unequal Length | 0.981 | ||
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient | 0.978 |
As seen in Table 4, a split-half correlation analysis was carried out among the items of the Teacher Job Satisfaction scale. The Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha (a = 0.877), and the strength of Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r = 0.962), Spearman Coefficient (0.981), while the Guttman Split-Half Coefficient (0.978). Findings showed that all the items of the Teacher Job Satisfaction scale were strongly correlated. Findings showed that all the items of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale, were strongly correlated.
Comparison with other Job Satisfaction Scales
The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) are widely used to assess general job satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). While these instruments evaluate extrinsic and intrinsic factors broadly, they lack educator-specific constructs such as student relationships and pedagogical adaptability. In contrast, the TJSS is education-specific and contextually grounded, integrates Herzberg’s model with teacher-relevant factors and measures emotional and relational satisfaction dimensions, often neglected in traditional tools. This makes TJSS particularly well-suited for use in school settings, especially in mission-based or values-oriented institutions.
DISCUSSIONS
The current study aimed to assess the internal consistency and criterion-referenced validity of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale (TJSS) developed by Muteveri (2025). This scale was tested among a purposively selected group of teachers at Mt Mellery Mission School. Findings revealed high internal consistency and significant correlation with related constructs, providing preliminary evidence of the reliability and validity of the TJSS.
Reliability was a key focus of the study, and results demonstrated that the TJSS possesses excellent internal consistency, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.937. According to Mallery and George (2000), an alpha value above 0.9 is considered excellent, supporting the notion that the items within the scale reliably measure a coherent construct. Similarly, the split-half reliability indices, including the Spearman-Brown coefficient (0.981) and Guttman Split-Half Coefficient (0.978), affirmed the scale’s internal cohesion. These results align with Cronbach’s (1951) theoretical framework, which emphasises the importance of high alpha coefficients in assessing internal reliability.
The validity of the scale was further reinforced through criterion-referenced validity testing. Notably, the study revealed a significant positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction (r = 0.688, p = 0.019), suggesting a meaningful association between how competent teachers feel and their overall job satisfaction. This finding resonates with existing literature, which posits that teacher self-efficacy is a strong predictor of job satisfaction and motivation (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). When educators feel confident in their professional abilities, they are more likely to report satisfaction with their work environment and roles.
The scale also tapped into core domains of job satisfaction such as Commitment, Dedication, Confidence, Adaptability, and Healthy Teacher-Student Relationships, all of which are consistent with models of teacher well-being and engagement in professional literature (Day & Gu, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The high mean score (M = 4.55, SD = 0.522) suggests that participants generally felt fulfilled in their roles, pointing to the possible utility of the TJSS in assessing and promoting teacher well-being in faith-based educational contexts. The strong correlation between TJSS scores and teacher self-efficacy suggests potential predictive value for long-term outcomes. On Teacher Retentions, High scores in commitment and dedication may predict professional stability and lower attrition rates, echoing Ingersoll’s (2001) findings on retention and institutional engagement. Also, on Student Performance, items like confidence and healthy relationships, as measured by the TJSS, may correlate with student motivation, academic achievement, and classroom climate, areas worth exploring in longitudinal studies.
Furthermore, the 100% response rate in the pilot phase is noteworthy, as response rates are often a limitation in educational surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR, n.d.), as cited by Egunjobi (2024), notes that a response rate above 30% is considered very good for online surveys, making the full participation in this study exceptional and lending further credibility to the results. Nevertheless, qualitative feedback was informally gathered during the study. Several teachers described how their sense of purpose and fulfilment stemmed from external support, meaningful engagement with students, and witnessing student progress. Others expressed that trust from school leadership and collaboration with peers contributed to their sense of professional fulfilment. This qualitative input reinforces the statistical data, suggesting that the TJSS captures both structural and emotional aspects of job satisfaction.
However, the current study was conducted in a faith-based, culturally specific context, which may limit the generalizability of findings. The inclusion of items and subscales shaped by value-based motivations may resonate strongly in mission schools but require careful adaptation for non-religious or multicultural educational environments. For instance, the emphasis on intrinsic motivators and interpersonal dynamics might be interpreted differently across diverse educational systems. Future research should explore the TJSS’s applicability in secular or multi-faith schools, using comparative studies and confirmatory factor analysis to assess item relevance and cultural neutrality.
Overall, the findings suggest that the TJSS developed by Muteveri (2025) is a psychometrically sound tool for measuring job satisfaction among teachers, particularly within mission-based or value-oriented educational settings. However, future research with a larger, more diverse sample is recommended to further validate the scale across different contexts and to explore its factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis.
CONCLUSION
Muteveri’s (2025) Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale (TJSS) is a solid and theoretically grounded instrument for assessing job satisfaction among educators. Based on Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the scale measures key intrinsic motivators that influence teachers’ professional fulfillment, such as commitment, dedication, confidence, adaptability, and the quality of teacher-student connections. Its clear form, thorough coverage of essential characteristics, and ease of interpretation make it an invaluable tool for both study and practical application in educational contexts. The validation process, which was aided by good internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.937), confirmed the scale’s dependability in measuring the construct of job satisfaction. This shows that the TJSS can be used to assess satisfaction levels, inform school leadership decisions, and guide interventions aimed at improving teacher motivation, performance, and retention.
REFERENCES
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy the exercise of control. New York: H. Freeman & Co. Student Success, 333, 48461.
- Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
- Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423–443.
- Egunjobi, J. P. (2024). Guidelines to Thesis and Dissertation Writing. Lulu Press Inc.
- Mallery, P., & George, D. (2000). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
- Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships.
- Herzberg, F. (2015). Motivation-hygiene theory. Organizational behavior 1, 61-74.
- Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
- Jones, T. L. (2011). Effects of motivating and hygiene factors on job satisfaction among school nurses(Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
- Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756.
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
- Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77.
- Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. University of Minnesota.
APPENDIX
Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by picking up the most appropriate response. Use the scale provided. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Commitment | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
1 | I take my responsibility as a teacher very seriously. | |||||
2 | I go above and beyond my professional responsibilities to promote student success. | |||||
3 | I am always present and ensure that I do not miss classes. | |||||
4 | I intend to continue my teaching career here for the foreseeable future. | |||||
Dedication | ||||||
5 | I endeavour to provide the greatest outcomes for my Students. | |||||
6 | I am dedicated to developing my teaching abilities. | |||||
7 | I find teaching to be a fulfilling and rewarding job. | |||||
8 | I enjoy my work as a teacher. | |||||
Confidence | ||||||
9 | I am confident in my abilities to keep Students engaged during lessons. | |||||
10 | I am confident in my ability to manage difficult classroom circumstances. | |||||
11 | I believe I can motivate children to realize their full potential. | |||||
12 | I am confident in my capacity to adopt new educational approaches and technologies. | |||||
Adaptability | ||||||
13 | I adapt my teaching strategies to fit the requirements of varied students. | |||||
14 | I easily adjust to changes in curriculum and school procedures. | |||||
15 | I am comfortable incorporating new technologies into my teaching. | |||||
16 | As a teacher, I can effectively address unanticipated obstacles. | |||||
Healthy Teacher-Student Relationships | ||||||
17 | I interact positively and respectfully with my students. | |||||
18 | I provide a secure and supportive classroom environment for Students. | |||||
19 | I trust my students and provide guidance. | |||||
20 | I promote open conversation and mutual respect in the classroom. |
Scoring and Interpretation
Add the scores from all 20 items to calculate the overall job satisfaction score.
The possible range is 20–100, with higher scores indicating greater job satisfaction.
0 – 20 | Very Low |
21 – 40 | Low |
41 – 60 | Moderate |
61 – 80 | High |
81 – 100 | Very High |