German Job Satisfaction

1. Abstract

The Job Description Questionnaire (known natively as the Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen, or ABB) is a landmark psychometric instrument developed by Oswald Neuberger and Mechthild Allerbeck in 1978 to assess multidimensional job satisfaction within German-speaking working populations. Modeled theoretically and structurally after the widely recognized American Job Descriptive Index (JDI) by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969), the ABB conceptualizes occupational satisfaction not as a unitary, undifferentiated sentiment, but as a complex cognitive-evaluative attitude formed across discrete facets of the work environment. The standardized inventory comprises 79 items distributed across seven primary facet subscales: My Colleagues (Kollegen; 8 descriptive items plus 1 Kunin global summary item), My Supervisor (Vorgesetzter; 12 descriptive items plus 1 Kunin global item), My Activity (Tätigkeit; 12 descriptive items plus 1 Kunin global item), My Working Conditions (Arbeitsbedingungen; 11 descriptive items plus 1 Kunin global item), Organization and Management (Organisation und Leitung; 13 descriptive items plus 1 Kunin global item), My Development (Entwicklung; 9 descriptive items plus 1 Kunin global item), and My Pay (Bezahlung; 7 descriptive items plus 1 Kunin global item).

The questionnaire utilizes a balanced polarity framework to mitigate acquiescence bias, presenting descriptive adjectives and short phrases rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “Yes”, 2 = “Rather Yes”, 3 = “Rather No”, 4 = “No”). Each subscale concludes with a summary evaluation assessed via a 7-point non-verbal Kunin faces scale ranging from extreme dissatisfaction to extreme satisfaction. Psychometric evaluations across broad industrial and administrative cohorts (totaling well over 7,000 working adults across 20 organizations) establish robust reliability benchmarks: split-half (Spearman-Brown) coefficients range between .81 and .91, and internal consistency coefficients (Kuder-Richardson / Cronbach’s alpha) range between .83 and .89 across the subscales. Extensive validity studies verify construct and criterion validity through observed correlations with objective job complexity indices (Position Analysis Questionnaire), personality traits, absenteeism rates, leadership behavior inventories, and concurrent measures of work satisfaction.

2. Keywords

Job satisfaction, Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen, ABB, work attitudes, organizational psychology, job descriptive index, facet satisfaction, employee attitudes, psychometrics, occupational health psychology, cognitive evaluation, work conditions, workplace assessment.

3. Authors

The Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen (ABB) was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically standardized by:

• Prof. Dr. Oswald Neuberger: Renowned German organizational psychologist and Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Augsburg (Universität Augsburg), Germany. Prof. Neuberger has authored foundational German texts in organizational psychology, leadership, micro-politics, and organizational diagnostics.
• Dr. Mechthild Allerbeck: Prominent social scientist and psychometrician specializing in organizational survey methodology, workplace attitudes, and quantitative assessment techniques in German industrial settings.

Institutional Origin: Institut für Psychologie, Universität Augsburg, and empirical research cohorts derived from Southwest German chemical manufacturing plants, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, and extensive multi-industry collaborations. Author contact addresses are no longer actively maintained in the original test documentation archive; archival test access is maintained via test publishers and academic psychological repositories such as the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen is the comprehensive, differentiated diagnostic assessment of cognitive and evaluative attitudes held by employees toward distinct, identifiable facets of their employment. While early organizational research frequently treated job satisfaction as an amorphous, singular construct, organizational realities demonstrate that an employee can simultaneously experience high satisfaction with daily task execution alongside intense dissatisfaction with compensation, executive leadership, or physical work conditions. The ABB was engineered to disentangle these distinct operational domains, granting researchers and human resource practitioners a granular diagnostic profile of organizational health.

From an applied organizational perspective, the ABB serves multiple diagnostic, developmental, and evaluative purposes:

• Organizational Diagnostics and Climate Surveys: Serving as a core instrument in internal employee surveys (Mitarbeiterbefragungen), the ABB highlights organizational departments or functional units experiencing specific structural deficits, such as inadequate supervision, deficient developmental trajectories, or physical workspace ergonomics.
• Intervention Planning and Evaluation: By administering the ABB before and after organizational restructuring, job enrichment programs, supervisory leadership coaching, or physical workplace redesigns, practitioners can directly measure facet-specific improvements versus unintended negative side effects.
• Occupational Health and Absenteeism Research: Occupational psychologists employ the ABB to analyze the psychological mechanisms linking perceived work conditions to burnout, psychological strain, counterproductive work behavior, and physical absenteeism.
• Personnel Selection and Placement Validation: As a criterion metric, facet satisfaction scores are correlated against biographical, personality, and vocational aptitude predictors to determine person-job and person-organization fit.

In academic research, the ABB addresses fundamental questions in industrial and organizational psychology. Neuberger and Allerbeck developed the inventory in response to a critical deficit in German-language psychometrics during the 1970s: the reliance on translated foreign scales without rigorous psychometric re-standardization or on simplistic single-item global indicators. By grounding the instrument in descriptive appraisal—asking respondents to judge the presence or absence of specific workplace attributes rather than purely venting subjective emotional states—the ABB bridges the gap between objective work characteristics and subjective well-being.

5. Psychological Construct

The ABB defines job satisfaction as a multidimensional cognitive-evaluative attitude toward one’s job situation. Following classical attitudinal theory, work experiences are perceived, cognitively organized, and evaluatively encoded on a bipolar continuum ranging from favorable (“good”) to unfavorable (“bad”). This cognitive registration subsequently influences behavioral intentions, organizational citizenship, engagement, and withdrawal (e.g., turnover, absenteeism). Rather than collapsing these attitudes into an overarching, undifferentiated score, the ABB articulates seven substantive dimensions:

1. My Colleagues (Meine Kollegen)

This subscale captures the socio-emotional climate, cohesiveness, perceived competence, and interpersonal reliability of immediate peer co-workers. It measures the extent to which co-workers are perceived as supportive, cooperative, and pleasant versus obstructive, lazy, or quarrelsome. Items evaluate attributes such as stubbornness (stur), readiness to help (hilfsbereit), internal strife (zerstritten), and mutual cohesion (guter Zusammenhalt).

2. My Supervisor (Mein Vorgesetzter)

This facet assesses the quality of direct vertical leadership, managerial competence, interpersonal fairness, communicative openness, and perceived advocacy. The focus is specifically restricted to the immediate supervisor who exercises direct oversight and direction. Evaluated behaviors include perceived injustice (ungerecht), professional technical competence (versteht etwas von seiner Arbeit), willingness to advocate for subordinates (setzt sich nicht für uns ein), fairness (fair), communicative transparency (informiert schlecht), and participatory management (lässt uns mitreden).

3. My Activity (Meine Tätigkeit)

Focusing on the intrinsic content of the work itself, this dimension aligns closely with intrinsic motivation constructs and job characteristics models. It appraises task variety, autonomy, meaningfulness, skill utilization, and perceived accomplishment. Descriptors examine whether the work is experienced as pleasant (gefällt mir), monotonous and unchallenging (unterfordert mich), useless (nutzlos), autonomous, or providing tangible accomplishment (sehe Ergebnisse, kann meine Fähigkeiten einsetzen).

4. My Working Conditions (Meine Arbeitsbedingungen)

This subscale evaluates the physical, ergonomic, and environmental parameters under which labor is performed. It examines ambient workplace factors including space, noise, cleanliness, temperature, comfort, and physical safety. Descriptors include comfort (bequem), cleanliness (sauber), excessive noise (viel Lärm), spaciousness (viel Platz), health hazards (gesundheitsgefährdend), and physical fatigue (ermüdend).

5. Organization and Management (Organisation und Leitung)

Moving beyond direct supervision, this macro-level facet assesses the perceived efficacy, progressive orientation, institutional climate, interdepartmental cooperation, and overall structural functioning of the broader enterprise or agency. Attributes encompass institutional planning competence (schlechte Planung), administrative cumbersome complexity (umständlich), modern orientation (fortschrittlich), corporate climate (schlechtes Betriebsklima), organizational pride (stolz auf sie), and employee consideration (tut wenig für die Mitarbeiter).

6. My Development (Meine Entwicklung)

This forward-looking dimension measures perceived occupational advancement, security, vocational training, promotion prospects, and performance-based equity. It captures the psychological horizon of career progression. Items reflect whether advancement is seen as secure (sicher), appropriate (angemessen), severely restricted (kaum Möglichkeiten), performance-aligned (leistungsgerecht), or motivating (gibt mir Auftrieb).

7. My Pay (Meine Bezahlung)

This facet captures cognitive evaluations regarding the absolute and relative adequacy, fairness, and equity of financial compensation, inclusive of baseline wages, bonuses, and institutional benefits. Crucially, the items do not measure numerical salary in currency units, but equity evaluations: fairness (fair), adequacy (zufriedenstellend, unangemessen), internal equity (leistungsgerecht), and responsibility alignment (entspricht meiner Verantwortung).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the ABB is rooted in the cognitive-evaluative perspective on human attitudes developed by social psychology and organizational behavior during the mid-20th century. Neuberger and Allerbeck explicitly conceptualize job satisfaction as an outcome of continuous information-processing sequences wherein an individual observes workplace conditions, compares these observations against personal standards, values, expectations, and needs, and registers the discrepancy or congruence as an affective-evaluative valence.

Relation to Smith, Kendall, and Hulin’s JDI Model

The direct psychometric ancestor of the ABB is the Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Smith and colleagues argued that traditional measures of job satisfaction suffered from severe measurement error because they asked respondents directly about emotional states (e.g., “How happy do you feel about your pay?”), which confounded transient mood states with enduring job realities. Instead, they proposed measuring job satisfaction via objective-descriptive verbal anchors (e.g., “Fascinating,” “Routine,” “Tiresome”) that prompt the respondent to describe the actual work environment. Neuberger and Allerbeck adopted this descriptive paradigm while expanding the original five JDI facets (Work, Supervision, Co-workers, Pay, Promotion) into seven facets, introducing Arbeitsbedingungen (physical working conditions) and Organisation und Leitung (higher-level organization and leadership) to reflect the institutional realities of post-war European industrial democracy.

Integration with Dual-Factor and Job Characteristics Theories

The ABB dimensions map extensively onto foundational organizational theories:

• Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory: The ABB facets cleanly distinguish between Herzberg’s hygiene factors (extrinsic conditions such as physical working conditions, base pay, company policy, and direct supervisory oversight) and motivators (intrinsic activity content, autonomy, recognition, and personal career development).
• Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model: The Tätigkeit subscale directly operationalizes the core job dimensions of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job.
• Equity Theory (Adams): The Bezahlung and Entwicklung subscales emphasize relative equity, balance between input and output, and meritocratic fairness rather than absolute monetary magnitude.

The Role of Evaluative Valences and Kunin Faces

Neuberger and Allerbeck integrated Kunin’s (1955) famous non-verbal faces scale. Each of the seven subscales concludes with a single item asking respondents to summarize their global facet satisfaction by selecting one of seven line-drawn facial expressions spanning a severe frown to an expansive smile. This integration reflects the dual cognitive-affective nature of work attitudes: the descriptive 4-point items predominantly tap cognitive appraisal, while the terminal Kunin face captures the holistic, affective summary evaluation.

7. Validity

Empirical validation of the ABB was conducted through an extensive series of large-scale construct and criterion-related validity studies documented comprehensively by Neuberger and Allerbeck (1978, pp. 130–174), encompassing more than 7,000 employees across more than 20 organizations.

Construct and Criterion-Related Validity

To substantiate criterion validity, the authors evaluated relationships between the ABB subscales and diverse objective, behavioral, and psychological markers:

• Objective Task Characteristics (PAQ): Correlations between ABB facet scores and the objective workplace assessment conducted via the German adaptation of the Position Analysis Questionnaire (Fragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse, FAA; Frieling, 1976) demonstrated that objective job autonomy, physical hazards, and cognitive demands mapped coherently onto the corresponding ABB scales (Tätigkeit and Arbeitsbedingungen).
• Leadership Behavior Inventories (FVVB): Subordinate scores on the ABB Vorgesetzter scale correlated substantially with perceived supervisory leadership style measured by the Fragebogen zur Vorgesetzten-Verhaltens-Beschreibung (FVVB; Fittkau-Garthe & Fittkau, 1971), particularly with dimensions of consideration and participatory communication.
• Personality Trait Interactions: ABB scores were benchmarked against standardized personality inventories, including the Freiburg Personality Inventory (Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar, FPI; Fahrenberg & Selg, 1973) and the Directive Attitude Questionnaire (Fragebogen zur Direktiven Einstellung, FDE; Bastine, 1971). Findings indicated modest, theoretically consistent relationships between emotional stability/extraversion and overall satisfaction, confirming that the ABB captures environmental variance distinct from underlying stable personality dispositions.
• Absenteeism and Withdrawal Behaviors: Subscales reflecting dissatisfaction with working conditions, supervision, and institutional organization exhibited statistically significant inverse relationships with organizational absenteeism records and recorded somatic complaints.

Convergent Validity with Alternative Scales

The ABB was cross-validated against concurrent German instruments, such as the Job Satisfaction Scale by Fischer and Lück (1972) and the short-form questionnaire derived from Agnes Brüggemann’s qualitative model of job satisfaction. Strong convergent correlations confirmed that the ABB facets reliably reflect the intended attitudinal constructs.

Multiple Regression on Global Job Satisfaction

A critical test of scale validity involved multiple linear regression analysis regressing general overall job satisfaction (measured via an independent global Kunin faces item) onto the seven ABB facet subscales. Across the representative sample, the seven scales explained approximately 39.7% of the total criterion variance ($R^2 = .397$). This demonstrates two crucial psychometric facts: first, the seven facets possess substantial predictive validity regarding overall occupational morale; second, because more than 60% of variance remains unaccounted for, the facet scales measure nuanced, specific cognitive domains that are distinct from simple global affective impressions.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the ABB has been rigorously verified through multiple psychometric methods, including split-half coefficients, internal consistency estimates, and longitudinal test-retest investigations across diverse occupational sectors.

Internal Consistency and Split-Half Reliability

In the primary standardization sample consisting of 993 employees of a southwest German chemical manufacturing plant, Neuberger and Allerbeck calculated split-half coefficients corrected via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, alongside Kuder-Richardson formula (KR-20) / Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each of the seven subscales:

ABB Subscale	Number of Descriptive Items	Spearman-Brown Coefficient	Kuder-Richardson (KR-20 / Alpha)
My Colleagues (Kollegen)	8	.88	.84
My Supervisor (Vorgesetzte)	12	.90	.89
My Activity (Tätigkeiten)	12	.89	.87
My Working Conditions (Arbeitsbedingungen)	11	.82	.84
Organization and Management (Organisation und Leitung)	13	.81	.83
My Development (Entwicklung)	9	.84	.83
My Pay (Bezahlung)	7	.91	.86

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal stability was established across several replication cohorts involving test-retest intervals ranging from 4 weeks to several months (e.g., Glück, 1975; Hoffmann, 1977). Retest reliability coefficients for the primary descriptive scales clustered consistently between .70 and .85, indicating that the ABB captures stable evaluative cognitive orientations rather than fluctuating daily affect.

In contrast, experimental attempts to assess the psychological importance of facets via a constant-sum point distribution method (allocating 80 points across 8 job facets; Lesch, 1976; Hoffmann, 1977) yielded poor retest reliabilities. Neuberger and Allerbeck concluded that cognitive weighting tasks suffer from cognitive fatigue, high computational load, and contextual instability, recommending that researchers rely primarily on the standardized descriptive facet scores rather than post-hoc weighting algorithms.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial validity and structural integrity of the ABB were explored across multiple exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies, culminating in a combined multi-sample analysis encompassing $N = 4,057$ working participants.

Dimensionality of Subscales

When evaluated individually using the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0), the Entwicklung and Bezahlung subscales demonstrated strict unidimensionality across all cohorts. The Arbeitsbedingungen subscale exhibited multidimensionality under the Kaiser criterion due to the empirical heterogeneity of physical work environments (e.g., distinguishing physical space/ergonomics from ambient stressors like noise and temperature). However, when evaluated via Cattell’s scree test (the progression of eigenvalues), all seven subscales demonstrated clear unidimensionality, marked by a substantial drop from the first to the second eigenvalue.

General Factor Structure (Higher-Order General Factor)

To determine whether the seven facet scales could legitimately be aggregated into an overall score of job satisfaction, Neuberger and Allerbeck subjected the intercorrelated subscales to higher-order factor analysis ($N = 4,057$).

Factor	Eigenvalue	Explained Variance (%)	Cumulative Variance (%)
Factor 1	3.14	44.8%	44.8%
Factor 2	0.94	13.4%	58.2%
Factor 3	0.80	11.5%	69.7%
Factor 4	0.68	9.7%	79.4%
Factor 5	0.55	7.9%	87.3%
Factor 6	0.46	6.6%	93.9%
Factor 7	0.43	6.2%	100.0%

The unrotated first factor accounted for 44.8% of the total variance with an eigenvalue of 3.14, whereas all subsequent factors failed to reach an eigenvalue of 1.0. This empirical distribution documents a dominant higher-order general factor, designated as Allgemeine Arbeitszufriedenheit (General Job Satisfaction).

Subscale	Loading on General Factor ($N = 4,057$)
Organization and Management (Organisation und Leitung)	.75
My Development (Entwicklung)	.64
My Supervisor (Vorgesetzter)	.60
My Activity (Tätigkeit)	.58
My Colleagues (Kollegen)	.54
My Pay (Bezahlung)	.53
My Working Conditions (Arbeitsbedingungen)	.52

While the strong first factor justifies calculating a global aggregate score, the mean intercorrelation among the seven subscales was modest ($r_{mean} = .35$, ranging between .20 and .50). This empirical separation confirms that the individual subscales preserve substantial unique variance, serving as autonomous psychometric indicators that should supplement, rather than be replaced by, a composite sum score.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Designation: Job Description Questionnaire (Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen, ABB).
• Construct Assessed: Multidimensional Facet Job Satisfaction (Arbeitszufriedenheit).
• Primary Author(s): Oswald Neuberger and Mechthild Allerbeck (1978).
• Item Count & Structure:
  • Total Item Count: 79 items.
  • Facet 1: My Colleagues (Meine Kollegen): 8 descriptive items + 1 Kunin face item.
  • Facet 2: My Supervisor (Mein Vorgesetzter): 12 descriptive items + 1 Kunin face item.
  • Facet 3: My Activity (Meine Tätigkeit): 12 descriptive items + 1 Kunin face item.
  • Facet 4: My Working Conditions (Meine Arbeitsbedingungen): 11 descriptive items + 1 Kunin face item.
  • Facet 5: Organization and Management (Organisation und Leitung): 13 descriptive items + 1 Kunin face item.
  • Facet 6: My Development (Meine Entwicklung): 9 descriptive items + 1 Kunin face item.
  • Facet 7: My Pay (Meine Bezahlung): 7 descriptive items + 1 Kunin face item.
• Response Scale:
  • Descriptive Items (72 items): 4-point Likert format with verbal categories: 1 = „ja“ (Yes), 2 = „eher ja“ (Rather yes), 3 = „eher nein“ (Rather no), and 4 = „nein“ (No).
  • Summary Facet Items (Items 9, 22, 35, 47, 61, 71, 79): 7-point non-verbal Kunin faces scale, anchored visually from 1 = lowest satisfaction (face with severely downturned mouth) to 7 = highest satisfaction (smiling face), without intermediate verbal anchors.
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • To align directionality so that higher numerical values indicate higher job satisfaction, 36 positively phrased items must be reverse-scored prior to aggregation: Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 43, 45, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 73, 74, 77, and 78.
  • Reversal Formula: On the 1 to 4 scale, reversed value = $5 – X_{raw}$ (i.e., 1 becomes 4; 2 becomes 3; 3 becomes 2; 4 becomes 1). Unreversed negative items retain their raw coding where 4 (“No”) reflects high satisfaction.
  • Subscale Sum Score: Calculated by summing the transformed descriptive items within each facet (the terminal Kunin item is recorded and interpreted independently as a summary criterion).
  • Subscale Mean Score: Calculated by dividing the subscale sum score by the number of descriptive items in that scale, yielding an interpretable metric from 1.00 (lowest satisfaction) to 4.00 (highest satisfaction).
  • Overall Satisfaction Score: Computed by summing all 72 recoded descriptive items across the seven scales.
• Normative Reference Data (Representative Sample, $N = 2,046$ to $2,296$):
  • Kollegen ($N = 2,096$): $M = 26.93$, $SD = 4.43$.
  • Vorgesetzter ($N = 2,108$): $M = 37.63$, $SD = 7.86$.
  • Tätigkeit ($N = 2,132$): $M = 39.07$, $SD = 7.31$.
  • Arbeitsbedingungen ($N = 2,161$): $M = 30.99$, $SD = 6.89$.
  • Organisation und Leitung ($N = 2,046$): $M = 37.45$, $SD = 8.16$.
  • Entwicklung ($N = 2,061$): $M = 23.40$, $SD = 6.90$.
  • Bezahlung ($N = 2,132$): $M = 19.38$, $SD = 5.65$.
  • General Job Satisfaction (Kunin Faces Item) ($N = 2,296$): $M = 4.73$, $SD = 1.31$.
• Recommended Item Modifications: As noted by the test authors, Item 11 („aktiv“) should be evaluated cautiously due to semantic ambiguity, and Item 15 („setzt sich nicht für uns ein“) may require explicit attention during administrative scoring to avoid confusion associated with double negatives.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen (ABB) was officially published in 1978 by Verlag Hans Huber (Bern, Switzerland) in the monograph Messung und Analyse von Arbeitszufriedenheit: Erfahrungen mit dem Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen (ABB) by Oswald Neuberger and Mechthild Allerbeck. The original work represents an academic open-access milestone within German occupational psychometrics. While the monograph and manual were distributed by Huber Publishers (now Hogrefe Verlag), the complete questionnaire text, item parameters, factor structures, and normative tables were placed in the scholarly public domain for academic research and educational evaluation.

Non-commercial researchers, university scholars, and academic institutions may utilize the instrument without license fees, provided full academic attribution is cited. For proprietary commercial distribution, automated digital testing systems, or large-scale commercial consulting ventures, institutional practitioners should consult the relevant academic archives or copyright successors (Hogrefe Verlag / ZPID). Test instructions and items are archived for scientific inquiry through the Open Test Archive of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID).

12. References

• Allerbeck, M. (1977). Arbeitszufriedenheit im Vertriebsbereich eines Großunternehmens der Elektroindustrie. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität München.
• Bastine, R. (1971). Fragebogen zur Direktiven Einstellung (FDE). Handanweisung. Braunschweig: Westermann.
• Borg, I., & Allerbeck, M. (1977). Faktorenanalysen zum Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen. Universität Augsburg: Forschungsbericht des Instituts für Psychologie.
• Büssing, A. (1983). Untersuchungen zur Validität des Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogens (ABB). Psychologische Rundschau, 34(2), 85–94.
• Fahrenberg, J., & Selg, H. (1973). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (FPI). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Fischer, W., & Lück, H. E. (1972). Entwicklung einer Skala zur Messung von Arbeitszufriedenheit (SAZ). Archiv für Psychologie, 124(1), 39–56.
• Fittkau-Garthe, H., & Fittkau, B. (1971). Fragebogen zur Vorgesetzten-Verhaltens-Beschreibung (FVVB). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
• Frieling, E. (1976). Fragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse (FAA). Deutsche Version des Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). Bern: Huber.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
• Hoffmann, E. (1977). Reliabilitätsprüfungen des ABB in einer Vier-Betriebe-Studie. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität Augsburg.
• Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1955.tb01189.x
• Lesch, G. (1976). Untersuchungen zur Konstanten-Punktsummen-Methode im Rahmen des ABB. Unveröffentlichte Diplomarbeit, Universität München.
• Neuberger, O. (1976). Konstruktion und Erprobung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Arbeitszufriedenheit. Archiv für Psychologie, 128, 22–41.
• Neuberger, O., & Allerbeck, M. (1978). Messung und Analyse von Arbeitszufriedenheit: Erfahrungen mit dem Arbeitsbeschreibungsbogen (ABB). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.
• Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Tränkle, U. (1982). Validitätsaspekte von Arbeitszufriedenheitsskalen im Bereich technischer Berufe. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 26(3), 112–120.

13. Items of the Scale