Job Descriptive Index

Abstract

The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is one of the most widely utilized, extensively validated, and psychometrically robust measurement instruments in industrial and organizational psychology. Originally developed by Patricia Cain Smith, Lorne M. Kendall, and Charles L. Hulin in 1969, the JDI assesses employee job satisfaction across five distinct, core workplace facets: Work on Present Job, Present Pay, Opportunities for Promotion, Supervision on Present Job, and People on Your Present Job (commonly referred to as Co-workers). Rather than measuring affective sentiment through broad emotional rating scales, the JDI employs an evaluative descriptive methodology comprising 72 short verbal adjectives and descriptive phrases. Respondents evaluate these items using a standardized tri-choice response format: “Y” (Yes, describes the job), “N” (No, does not describe the job), or “?” (Cannot decide / uncertain). The instrument underwent significant psychometric refinement and modernization by Mary Roznowski in 1989 to address shifts in modern work environments, technological advancements, and linguistic changes, resulting in updated item pools characterized by elevated internal consistency reliability and expanded discriminant validity. Extant literature reveals high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s coefficient alpha values routinely spanning from .75 to .94 across facets in diverse organizational samples. Multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) analyses substantiate that trait variance accounts for the substantial majority of the instrument’s variance, demonstrating minimal contamination from common method bias. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations consistently confirm the distinct five-factor structure while demonstrating the presence of a viable second-order general job satisfaction latent construct. The instrument serves as a critical diagnostic tool in human resource management, organizational behavior research, occupational health psychology, and organizational consulting.

Keywords

Job Descriptive Index, JDI, job satisfaction, facet satisfaction, organizational psychology, psychometrics, work attitudes, employee turnover, affective commitment, Patricia Cain Smith, Charles Hulin, Mary Roznowski

Authors

The Job Descriptive Index was originally conceptualized, developed, and standardized by:

• Patricia Cain Smith, Ph.D. – Late Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, United States. Renowned for her foundational contributions to psychometrics, workplace assessment, and attitude measurement.
• Lorne M. Kendall, Ph.D. – Formerly of Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada, and Bowling Green State University. Expert in psychological testing, experimental methodology, and quantitative analysis.
• Charles L. Hulin, Ph.D. – Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, United States. Renowned for his work on organizational withdrawal, psychometric modeling, and Item Response Theory.

The major psychometric modernization and item recalibration was conducted by:

• Mary Roznowski, Ph.D. – Professor of Psychology at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States. Specialized in cognitive measurement, structural equation modeling, Item Response Theory, and workplace attitude assessment.

Institutional custodial stewardship and copyright administration for the instrument reside with the JDI Research Group, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Job Descriptive Index is to provide a standardized, empirically validated, and diagnostically sensitive measurement of facet-specific job satisfaction in workforce populations. In organizational research and human resource management, general or global assessments of job satisfaction often obscure critical operational variance. An employee may experience deep professional fulfillment regarding daily task performance while simultaneously harboring severe dissatisfaction with compensation equity or supervisory practices. The JDI decouples these latent domains into five discrete, interpretable subscales, allowing researchers and practitioners to isolate specific systemic drivers of organizational morale, withdrawal behaviors, and performance deficits.

From an applied perspective, the JDI functions as an organizational diagnostic instrument. Organizations administer the scale to audit the health of their human capital systems, gauge the impact of corporate restructuring, evaluate the efficacy of compensation reforms, and benchmark leadership development initiatives. Because the scale possesses extensive national normative databases established across decades of field administration, organizational scores can be referenced against occupational, industry, and demographic percentiles. This normative comparative capacity enables leadership to determine whether observed dissatisfaction represents an isolated departmental anomaly or reflects broader macroeconomic and labor-market trends.

In academic and clinical research contexts, the JDI provides an indispensable metric for structural models of workplace behavior, organizational health, and occupational stress. Researchers deploy the instrument to investigate theoretical frameworks involving employee turnover, absenteeism, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), and psychological well-being. By delineating between cognitive-evaluative descriptions of the job environment and affective feelings about the job, the JDI minimizes transient emotional fluctuations, providing a stable, reliable index of enduring workplace attitudes suitable for longitudinal panel research and structural equation modeling.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the Job Descriptive Index is multidimensional job satisfaction, conceptualized primarily as an evaluative, cognitive judgment regarding specific characteristics of one’s employment situation. Unlike measures that ask respondents to rate how happy or unhappy they feel (which capture momentary affective states), the JDI emphasizes descriptive evaluations of work conditions. The instrument posits that job satisfaction is an emergent attitude arising from five foundational facets:

1. Work on Present Job

This subscale assesses the intrinsic characteristics of the job tasks performed by the individual. It measures whether the daily operational responsibilities are engaging, intellectually stimulating, purposeful, and fulfilling versus monotonous, stressful, and draining. Items such as “Fascinating,” “Creative,” and “Gives sense of accomplishment” contrast with negative indicators like “Routine,” “Boring,” and “Tiresome.” This facet aligns closely with the core job dimensions articulated in the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), capturing task identity, task variety, and task significance.

2. Present Pay

The pay facet captures employee perceptions of financial compensation adequacy, equity, and security relative to personal living requirements and external market values. Rather than measuring absolute dollar amounts, it gauges the perceived sufficiency and fairness of remuneration through items like “Income adequate for normal expenses,” “Well paid,” “Underpaid,” and “Barely live on income.” This dimension reflects principles of equity theory (Adams, 1965), operationalizing the ratio of personal inputs (effort, education, time) to financial outcomes.

3. Opportunities for Promotion

This subscale evaluates the perceived availability, equity, and frequency of vertical and career-advancement trajectories within the organization. It captures whether upward mobility is predicated on merit, capability, and consistent institutional policy, or whether the organizational hierarchy represents a static, inaccessible structure. Descriptors include “Good opportunity for promotion,” “Promotion on ability,” and “Dead-end job.” This facet reflects psychological constructs related to career expectancy, personal growth, and long-term organizational tenure.

4. Supervision on Present Job

The supervision facet evaluates the interpersonal, administrative, and technical competence of immediate leadership. It assesses both consideration (relational support, tact, fairness) and initiating structure (task guidance, clarity of instruction, technical acumen). Specific items evaluate supervisory behaviors, such as “Praises good work,” “Knows job well,” “Tactful,” “Around when needed,” versus dysfunctional traits like “Quick-tempered,” “Interferes with my work,” and “Cannot be trusted.” This subscale connects directly with leadership paradigms such as Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

5. People on Your Present Job (Co-workers)

This dimension measures the social environment and interpersonal climate established by workplace peers. It assesses the intellectual stimulation, cooperative spirit, competence, and reliability of colleagues versus antisocial or obstructive behavioral patterns. Descriptors include “Stimulating,” “Ambitious,” “Work well together,” contrasted with “Boring,” “Lazy,” “Talk too much,” and “Easy to make enemies.” The co-worker facet captures the social capital and relational support essential for mitigating workplace stress and fostering collective efficacy.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Job Descriptive Index is rooted in Patricia Cain Smith, Lorne Kendall, and Charles Hulin’s (1969) pioneering treatise, The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Their foundational premise asserts that job satisfaction is best captured not by directly asking individuals how happy they feel, but by eliciting descriptions of their objective work conditions. This methodology rests upon the Frame of Reference Theory and Harry Helson’s (1964) Adaptation-Level Theory.

Under this theoretical framework, job satisfaction represents the psychological outcome of an employee comparing their perceived job characteristics against an internal, subjective frame of reference. This internal standard is dynamically calibrated by the individual’s past occupational experiences, baseline expectations, personal alternatives in the prevailing labor market, and cultural expectations. Because direct affective inquiries (such as “How much do you like your salary?”) trigger substantial ego-defensive posturing, cognitive dissonance adjustments, and impression management biases, Smith and colleagues posited that presenting brief, unambiguous descriptive adjectives minimizes affective distortion.

Furthermore, the JDI is heavily informed by Edwin A. Locke’s (1976) Value-Percept Theory of job satisfaction. Locke asserted that job satisfaction results from the appraisal of one’s job as attaining or allowing the attainment of one’s important job values, provided these values are congruent with one’s basic biological and psychological needs. The JDI operationalizes this appraisal across Locke’s primary value categories: the nature of the work, pay, promotional pathways, supervisory relationships, and collegial networks.

During the 1989 revision, Mary Roznowski introduced principles of Item Response Theory (IRT) to the JDI’s theoretical framework. Roznowski argued that modern labor markets, automation, professional shifts, and evolving organizational cultures altered the item information functions of several original 1969 items. By utilizing modern psychometric modeling, Roznowski refined the latent trait measurement ($ heta$), ensuring that the items retain high discrimination parameters across a wider spectrum of the satisfaction continuum and accurately reflect the contemporary cognitive schema of the workforce.

Validity

The validity of the Job Descriptive Index has been established through hundreds of independent empirical investigations across five decades, making it one of the most thoroughly validated psychometric tools in social science.

Construct and Structural Validity

Confirmatory factor analytic studies and exploratory analyses routinely corroborate the five-factor model. In Roznowski’s (1989) seminal re-evaluation, factor analyses confirmed that the 72 items load unambiguously onto their five designated latent dimensions, with negligible cross-loadings. Item-to-scale correlations remain high, indicating clean structural separation. Furthermore, Judge (1993a) conducted higher-order structural equation modeling, demonstrating that while the five facets represent distinct, non-redundant dimensions, they also load appropriately onto a viable second-order latent construct representing general or overall job satisfaction.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is documented via strong correlations with alternative validated measures of job attitudes. The JDI facets correlate substantially with corresponding subscales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967) and the Job in General (JIG) scale (Ironson et al., 1989). In a comprehensive multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) study, Buckley et al. (1992) demonstrated that trait variance accounts for the dominant proportion of variance in JDI scores:

• Satisfaction with Work Itself: 34% trait variance
• Satisfaction with Supervision: 41% trait variance
• Satisfaction with Co-workers: 38% trait variance
• Satisfaction with Pay: 56% trait variance
• Satisfaction with Promotion: 61% trait variance
• Composite Job Satisfaction: approximately 43% trait variance

Method variance and random error accounted for the remaining variance, proving that the JDI’s concise descriptive format is resilient against common method variance (CMV) and mono-method bias.

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated across numerous related organizational constructs. Gregson (1990) conducted factor analyses of the JDI in conjunction with communication satisfaction metrics, demonstrating that communication satisfaction and job satisfaction are empirically distinct latent entities. Moreover, Smart (1998) found that while JDI facets correlate positively with one another, their intercorrelations are moderate, confirming that they assess separate facets rather than duplicating redundant variance.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The predictive utility of the JDI has been confirmed across diverse organizational outcomes:

• Employee Turnover and Absenteeism: Facet scores, particularly work itself and promotional opportunities, consistently predict voluntary employee turnover, withdrawal cognitions, and unexcused absenteeism over longitudinal observation intervals (Cropanzano et al., 1993; Hulin et al., 1985).
• Affective Commitment: Cropanzano et al. (1993) demonstrated that composite and facet JDI scores correlate positively and robustly with affective organizational commitment ($r > .50$).
• Supervisory Communication: Callen (1993) documented that satisfaction with the work itself correlates significantly with the quantity and qualitative transparency of supervisor-subordinate communication channels.
• Occupational Health and Well-being: Kushnir and Melamed (1991) revealed that low satisfaction with work itself correlates significantly with lack of perceived control, heightened somatic employee anxiety, psychological distress, and employee irritability.

Reliability

The Job Descriptive Index exhibits exceptional internal consistency and test-retest stability across diverse occupational sectors, demographic categories, and organizational environments. Across decades of empirical testing, Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients have consistently exceeded standard psychometric thresholds ($lpha ge .70$, and frequently $lpha ge .85$).

Internal Consistency Reliability

Extensive independent studies (e.g., Buckley et al., 1992; Callen, 1993; Cropanzano et al., 1993; Gregson, 1990; Judge, 1993a; Judge & Hulin, 1993; Kushnir & Melamed, 1991; Lefkowitz, 1994; Mossholder, Bedeian, Niebuhr, & Wesolowski, 1994; Smart, 1998; Taber & Alliger, 1995; Wanberg, 1995) have documented the following alpha ranges:

• Work on Present Job (18 items): $lpha = .75$ to $.94$
• Present Pay (9 items): $lpha = .78$ to $.91$
• Opportunities for Promotion (9 items): $lpha = .82$ to $.87$
• Supervision on Present Job (18 items): $lpha = .87$ to $.92$
• People on Your Present Job (18 items): $lpha = .87$ to $.92$

Roznowski’s (1989) revision, which replaced outdated and psychometrically noisy items, demonstrated elevated internal consistency across all five subscales compared to the 1969 version, particularly in samples operating in modernized administrative, service, and technical settings.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability estimates over intervals ranging from several weeks to one year demonstrate solid test-retest reliability ($r_{tt} = .65$ to $.85$), reflecting both the stability of underlying workplace attitudes and the instrument’s sensitivity to substantive changes in working conditions, compensation policies, or managerial personnel (Smith et al., 1969; Hulin et al., 1985).

Factor Analysis

The underlying factorial architecture of the Job Descriptive Index has been evaluated extensively using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analyses

In the foundational standardizations by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) and the structural re-evaluations by Roznowski (1989), principal components and principal axis factoring with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations consistently identified five distinct latent factors accounting for the majority of the common variance. The 72 items loaded cleanly onto their respective conceptual domains. Roznowski’s item analysis eliminated items that exhibited factor ambivalence, cross-loadings greater than .30 on secondary factors, or low communalities, thereby clarifying the factor boundaries.

In an abbreviated 30-item iteration evaluated by Gregson (1990), which selected the six highest-loading items per facet, exploratory factor analysis preserved the structural integrity of the five primary dimensions, showing eigenvalues well above 1.0 for each facet and clear simple structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Structural Modeling

Subsequent modern CFA investigations using structural equation modeling software (e.g., LISREL, AMOS, Mplus) have confirmed the fit of the theoretical five-factor measurement model. Fit indices across diverse samples reflect adequate to excellent model fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) typically ranges between $.90$ and $.96$.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) routinely exceeds $.90$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) remains between $.04$ and $.07$.

Comparative model testing has verified that the theoretical five-factor oblique model fits organizational data significantly better than alternative competing models, such as a unidimensional single-factor model or three-factor models combining leadership and peers into a single “social” factor. Furthermore, Judge (1993a) validated a hierarchical second-order model wherein the five distinct first-order factors serve as indicators of an overarching, second-order general job satisfaction latent construct, confirming that individual facet scores can be examined independently or integrated into broader structural frameworks.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Job Descriptive Index (JDI), Revised Version.
• Alternative Short Forms: 30-item shortened version (Gregson, 1990; 6 items per dimension).
• Assessment Type: Standardized self-report cognitive-evaluative attitude scale.
• Target Population: Working adults across private, public, healthcare, academic, military, and non-profit sectors.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based digital assessment, or integrated organizational survey module.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes for the full 72-item scale.
• Total Item Count: 72 items distributed unevenly across five distinct facet subscales:
  • Work on present job: 18 items
  • Present pay: 9 items
  • Opportunities for promotion: 9 items
  • Supervision on present job: 18 items
  • People on your present job (Co-workers): 18 items
• Response Format: Tri-choice descriptive rating format:
  • Y = Yes (The word or phrase describes the feature of your job)
  • N = No (The word or phrase does not describe that feature)
  • ? = Cannot decide / Uncertain
• Scoring Protocol & Item Keying:
  • To account for ambivalence and balance negative/positive response biases, Smith et al. (1969) formulated the standardized 3-1-0 scoring algorithm:
  • Favorable / Positively Keyed Items:
    • “Y” = 3 points
    • “?” = 1 point
    • “N” = 0 points
  • Unfavorable / Negatively Keyed Items (Reverse-Scored):
    • “Y” = 0 points
    • “?” = 1 point
    • “N” = 3 points
  • Note on Uncertain Responses: Assigning 1 point to “?” reflects empirical evidence showing that respondents who cannot decide are closer in actual attitude to dissatisfaction than to neutral satisfaction.
  • Subscale Score Calculation: Items within each facet are summed. For the 18-item scales (Work, Supervision, Co-workers), total raw scores range from 0 to 54. For the 9-item scales (Pay, Promotion), raw scores range from 0 to 27; to equalize the metrics for direct profile comparison, the 9-item scales are frequently multiplied by a factor of 2.0 to put all five scales on a standard 0 to 54 score continuum.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Job Descriptive Index was originally published in 1969 by Patricia Cain Smith, Lorne M. Kendall, and Charles L. Hulin, and was updated in 1989 by Mary Roznowski. Further institutional revisions and norming updates were conducted by the JDI Research Group at Bowling Green State University in 1985, 1997, and 2009. The instrument, its derivative scales (including the Job in General [JIG] scale and the Trust in Management scale), and associated normative reference tables are copyrighted intellectual property owned and administered by Bowling Green State University.

Licensing and Acquisition: The JDI is not in the public domain. Researchers, practitioners, and organizations wishing to administer the JDI must obtain formal permission and licensing from the JDI Office. BGSU provides non-commercial educational/research licenses at nominal user fees (often waived or heavily discounted for graduate student dissertation research upon submission of study protocols) and fee-based commercial licenses for organizational audits, consulting firms, and corporate surveys. Users must contact:

The JDI Office
Department of Psychology
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
Web: https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/psychology/graduate-program/industrial-organizational/jdi.html

References

• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
• Buckley, M. R., Cote, J. A., & Comstock, S. M. (1992). Measurement errors in the Job Descriptive Index: A secondary analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004006
• Callen, V. J. (1993). Subordinate-manager communication in different organizational contexts: A test of the Job Descriptive Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(4), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1993.tb00543.x
• Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(6), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140609
• Gregson, T. (1990). The Job Descriptive Index: A shortened alternative. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2, 98–108.
• 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
• Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. Harper & Row.
• Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical evaluations of an elaborated model of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.233
• Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.193
• Judge, T. A. (1993a). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.395
• Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple-source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56(3), 388–421. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1061
• Kushnir, T., & Melamed, S. (1991). Work-load, perceived control and psychological distress in type A/B industrial workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120207
• Lefkowitz, J. (1994). Sex-related differences in job attitudes and dispositional affectivity: A study of police officers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00568.x
• Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.
• Mossholder, K. W., Bedeian, A. G., Niebuhr, R. E., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1994). Dyadic duration and workgroup affective context: An investigation of primary and moderating effects on subordinate turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(17), 1515–1532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01561.x
• Roznowski, M. (1989). An examination of the measurement properties of the Job Descriptive Index with experimental items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.805
• Smart, J. C. (1998). Institutional culture, leadership, and faculty job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 39(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018784829883
• 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. Rand McNally.
• Taber, T. D., & Alliger, G. M. (1995). A task-level assessment of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160203
• Wanberg, C. R. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of the effects of unemployment and underemployment on mental health, self-esteem, and social support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.3.355
• Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, No. XXII. University of Minnesota.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)