Date of Award


Degree Name

Doctor of Education


Educational Leadership

First Advisor

Dr. Harold W. Boles

Second Advisor

Dr. Robert Rodosky

Third Advisor

Dr. Ernest Stech


The major purpose of the study was to provide to educational leaders information pertinent to the selection of job satisfaction instruments. The Need Satisfaction Questionnaire created by Porter, as modified by Trusty and Sergiovanni, and the Quality of Employment Job Satisfaction Survey developed by personnel from the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan were compared with the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire developed by Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist to investigate the concurrent validity of the instruments. The study focused primarily on the psychometric aspects of the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire, an instrument used by earlier investigators to assess individuals' needs on Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" and to draw conclusions about educators' job satisfaction.

The investigation was limited to 324 teachers and administrators from eight public schools and three Christian schools in western Michigan, of whom 268 responded. Each respondent completed all of the job satisfaction instruments. Analysis of the data consisted of three major phases. Discriminant function analyses were conducted to investigate the ability of the instruments to discriminate among groups known or suspected to differ in job satisfaction. Campbell and Fiske's multitrait-multimethod correlational analysis was applied to the data to study the instruments' discriminant and convergent validities. Factor analysis of the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire was conducted to determine its construct validity.

The principal findings of the investigation were: (1) Statistically significant differences in job satisfaction were found: (a) between teachers and administrators, (b) between public school teachers and Christian school teachers, (c) among teachers at different grade levels, and (d) among teachers of different age groups. (2) Combinations of scales from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire discriminated between groups more effectively than did combinations of scales from the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Quality of Employment Job Satisfaction Survey. (3) Scales from the Quality of Employment Job Satisfaction Survey demonstrated higher convergent and discriminant validities with the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire than did the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire when evaluated with Campbell and Fiske's criteria. (4) The Need Satisfaction Questionnaire showed little evidence, whereas the Quality of Employment Job Satisfaction Survey indicated some evidence, of possessing concurrent validity with the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. (5) The five scales of the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire constituted one factor of need deficiency or job satisfaction. The investigator concluded that it was doubtful that the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire measured individuals' needs in categories corresponding with the levels of needs in Maslow's hierarchy.

Together, these conclusions indicated that educational leaders and other investigators should regard with reservations the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire and the research findings it has generated.

Access Setting

Dissertation-Open Access