For reliability evaluation, the authors utilized Cronbach‟s alpha. The Cronbach's alpha reliability of all variables are more than 0.8 which shows that the scale has good reliability in order to conduct further research. The summary Statistics of survey are shown in below tables.
Cronbach's alpha is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group. It is considered to be a measure of scale reliability. A
"high" value for alpha does not imply that the measure is unidimensional. If, in addition to measuring internal consistency, you wish to provide evidence that the scale in question is unidimensional, additional analyses can be performed.
Exploratory factor analysis is one method of checking dimensionality. Technically speaking, Cronbach's alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency).
George and Mallery (2003) provide the following rules of thumb:
Table 1: Cronbach's Alpha- Internal consistency
Cronbach‟s alpha Internal consistency
α ≥ 0.9 excellent
0.8 ≤ α < 0.9 Good 0.7 ≤ α < 0.8 Acceptable 0.6 ≤ α < 0.7 Questionable 0.5 ≤ α < 0.6 Poor
α < 0.5 Unacceptable
Note : If alpha is more than 0.8 which shows that the scale has good reliability for further research.
4.2 Reliability Satistics
a. Main Construct – Job Satisfaction
32
Table 2: Cronbach's Alpha of Construct Job Satisfaction Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.813 6
From the analysis, the Cronbach‟s alpha of the main construct Job Satisfaction is 0.813, suggesting that the item has good reliability for further research.
b. Construct: Perceived Ability- Job fit Reliability Statistics
Table 3: Cronbach's Alpha of Construct Perceived Ability- Job fit Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
,837 5
From the analysis, the Cronbach‟s Alpha of construct Perceived Ability- Job fit is 0.837, suggesting that the items have good reliability for further research.
c. Construct: Supportive and non controlling suppervision Reliability Statistics
Table 9: Cronbach's Alpha of Construct Supportive and non controlling suppervision
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
,905 12
33
From the analysis, the Cronbach‟s Alpha of construct Supportive and non controlling suppervision is ,905 suggesting that the items have excellent reliability for further research.
d. Construct: Pairness in skill- Based Pay Reliability Statistics
Table 10: Cronbach's Alpha of Construct Pairness in skill- Based Pay Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
,847 4
From the analysis, the Cronbach‟s Alpha of construct Pairness in skill- Based Pay is .847 suggesting that the items have good reliability for further research.
e. Construct: Goal and Process clarity Reliability Statistics
Table 11: Cronbach's Alpha of Goal and Process clarity ReliabilityStatistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
,899 10
From the analysis, the Cronbach‟s Alpha of construct Goal and Process clarity is .899, suggesting that the items have good reliability for further research.
4.3 Descriptive Statistics
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics
N
Minim um
Maxi
mum Mean Std. Deviation
34
JS 270 2,17 5,00 3,7352 ,48747
PA 270 1,42 5,00 3,5976 ,54035
SC 270 1,42 5,00 3,5976 ,54035
PS 270 1,25 5,00 3,8940 ,64300
GP 270 1,30 5,00 3,6854 ,58716
Valid N
(listwise) 270
4.4 Hypothesis Testing Result
My model suggests that relationship between Perceived Ability- Job fit, Supportive and non controlling suppervision, Pairness in skill- Based Pay, Goal and Process clarity with Job satisfaction.
Hypotheses testing With the proposed model research, we found that the relationship of four (04) hypotheses have positive relationships with the dependent hypothesis Job Satisfaction. According the theory of hypotheses which are supported, they have to meet all three (03) requirements below:
• R square is value: greater than 0
• Unstandardized coefficients beta: the same sign with hypothesis
• P value (Sig) is value: less than 0.05 Model Summary
Mo
del R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
1 ,314a ,098 ,090 ,46511
a. Predictors: (Constant), GP, PS, SC, PA
35
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardiz ed
Coefficients
t Sig.
B
Std.
Error Beta 1 (Constant)
2,649 ,190 13,93
6 ,000
SC ,167 ,086 ,185 1,934 ,044
PS ,096 ,057 ,127 1,671 ,096
GP ,030 ,085 ,037 ,256 ,000
PA 0,215 ,076 ,028 1,732 ,032
a. Dependent Variable: JS
Hypothesis (H1)
Hypothesis H1 proposed a positive relationship between Perceived Ability- Job fit and job satisfaction. The results of regression analysis in Table support this hypothesis. Perceived Ability- Job fit was positively associated with job satisfaction.
• R2 = 0.98 >0
• Coefficient P = 0,185 => the same direction with model.
• P value (Sig) is 0.044: less than 0.05.
O Therefore, this hypothesis was supported.
Hypothesis (H2)
Hypothesis H2 proposed a positive relationship between Supportive and non controlling suppervision and job satisfaction. The results of regression analysis in Table wasn‟t supported this hypothesis. Role innovation was not positively associated with job satisfaction.
• R2 = 0.98>0
36
• Coefficient P = 0.127=> the same direction with model.
• P value (Sig) is 0.096 higher than 0.05.
^ The hypothesis H2 was not supported.
Hypothesis (H3)
Hypothesis H3 proposed a positive relationship between Pairness in skill- Based Pay and job satisfaction. The results of regression analysis in Table wast supported this hypothesis. Pairness in skill- Based Pay was positively associated with job satisfaction.
• R2 = 0.98 >0
• Coefficient P = 0.37 => the same direction with model.
• P value (Sig) is 0.000 less than 0.05.
^ The hypothesis H3 was supported.
Hypothesis (H4)
Hypothesis H4 proposed a positive relationship between Goal and Process clarity and job satisfaction. The results of regression analysis in Table wasn supported this hypothesis. Social support was ot positively associated with job satisfaction.
• R2 = 0.98 >0
• Coefficient P = 0.028 => the same direction with model.
• P value (Sig) is 0.032 less than 0.05.
^ The hypothesis H4 was supported.