Mustafa Agah TEKİNDAL, Gökhan ASLIM, Aşkın YAŞAR

Determination of quality of working life of private veterinarians: validity and reliability study

Abstract: With this study, it was aimed to determine the factors affecting the quality of working life of private veterinarians. In addition, it was aimed to develop a scale (Quality of Working Life Scale) that enables the evaluation of quality of working life of private veterinarians. The study included 367 people who work as private veterinarians in Turkey. For the structure validity, Cronbach alpha (α) coefficient was used for reliability analysis. Factor analysis was used for validity analysis. As a result of the data obtained from the study, it is stated that the “Quality of Working Life Scale” is reliable and valid for private veterinarians, and it can be used to determine the quality of working life of private veterinarians, as well as it is a scale that can be used to evaluate the quality of working life of veterinarians working in other fields and other professions in the field of health.Key words: Factor analysis, private veterinarian, quality, working life, scale, veterinarian

PDF

___

1. Martel JP, Dupuis G. Quality of work life: Theoretical and methodological problems, and presentation of a new model and measuring instrument. Social Indicators Research 2006; 77: 333-368. doi: 10.1007/s11205-004-5368-4
2. Wyatt TA, Wah CY. Perceptions of QWL: A study of Singaporean employees development. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 2001; 9 (2): 59-76. doi: 10.1.1.730.424
3. Turkish Veterinary Medical Association (TVMA). 3rd ed. Turkish Veterinary Medicine Congress Commission Reports Book, TVMA, Ankara, Turkey; 2010 (in Turkish).
4. Official Gazette. The Law Regarding Practicing The Profession of Veterinary Medicine, Organisation of Turkish Veterinary Medical Association and Chambers and Their Activities. 18 March 1954 dated and 8661 numbered; 1954 (in Turkish).
5. Official Gazette. Regulation on Veterinary Clinic and Polyclinic. 05 October 2011 dated and 28085 numbered; 2011 (in Turkish).
6. Turkish Veterinary Medical Association (TVMA). 4th ed. Turkish Veterinary Medicine Congress Commission Reports Book (in Turkish), TVMA, Ankara, Turkey; 2018.
7. Efraty D, Sirgy J. The effects of quality of working life (QWL) on employee behavioural responses. Social Indicator Research 1990; 22: 31-47. doi: 10.1007/BF00286389
8. Aslım G. The Evaluation of the Quality of Working Life of Veterinarians in Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock. PhD, Selçuk University Health Sciences Institute Konya, Turkey, 2013 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
9. Özaslan G. Evaluation of the Quality of Working Life of Research Assistants. PhD, Selçuk University, Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Educational Sciences, Konya, Turkey, 2010 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
10. Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 2002; 27: 335-340. doi: 10.3102/10769986027004335
11. Feldt, LS, Woodruff DJ, Salih FA. Statistical inference for coefficient alpha. Applied Psychological Measurement 1987; 11: 93-103. doi: 10.1177/014662168701100107
12. Walton RE. Quality of working life: What is it? Sloan Management Review 1973; 15: 11-21. doi: 10.12691/ education-4-20-3
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 1997; 314 (7080): 572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
14. Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to measurement theory. IL, USA: Waveland Press, Long Grove; 2002.
15. Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for comparing two alpha reliability coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement 2003; 27: 72-74. doi: 10.1177/0146621602239477
16. Bonett DG. Varying coefficient meta-analytic methods for alpha reliability. Psychological Methods 2010; 15: 368-385. doi: 10.1037/a0020142
17. Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2004; 64 (3): 391-418. doi: 10.1177/0013164404266386
18. Tezbaşaran A. Likert type scale development guide (in Turkish). 2nd ed. , Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Psychologists Association Publications; 1997 (in Turkish).
19. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 1955; 52 (4): 281-302. doi: 10.1037/ h0040957
20. Balcı A. Research Methods, Techniques and Principles in Social Sciences. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara University, Faculty of Education Sciences; 1995 (in Turkish).
21. Dempsey PA, Dempsey AD. Using nursing research process, critical evaluation and utilization. 5th ed. Philadelphia-New York, USA: Lippincott; 2000.
22. Kaiser HF. An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika 1974; 39 (1): 31-36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575
23. Cerny CA, Kaiser HF. A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1977; 12 (1): 43-47. doi: 10.1207/ s15327906mbr1201_3
24. Kaiser HF. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1958; 23 (3): 187-200. doi: 10.1007/ BF02289233
25. Bartlett MS, Fowler RH. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proceedings of the Royal Society 1937; A160: 268-282. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1937.0109
26. Tukey JW. One degree of freedom for non-additivity. Biometrics 1949; 5 (3): 232-242. doi:10.2307/3001938
27. Şirin M. Validity and reliability study of the quality of nursing work life scale (in Turkish). MSc, Atatürk University Health Sciences Institute, Erzurum, Turkey, 2011.
28. Aydın İ, Çelik Y, Uğurluoğlu Ö. Quality of work life scale for healthcare personnel: development, validity and reliability. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet 2011; 22 (2): 79-100 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
29. Taşdemir Afsar S, Burcu E. The adaptation and validation of quality of working life scale to Turkish culture. Applied Research Quality Life 2014; 9: 897-910. doi: 10.1007/s11482- 013-9276-0
30. Sirgy MJ, Efraty D, Siegel P, Lee DJ. A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research 2001; 55 (3): 241-302. doi: 10.1023/A:1010986923468
31. Akar H, Üstüner M. Turkish adaptation of work-related quality of life scale: validity and reliability studies. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education 2017; 18 (2): 159-176 (in Turkish with an extended abstract in English). doi: 10.17679/ inuefd.302675
32. Van Laar D, Edwards JA, Easton S. The work-related quality of life scale for healthcare workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2007; 60 (3): 325-333. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04409.x