Validation Evidence for the Work Domain Satisfaction Scale in Two Languages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>We used the samples of six studies to validate the Work Domain Satisfaction Scale (WDSS), a global, five-item and mid-level measure of work domain well-being. English and French versions of the scale were included in the studies to assess the stability of the instrument across these languages. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a one-factor structure, which was shown invariant across languages and samples. Test-retest reliability of the scale was high, indicating that it measures a stable construct over time. Confirmatory factor analysis also provided evidence that satisfaction with work, measured with the WDSS, is related, but conceptually and empirically distinct from both life satisfaction and job satisfaction. The WDSS was also correlated in predictable ways with affective organizational commitment, a measure of how attached people are to their organizations. Work domain satisfaction also explained a significant amount of variance in affective organizational commitment, beyond job satisfaction. Moreover, the WDSS was positively related to inclusion of work into the self, a psychological variable that reflects the importance of work in the lives of individuals. The results indicate that the WDSS is a reliable, stable, and valid mid-level measure of satisfaction with work as a domain within people’s lives.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".