A Research On Satisfaction Scale Of Staffs In Tuberculosis Control Agencies

Objective Reliability and validity of satisfaction scale of the staffs in tuberculosis control agencies were assessed and improved for providing a valuable reference to human resources evaluation. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate the validity of satisfaction scale of the staffs in tuberculosis control agencies and the difference between these two method could be found in this study.Methods Two-level variance component model was used by MLWIN2.0 to evaluate the reliability of satisfaction scale within investigators. EFA and CFA were used to assess the validity of the satisfaction scale by Lisrel8.7 and were improved..Results Two-level variance component model was applied to evaluate the 22-item investigators' and 11 dimensions' reliabilities of satisfaction scale in the initial model. And each item's reliability was over 0.7. Four dimensions' reliabilities are 0.7～0.8, 1 dimension's reliability is 0.8～0.9, and others are all above 0.9; while 3 items' reliabilities are 0.7～0.8, 4 items' reliabilities are 0.8-0.9, and others are all above 0.9.The results of the CFA indicated that the initial model (including 11 factors, named O₁) fitted the data and moreover relatively well fitted (RMSEA=0.086, ECVI=1.45, NNFI=0.94, CFI=0.95 and SRMR=0.056), and the modified model (including 10 factors, named O₁₀) also fitted the data (RMSEA=0.079, ECVI=1.32, NNFI=0.94, CFI=0.96, SRMR=0.055). This sample was random divided into two parts and the results of CFA indicated that the new model (named F₁) which was from part one in the way of EFA fitted the first part of data well (RMSEA=0.084, ECVI=1.94, NNFI=0.92, CFI=0.93, SRMR=0.065), and the modified model (named F₁₀) not only fitted the partl data well (RMSEA=0.076, ECVI=1.7, NNFI=0.93, CFI=0.94, SRMR=0.057) but also fitted the part2 data well (RMSEA=0.082, ECVI=1.89, NNFI=0.92, CFI=0.94, SRMR=0.062). These two parts of the data were used to do two-group confirmatory factor analysis of F₁₀, including the same patterns, equivalent factors' loadings, factors' variance and covariance equivalent test, and their indices of fitness are RMSEA=0.080, ECVI=1.86, NNFI=0.92, CFI=0.94 and SRMR=0.058; RMSEA=0.079, ECVI=1.84, NNFI=0.93, CFI=0.94 and SRMR=0.063; RMSEA=0.076, ECVI=1.81, NNFI=0.94, CFI=0.94, SRMR=0.063. Moreover, F₁₀ fitted the whole data well in the way of CFA with the goodness of fit indices (RMSEA=0.079, ECVI=1.49, NNFI=0.93, CFI=0.94, SRMR=0.055).Conclusions The reliability of satisfaction scale within investigators is good. The modified ten-factor model of satisfaction Scale is better than prior model. EFA could lead to a so-called "data-driven" technique, whose outcomes could often be ambiguous or misinterpreted, but CFA was a "theory-driven" technique which provide more satisfied factor structures and also a reliable method.