Vol. 17, n. 3, novembre 2024
STRUMENTI
La Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS): Uno studio delle sue proprietà psicometriche
Annamaria Di Fabio1 e Andrea Svicher2
Sommario
La Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) è uno strumento di recente sviluppo per misurare la soddisfazione nello studio in contesti accademici, basato sul modello di soddisfazione lavorativa di Judge et al. (1998). Questo studio ha valutato le proprietà psicometriche della SSS in 379 studenti universitari italiani. I partecipanti hanno completato la Study Satisfaction Scale insieme alla Satisfaction with Life Scale e alla Flourishing Scale. L’Analisi Fattoriale Confermativa (CFA) ha supportato una struttura unifattoriale della scala, mostrando buoni indici di adattamento (χ²(df) = 13.21(6); p = .04; CFI = .97; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05). La consistenza interna è risultata elevata (α = .86), indicando una buona affidabilità. La validità concorrente è stata analizzata attraverso correlazioni positive e statisticamente significative sia con la Satisfaction with Life Scale sia con la Flourishing Scale. Questi risultati suggeriscono che la Study Satisfaction Scale è uno strumento affidabile e valido per valutare la soddisfazione nello studio degli studenti nei contesti universitari.
Parole chiave
Soddisfazione nello studio, Study Satisfaction Scale, Studenti universitari, Benessere, Proprietà psicometriche.
INSTRUMENTS
The Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS): A Study of its Psychometric Properties
Annamaria Di Fabio3 and Andrea Svicher4
Abstract
The Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) is a newly developed tool designed to measure study satisfaction in academic settings, based on Judge et al.’s (1998) job satisfaction model. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the SSS in 379 Italian university students. Participants completed the Study Satisfaction Scale along with the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Flourishing Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a one-factor structure for the scale, yielding good fit indices (χ²(df) = 13.21(6); p = .04; CFI = .97; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05). The internal consistency was high (α = .86), indicating good reliability. Concurrent validity was analysed through positive and statistically significant correlations with both the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Flourishing Scale. These findings suggest that the Study Satisfaction Scale is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing study satisfaction of students in university contexts.
Keywords
Study satisfaction, Study Satisfaction Scale, University students, Well-being, Psychometric properties.
Introduction
Well-being and mental health at study is currently a crucial topic to pay attention to, also looking for resources at different levels (Blustein et al., 2024a, 2024b; Kenny et al., 2024). Instability and uncertainty in contemporary global environments reduce individuals’ ability to navigate their careers (Blustein et al., 2019) and the associated loss of resources and work disruptions have increased the risk of mental health issues, family conflicts, and social isolation for students (Blustein et al., 2024a). In particular, Lipson et al. (2022) highlighted a concerning trend of increasing mental health problems among university students, which was also predictive of lower academic success and risk of dropping out (Eisenberg et al., 2009). As noted by Duffy et al. (2019), the prevalence of mental health symptoms has nearly doubled in university student populations over the past decade, further emphasizing the timeliness and relevance of research in this area. Therefore, in this context, studying psychological resources that can potentially enhance well-being (Duffy et al., 2022) as well as facets of well-being among university students has become crucial.
In recent years, there has been a growing focus on measuring and assessing study satisfaction in higher education due to its impact on academic performance and well-being (Bebermeier et al., 2022; Bowling & Zelazny, 2022; Merino-Soto et al., 2017; Mostert et al., 2024; Rodrigues et al., 2024; Różycka-Tran et al., 2021). Researchers agree that study satisfaction is a relevant construct for academic achievement and are starting to explore this concept by incorporating the well-established construct of job satisfaction (Elliott, 2003; Elliott & Healy, 2001; Greenhaus et al., 1990; Judge et al., 1998; Lent et al., 2007).
Różycka-Tran et al. (2021) modified the construct of career satisfaction by Greenhaus et al. (1990) and conceptualized study satisfaction as a subjective measure of students’ self-perceptions of study-related success, encompassing overall satisfaction with progress toward study goals, satisfaction with the choice of field of study, and satisfaction with academic performance. They adapted Greenhaus et al.’s (1990) five-item Career Satisfaction Scale to measure study satisfaction and applied it to both Polish and Vietnamese participants.
Similarly, Mostert et al. (2024) modified the construct of job satisfaction developed by Sjöberg and Sverke (2000) to create a construct of study satisfaction. They define study satisfaction as «the student’s level of satisfaction, general experience, or attitude towards their academic studies or the university» (Mostert et al., 2024, p. 678). They adapted the Job Satisfaction Scale by Sjöberg and Sverke (2000), a scale composed of four items, focusing on four key aspects: enjoyment of studies, contentment with studies, satisfaction with studies, and happiness in studies. Moreover, they situated study satisfaction within the job demands-resources (JD-R) theory framework (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Bakker et al., 2023), positioning it as an outcome of the motivational process, and highlighting its importance as a measure of student well-being and academic success.
Other researchers have developed scales to measure study satisfaction. Wach et al. (2016) applied two study satisfaction constructs of Westermann et al. (1996) (e.g., overall satisfaction with different aspects of the university experience: course content, quality of teaching, academic performance, recognition, interaction with instructors, peer support, and administrative processes) and Schiefele and Jacob-Ebbinghaus (2006) (satisfaction in terms of taught contents, conditions of studying, and coping with study-related stress). On these bases, Wach et al. (2016) conceptualized a construct of study satisfaction as comprising three dimensions: satisfaction with study content (students’ feelings of joy regarding their chosen major), satisfaction with the conditions of the academic programme (how students experience their university environment), and satisfaction with the ability to cope with academic stress (the impact of academic stress on personal lives) and a related scale comprising 11 items, namely the Study-Satisfaction Questionnaire.
Merino-Soto et al. (2017) advanced a new construct of study satisfaction expanding previous research on study satisfaction (Lent et al., 2007), highlighting that previous research did not consider the students’ self-evaluation regarding their own studies. To measure this construct of study satisfaction they developed a three-item brief scale for assessing study satisfaction in Peruvian medical students, investigating: (1) the set of behaviours that allow the acquisition of learning in the academic context (way of studying), (2) the evaluation of the outcomes of these behaviours (performance), and (3) the global perception of personal aspects during the act of studying (studies in general) (Merino-Soto et al., 2017).
Subsequently, Westermann et al. (2018) produced a construct of study satisfaction, grounded in the person-environment fit theory (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs, and Hackman and Lawler’s (1971) job characteristics theory and the related nine-item measurement tool, namely the Short Questionnaire for the Assessment of Study Satisfaction. It is distributed across three scales: (1) Satisfaction with the study contents, (2) Satisfaction with the study conditions, (3) Satisfaction with coping with the study loads, each containing three items.
Bebermeier et al. (2022) conducted a longitudinal study examining the determinants of university students’ study satisfaction. Drawing on the work of Westermann et al. (1996), they measured study satisfaction as encompassing: (a) Satisfaction with the study content; (b) Dissatisfaction with the study conditions; and (c) Dissatisfaction with coping with study burdens. Moreover, they considered study satisfaction as a subjective criterion of academic success, alongside persistence with the choice of study subject (Bebermeier et al., 2022). Their findings suggest that study-relevant characteristics, such as self-efficacy and level of information, are among the most significant predictors of students’ study satisfaction, overreaching their initial academic abilities (Bebermeier et al., 2022).
Rodrigues et al. (2024) offered another multidimensional approach that combined the use of previously developed constructs and scales: study satisfaction (Westermann et al., 2018) and job satisfaction (Neuberger & Allerbeck, 2014). Thus, Rodrigues et al. (2024) used the nine-items of the Short Questionnaire for the Assessment of Study Satisfaction (Westermann et al., 2018) plus three items derived from adapting the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (Neuberger & Allerbeck, 2014) to measure specific aspects of home study. The Job Satisfaction Questionnaire’s (Neuberger & Allerbeck, 2014) scales «my job», «my working conditions» and «organization and management» were adapted to the satisfaction with home study, satisfaction with home office conditions, and satisfaction with the university’s handling of the pandemic and online semesters (Rodrigues et al., 2024).
Empirical research indicates that high levels of study satisfaction can hinder or reduce the likelihood of university students developing intentions to drop out (Bardach et al., 2020). Additionally, greater study satisfaction is positively correlated with an enhanced ability to manage stress and improved academic performance (Wach et al., 2016). Despite these promising findings, to the best of our knowledge, efforts to develop a study satisfaction inventory by adapting the traditional job satisfaction framework proposed by Judge et al. (1998) in the work and organizational literature have not yet been undertaken.
Judge et al. (1998) conceptualized job satisfaction as a unidimensional multi-faceted construct influenced by both dispositional and situational factors (e.g., workers’ feel fairly well satisfied with their present job; most days workers are enthusiastic about their work; workers’ find real enjoyment in their work). Job satisfaction appeared to be correlated with core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 1998). Those with positive core self-evaluations are more likely to view their work as challenging and meaningful. While related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction is a distinct construct (Judge et al., 1998). Judge et al. (1998) measured job satisfaction using a five-item scale, assessing overall satisfaction with one’s own job.
Despite studies in the literature having developed instruments to measure study satisfaction starting from the construct of job satisfaction (e.g., Mostert et al., 2024; Wach et al., 2016), none of these has applied the traditional model of Judge et al.’s (1998) on the job satisfaction construct to the study satisfaction in a university context. According to this line, having a reliable and valid tool to assess study satisfaction closely following Judge et al.’s (1998) Job Satisfaction Scale, could be a promising advance in detecting study satisfaction. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to examine the psychometric properties of the instrument labelled the Study Satisfaction Scale, adapted from the five items of Judge et al.’s (1998) Job Satisfaction Scale.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
Three hundred and seventy-nine (N = 379) university students from Italy participated in the study, including 199 women (47.50%) and 180 men (52.50%), with an average age of 21.78 years (SD = 2.31). Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained in accordance with Italian privacy laws (DL-196/2003; EU 2016/679). The sequence in which the questionnaires were administered was counterbalanced to reduce any potential biases due to the order of presentation. All the study self-report questionnaires were administered in English, and all participants had a B2 certification in English.
Measures
The Study Satisfaction Scale has been developed by Di Fabio and Svicher closely following the Job Satisfaction Scale by Judge et al. (1998) and adapting it to the study context. It consists of five items rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from «Strongly agree» to «Strongly disagree», conceived as a one-dimensional self-report scale. Examples of items are: «Most days I am enthusiastic about my studies» and «I find real enjoyment in my studies» (Appendix).
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), developed by Diener et al. (1985) is a five-item, one-dimensional self-report instrument designed to assess cognitive processes related to individuals’ overall satisfaction with their lives. Participants responded to items on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from «Strongly agree» to «Strongly disagree». Cronbach’s alpha is .87 for the original version and .83 in the present study. Examples of items are: «I am satisfied with my life», and «The conditions of my life are excellent».
The Flourishing Scale (FS), developed by Diener et al. (2010) is an eight-item self-report instrument that evaluates socio-psychological flourishing, reflecting perceived success in important life domains such as self-esteem, relationships, and optimism. Responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale from «Completely disagree» to «Strongly agree». Cronbach’s alpha is .87 for the original version and .88 in the present study. Examples of items are «My social relationships are supportive and rewarding»; and «I lead a purposeful and meaningful life».
Statistical Analysis
We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) utilizing the Lavaan 0.6-13 package within the R Studio 2024.04.2+764 software for Macintosh. CFA was run to test the unidimensional model according to Judge et al. (1998) (i.e., all the five items loading on a single study satisfaction factor). The robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) was used. Model fit was evaluated with the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Good fit was indicated by CFI and TLI values over .97, and acceptable fit by values between .95 and .97. RMSEA values were classified as good (≤ .05), acceptable (.05-.08), mediocre (.08-.10), and unacceptable (> .10) (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). The reliability of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha via the Psych 2.3.3 R package, with alpha (α) values above .70 considered adequate. The concurrent validity of the Study Satisfaction Scale was measured using Pearson’s correlation coefficients with the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Flourishing Scale.
Results
Concerning results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the one-factor solution showed good fit to the data: χ²(df) = 13.21(6); p = .04; CFI = .97; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .06 (90% CI = .03-.09); SRMR = .05. The path diagram and factor loadings of the unidimensional tested model are shown in Figure 1. Factor loadings were found to be good ranging from .72 to .84 (Figure 1). Moreover, the Study Satisfaction Scale showed good internal reliability, indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .86. Regarding results of Pearson’s correlations, positive and statistically significant relationships were found between the Study Satisfaction Scale and SWLS as well as between the Study Satisfaction Scale and FS, supporting concurrent validity (Table 1).
Figure 1
Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS): Confirmatory Factor Analysis — Path Diagram of the Tested Unidimensional Models (N = 379).
SSS = Study Satisfaction Scale.
Table 1
Correlations between Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and between Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS) and Flourishing Scale (FS) (N = 379).
|
Satisfaction with Life Scale |
Flourishing Scale |
|
|
Study Satisfaction Scale |
.63** |
.44** |
** p < .01.
Discussion
The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Study Satisfaction Scale in university students. To the best of our knowledge, the present study represents the first attempt to adapt Judge et al.’s (1998) model to measure study satisfaction and to investigate its psychometric properties. This research contributes to the existing literature by extending a well-established job satisfaction framework to the academic domain, potentially offering new insights into students’ educational experiences associated with well-being.
Results from the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a single-factor structure for the scale with adequate reliability, in accordance with previous results on the scale developed for workers (Di Fabio, 2018; Judge et al., 1998, 2010, 2020). Positive and strong statistically significant correlations of the Study Satisfaction Scale with the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the Flourishing Scale provide concurrent validity for the scale, confirming study satisfaction as a variable related to the well-being of university students (Bebermeier et al., 2022; Bowling & Zelazny, 2022; Merino-Soto et al., 2017; Mostert et al., 2024; Rodrigues et al., 2024; Różycka-Tran et al., 2021). The present results underscore a positive association with both hedonic well-being, in terms of satisfaction with life, and eudaimonic well-being, in terms of flourishing. The good psychometric qualities shown by the Study Satisfaction Scale make it suitable for use in research and intervention with university students. The availability of this new instrument for measuring and examining study satisfaction opens promising opportunities for future research, in relation to the well-being of university students. Future research could also study the psychometric properties of the Study Satisfaction Scale with high school students.
In conclusion, this research extended a well-established job satisfaction model for workers to students in the academic context, offering new perspectives on enacting the measurement of study satisfaction. The Study Satisfaction Scale proves a valuable instrument for future investigations into university students’ educational experiences and student well-being, potentially informing targeted and tailored interventions.
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933
Bardach, L., Lüftenegger, M., Oczlon, S., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2020). Context-related problems and University students’ dropout intentions-the buffering effect of personal best goals. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(2), 477-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00433-9
Bebermeier, S., Austerschmidt, K. L., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2022). Determinants of psychology students’ study satisfaction. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 21(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725720985223
Blustein, D. L., Allan, B., Mazur, A., Sharone, O., Autin, K., Cinamon, R. G., Ferreira, J. A., Kozan, S., Smith, C., Stevenson, B., & Thompson, M. (2024a). An Evaluation of an Integrative Intervention for Work and Mental Health: The WIN Program. Journal of Career Assessment, 32(2), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727231196143
Blustein, D. L., Grzanka, P. R., Gordon, M., Smith, C. M., & Allan, B. A. (2024b). The psychology of precarity: A critical framework. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001361
Blustein, D. L., Kenny, M. E., Di Fabio, A., & Guichard, J. (2019). Expanding the impact of the psychology of working: Engaging psychology in the struggle for decent work and human rights. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718774002
Bowling, N., & Zelazny, L. (2022). Measuring general job satisfaction: Which is more construct
Valid-global scales or facet-composite scales?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09739-2
Di Fabio, A. (2018). Job Satisfaction Scale: First contribution to the validation of the Italian version. Counseling, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.14605/CS1121807
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2021). The relationship of compassion and self-compassion with personality and emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 110109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110109
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.-W., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
Duffy, M. E., Twenge, J. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2019). Trends in mood and anxiety symptoms and suicide-related outcomes among U.S. undergraduates, 2007–2018: Evidence from two national surveys. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(5), 590-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.04.033
Duffy, R. D., Kim, H. J., Perez, G., Prieto, C. G., Torgal, C., & Kenny, M. E. (2022). Decent education as a precursor to decent work: An overview and construct conceptualization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 138, 103771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103771
Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Hunt, J. B. (2009). Mental health and academic success in college. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1935
Elliott, K. M. (2003). Key determinants of student satisfaction. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(3), 271-279. https://doi.org/10.2190/B2V7-R91M-6WXR-KCCR
Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v10n04_01
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86. https://doi.org/10.2307/256352
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259-286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031152
Hellgren, J., Sjöberg, A., & Sverke, M. (1997). The interactive effect of job involvement and organizational commitment on job turnover revisited: A note on the mediating role of turnover intention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 247-252.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., Podsakoff, N. P., Shaw, J. C., & Rich, B. L. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 157-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.002
Judge, T. A., Zhang, S., & Glerum, D. R. (2020). Job satisfaction. In V. I. Sessa, & N. A. Bowling (Eds.), Essentials of job attitudes and other workplace psychological constructs (1st ed.) (pp. 113-140). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429325755
Kenny, M. E., Schmidtberger, R., & Masters, A. (2023). Promoting decent work and decent life for all: Preparing the next generation through decent education and career development education. Australian Journal of Career Development, 32(3), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162231186115
Kenny, M. E., Wu, X., Guterres, K. M. P., Gordon, P., Schmidtberger, R., Masters, A., Tanega, C., & Cunningham, S. (2024). Youth perspectives on decent education and college and career readiness. Journal of Career Assessment, 32(3), 598-618. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727231217108
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person- supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Lent, R. W., Singley, D., Sheu, H. B., Gainor, K. A., Brenner, B. R., Treistman, D., & Ades, L. (2007). Relation of social-cognitive factors to academic satisfaction in engineering students. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(1), 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072706294518
Lipson, S. K., Zhou, S., Abelson, S., Heinze, J., Jirsa, M., Morigney, J., Patterson, A., Singh, M., & Eisenberg, D. (2022). Trends in college student mental health and help-seeking by race/ethnicity: Findings from the national healthy minds study, 2013–2021. Journal of Affective Disorders, 306, 138-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.038
Merino-Soto, C., Dominguez-Lara, S., & Fernández-Arata, M. (2017). Validación inicial de una Escala Breve de Satisfacción con los Estudios en estudiantes universitarios de Lima. [Initial validation of a Brief Scale of Study Satisfaction in University students in Lima]. Educación Médica, 18(1), 74-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edumed.2016.06.016
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper.
Mostert, K., van Rensburg, C., & Machaba, R. (2024). Intention to dropout and study satisfaction: Testing item bias and structural invariance of measures for South African first-year University students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(3), 677-692. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2022-0126
Neuberger, O., & Allerbeck, M. (2014). Arbeitszufriedenheit. In D. Danner, & A. Glöckner-Rist (Eds.), Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen.
Rodrigues, J., Rose, R., & Hewig, J. (2024). The relation of Big Five personality traits on academic performance, well-being and home study satisfaction in Corona times. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14(2), 368-384. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14020025
Rosen, M. A., & Di Fabio, A. (2023). Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in
organizations: Empirical evidence from environment to safety to innovation and future research. In A. Di Fabio, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development in Organizations (pp. 20-41). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781003212157
Różycka-Tran, J., Jurek, P., Truong, T. K. H., & Olech, M. (2021). The implications of filial piety in
study engagement and study satisfaction: A Polish-Vietnamese comparison. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.525034
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
Schiefele, U., & Jacob-Ebbinghaus, L. (2006). Lernermerkmale und Lehrqualität als Bedingungen der Studienzufriedenheit. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 20(3), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.20.3.199
Sjöberg, A., & Sverke, M. (2000). The interactive effect of job involvement and organizational commitment on job turnover revisited: A note on the mediating role of turnover intention. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(3), 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00194
Wach, F.-S., Karbach, J., Ruffing, S., Brünken, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2016). University students’ satisfaction with their academic studies: Personality and motivation matter. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(55). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00055
Westermann, R., Elke, H., Spies, K., & Trautwein, U. (1996). Identifikation und Erfassung von Komponenten der Studienzufriedenheit [Identifying and assessing components of student satisfaction]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 43(1), 1-22.
Westermann, R., Heise, E., & Spies, K. (2018). FB-SZ-K. Kurzfragebogen zur Erfassung der Studienzufriedenheit. Verfahrensdokumentation, Fragebogen und Erläuterungen zum Fragebogen [Short questionnaire for assessing study satisfaction. Documentation, questionnaire, and explanations]. Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie (ZPID), Open Test Archive. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4654
Appendix
Items in English of the Study Satisfaction Scale (SSS)
1. I feel fairly well satisfied with my present studies
2. Most days I am enthusiastic about my studies
3. Each day of study seems like it will never end
4. I find real enjoyment in my studies
5. I consider my studies rather unpleasant
-
1 Responsabile del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia del Lavoro e delle Organizzazioni per l’orientamento professionale, il career counseling, il career development, i talenti e le organizzazioni in salute» e del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia Positiva Cross-Culturale, Prevenzione e Sostenibilità», Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura, Letterature e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italia.
-
2 Membro del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia del Lavoro e delle Organizzazioni per l’orientamento professionale, il career counseling, il career development, i talenti e le organizzazioni in salute» e del Laboratorio Internazionale di Ricerca e Intervento «Psicologia Positiva Cross-Culturale, Prevenzione e Sostenibilità», Dipartimento di Formazione, Lingue, Intercultura, Letterature e Psicologia (Sezione di Psicologia), Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italia.
-
3 Director of the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Work and Organizational Psychology for Vocational Guidance, Career Counseling, Career Development, Talents, and Healthy Organizations» and the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability», Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures, and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Florence, Italy, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html.
-
4 Member of the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Work and Organizational Psychology for Vocational Guidance, Career Counseling, Career Development, Talents, and Healthy Organizations» and the International Research and Intervention Laboratory «Cross-Cultural Positive Psychology, Prevention, and Sustainability», Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures, and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Florence, Italy, https://www.forlilpsi.unifi.it/vp-30-laboratori.html
Vol. 17, Issue 3, November 2024
