Warr’s Job Satisfaction Scale (WJSAT)

Abstract

Warr’s Job Satisfaction Scale (WJSAT)—originally developed and published by Peter B. Warr, John Cook, and Toby D. Wall in 1979 under the auspices of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Social and Applied Psychology Unit at the University of Sheffield—represents one of the most psychometrically validated and enduring self-report instruments in organizational psychology and occupational health. Developed to address methodological deficiencies in prevailing job attitude inventories, the instrument systematically captures an employee’s affective and cognitive evaluations across discrete occupational facets. In its standard full-length operationalization, the scale comprises 15 distinct job feature items supplemented by a 16th global evaluative item, structured to differentiate between intrinsic job satisfaction (factors directly tied to work tasks, autonomy, personal growth, variety, and the use of skills) and extrinsic job satisfaction (contextual and environmental elements including physical conditions, supervisory competence, remuneration, industrial relations, job security, and hours of work). Responses are recorded along an authentic seven-point Likert-type satisfaction continuum ranging from 1 (“extremely dissatisfied”) to 7 (“extremely satisfied”), featuring an explicit midpoint of 4 (“not sure”). Across four decades of empirical replication, the scale has demonstrated robust psychometric properties, with Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients typically exceeding .85 for the overall composite index, .80 to .88 for the intrinsic subscale, and .74 to .85 for the extrinsic subscale. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have consistently supported an oblique two-factor structural model or a hierarchical bifactor framework, validating its theoretical divergence while accommodating shared common variance. Criterion-related validity has been demonstrated through significant inverse correlations with turnover intentions, psychological distress, and occupational burnout, alongside strong positive associations with organizational citizenship behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being. This article provides an exhaustive academic review of the scale’s historical development, structural dimensionality, psychometric indices, theoretical foundations, and modern assessment utility.

Keywords

Warr’s Job Satisfaction Scale, WJSAT, job satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, occupational well-being, psychometrics, job characteristics, Peter Warr, work attitudes

Authors

The scale was developed by a team of prominent organizational psychologists at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Social and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom:

• Peter B. Warr, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield. Renowned internationally for his pioneering conceptual models of occupational mental health, most notably the “Vitamin Model” of happiness and work performance.
• John D. Cook, Ph.D.: Research Fellow and organizational psychometrician whose foundational scholarship focused on the empirical measurement of work attitudes, industrial relations climates, and employee organizational commitment.
• Toby D. Wall, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Work Psychology and former Director of the Institute of Work Psychology at the University of Sheffield, recognized for extensive theoretical and empirical contributions regarding autonomous work design, shop-floor manufacturing interventions, and organizational efficacy.

Purpose

The Warr Job Satisfaction Scale was engineered to resolve critical psychometric, operational, and practical challenges present in early-to-mid 20th-century occupational attitude surveys. Prior to the seminal 1979 publication by Warr, Cook, and Wall, industrial researchers and organizational consultants frequently relied upon either single-item global indicators—which notoriously suffered from low internal consistency, susceptibility to immediate contextual bias, and an inability to diagnose specific organizational deficiencies—or overly lengthy, proprietary multi-facet inventories such as the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). While comprehensive, these lengthy batteries placed excessive cognitive load on blue-collar manufacturing cohorts and frontline workers, who often possessed limited literacy or experienced survey fatigue during extended plant interventions.

The overarching purpose of Warr and colleagues was to create a parsimonious, psychometrically rigorous, and easily readable self-report instrument capable of operating across diverse socio-occupational strata, ranging from manual blue-collar laborers in heavy industrial plants to managerial and administrative personnel. Specifically, the instrument was conceptualized to serve a dual diagnostic purpose: first, to capture granular, actionable intelligence concerning employee reactions to discrete workplace attributes (such as physical environment, remuneration, and managerial practices); and second, to calculate standardized, aggregated composite scores representing higher-order affective constructs—namely intrinsic satisfaction, extrinsic satisfaction, and overarching total job satisfaction.

In contemporary research settings, the scale is routinely employed within epidemiological and longitudinal designs investigating occupational stress, cardiovascular health, work-family balance, and employee retention. Within applied clinical and occupational health paradigms, the WJSAT acts as a primary evaluative screen for identifying structural stressors within work environments that precipitate employee burnout, depression, and somatic symptomatology. By isolating whether workplace dissatisfaction stems from intrinsic sources (e.g., skill underutilization, micro-management) or extrinsic sources (e.g., wage inadequacy, hazardous physical environments, strained industrial relations), occupational health professionals, human resources strategists, and organizational development consultants can formulate targeted, evidence-based ergonomic, procedural, or structural interventions.

Psychological Construct

Job satisfaction is broadly defined within organizational psychology as an evaluative state expressing contentment with and positive feelings toward one’s employment, synthesizing cognitive appraisals of workplace conditions with emotional reactions to everyday work experiences. The Warr Job Satisfaction Scale conceptualizes job satisfaction not as an undifferentiated, monolithic sentiment, but as a hierarchical, multi-faceted affective-cognitive construct bifurcated into two primary dimensions: intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction, accompanied by a global evaluative dimension.

1. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

Intrinsic job satisfaction pertains to the psychological rewards derived directly from performing the work tasks themselves. It reflects the degree to which the structural architecture of the job satisfies higher-order psychological needs, such as self-determination, autonomy, competence, personal agency, and psychological growth. Within the WJSAT, intrinsic satisfaction is measured across items tapping:

• Method Autonomy and Discretion: Reflected in Item 2 (“The freedom to choose your own method of working”), assessing the worker’s decision latitude and operational self-governance.
• Recognition and Feedback: Reflected in Item 4 (“The recognition you get for good work”), evaluating whether the worker experiences validation, social acknowledgment, and constructive appraisal for effort and accomplishment.
• Responsibility and Accountability: Reflected in Item 6 (“The amount of responsibility you arc given”), capturing the extent to which the organization entrusts the individual with consequential tasks and meaningful decision-making authority.
• Competence and Skill Utilization: Reflected in Item 8 (“The opportunity to use your abilities”), gauging the alignment between an individual’s latent talents, intellectual capabilities, and the actual cognitive complexity required by their job.
• Task Variety: Reflected in Item 14 (“The amount of variety in your job”), determining the avoidance of monotony through task rotation, behavioral complexity, and novel stimulus engagement.
• Voice and Participation: Reflected in Item 12 (“The attention to suggestions you make”), capturing employee perceived influence over operational modifications.

2. Extrinsic Job Satisfaction

Extrinsic job satisfaction denotes an employee’s evaluation of the contextual, environmental, relational, and material factors surrounding the employment relationship. These facets exist independently of the task itself and function as instrumental enablers or potential environmental stressors. Within the WJSAT, extrinsic satisfaction encompasses:

• Physical Working Conditions: Reflected in Item 1 (“The physical work conditions”), measuring affective evaluations of ambient workplace parameters, including noise, illumination, ventilation, temperature, hygiene, and ergonomic configurations.
• Interpersonal Coworker Relations: Reflected in Item 3 (“Your fellow workers”), addressing peer cohesion, workplace social support, psychological safety, and horizontal camaraderie.
• Supervisory Leadership Quality: Reflected in Item 5 (“Your immediate boss”), examining the relational competence, fairness, communicative clarity, and interpersonal support provided by immediate leaders.
• Financial Compensation and Remuneration: Reflected in Item 7 (“Your rate of pay”), evaluating equity, market competitiveness, and subjective adequacy of direct compensation.
• Labor-Management Climate: Reflected in Item 9 (“Industrial relations between management and staff”), capturing macro-level organizational dynamics, institutional trust, dispute resolution processes, and union-management cooperation.
• Career Trajectory and Upward Mobility: Reflected in Item 10 (“Your chance of promotion/reclassification”), appraising perceptions of vertical mobility, career progression, and equitable meritocratic advancement.
• Organizational Governance and Systemic Management: Reflected in Item 11 (“The way the organization is managed”), evaluating strategic communication, administrative efficiency, and systemic institutional leadership.
• Temporal Demands and Scheduling: Reflected in Item 13 (“Your hours of work”), capturing schedule predictability, work-life interface compatibility, shift flexibility, and total temporal commitment.
• Job Security and Stability: Reflected in Item 15 (“Your job security”), appraising perceived continuity of employment, tenure certainty, and freedom from arbitrary layoff or contract termination.

3. Global Job Satisfaction

Item 16 (“Now, taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?”) serves as an overarching, integrative evaluative summary. Psychometrically, global evaluation does not represent a mere mathematical sum of discrete facet scores; rather, it reflects a complex, non-linear cognitive synthesis in which respondents subjectively weight distinct facets in accordance with personal values, current life stages, and individual aspirations.

Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the Warr Job Satisfaction Scale were fundamentally anchored in two major theoretical paradigms of organizational psychology: Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory (Two-Factor Theory) and the classical Socio-Technical Systems approach, later contextualized within Warr’s own Vitamin Model of occupational mental health and Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Theory.

Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Foundations

Frederick Herzberg (1959, 1966) posited that the factors involved in producing job satisfaction and motivation are fundamentally separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg:

• Motivator Factors (intrinsic aspects such as achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, personal advancement, and growth) are direct drivers of satisfaction and heightened performance. Their absence typically produces a state of neutral motivation rather than severe dissatisfaction.
• Hygiene Factors (extrinsic elements including company policy, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status, and job security) do not inherently generate positive job satisfaction. Rather, their presence serves as an essential prophylactic against occupational dissatisfaction. When hygiene needs are unmet, acute employee dissatisfaction ensues.

Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979) incorporated Herzberg’s conceptual duality by systematically sorting workplace items into intrinsic and extrinsic categories. However, they departed from Herzberg’s controversial methodological premise that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are entirely independent unipolar constructs. Instead, Warr and colleagues maintained that both intrinsic and extrinsic domains reside along bidirectional continuums ranging from intense dissatisfaction to intense satisfaction, a structural decision that resolved widespread psychometric criticisms leveled against Herzberg’s critical-incident methodology.

Integration with Warr’s Vitamin Model

Subsequent psychometric and theoretical refinements of the scale directly informed Warr’s (1987, 1994, 2007) formulation of the Vitamin Model of mental health. Warr drew a direct functional analogy between the biological effects of vitamins on the human physiological organism and the psychological effects of environmental job characteristics on mental health. Warr delineated environmental features into two functional classes:

• Constant Effect (CE) Vitamins: Similar to Vitamins C and D, where intake up to a recommended baseline is essential to avoid deficiency, but significant increases beyond that baseline produce a plateau effect without toxic impairment. Extrinsic features like Item 7 (rate of pay), Item 15 (job security), and Item 1 (physical safety) operate predominantly as CE vitamins; severe deficits cause distress, but an abundance maintains stability without infinite increments in psychological well-being.
• Additional Decrement (AD) Vitamins: Analogous to Vitamins A and D, where moderate amounts promote health, but extreme overabundance induces toxic decrements. Intrinsic features like Item 2 (method autonomy), Item 6 (responsibility), and Item 14 (variety) behave as AD characteristics; insufficient levels yield boredom and helplessness, moderate-to-high levels foster self-actualization, but excessively high levels can precipitate cognitive overload, role ambiguity, decision paralysis, and extreme psychological distress.

Locke’s Value-Percept Theory

The scale’s item framing additionally aligns with Edwin Locke’s (1976) Value-Percept Theory, which conceptualizes satisfaction as a cognitive judgment of the discrepancy between what an individual desires from an occupation (their personal values) and what they perceive the occupation as offering. By employing a 7-point continuum with an explicit midpoint, the WJSAT affords respondents the psychometric latitude to reflect value-congruence across both intrinsic self-actualization goals and extrinsic material imperatives.

Validity

The Warr Job Satisfaction Scale has undergone extensive psychometric validation across thousands of participants spanning manufacturing, healthcare, public administration, education, retail, and corporate environments. Empirical evaluations consistently demonstrate robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Structural Validity

Initial structural validation was executed by Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979) across two independent cohorts of British industrial workers comprising 200 male blue-collar manufacturing operatives and a replication sample of 390 blue-collar shop-floor employees. Correlation matrices confirmed high inter-item correlations among intrinsic items (average inter-item $r = .40$) and extrinsic items (average inter-item $r = .35$). Factor analytic modeling demonstrated that a two-factor oblique solution yielded clear empirical separation between intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions, accounting for substantial common variance while demonstrating that the two factors correlate positively ($r = .55$ to $.68$), confirming they represent interrelated facets of a comprehensive occupational attitude matrix.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established by cross-validating the WJSAT against other standardized psychometric benchmarks. High concurrent correlations have been documented with the short-form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire ($r = .78$ to $.84$), the Job Descriptive Index ($r = .72$ to $.81$), and Brayfield and Rothe’s Index of Job Satisfaction ($r = .75$). Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that WJSAT scores correlate weakly or non-significantly with stable dispositional personality traits such as trait anxiety, introversion, and social desirability ($r < .18$), confirming that the instrument measures situational, cognitive-affective evaluations of work conditions rather than chronic baseline affectivity.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The scale possesses remarkable predictive utility for critical individual and organizational criteria:

• Turnover and Absenteeism: Prospective longitudinal studies have identified that lower composite WJSAT scores, particularly within the extrinsic subscale (remuneration, management practices, supervisory relations), predict voluntary resignation and frequency of unexcused absences over 6-month and 12-month follow-up windows (odds ratios ranging from 1.45 to 2.10).
• Psychological Distress and Somatization: Strong inverse associations consistently emerge between the WJSAT and psychological morbidity as measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) ($r = -.42$ to $-.56$). Intrinsic dissatisfaction specifically correlates with feelings of worthlessness, depressive symptoms, and cognitive fatigue.
• Burnout Dimensions: Negative correlations are documented between the intrinsic subscale and the emotional exhaustion ($r = -.48$) and depersonalization ($r = -.39$) subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), alongside a strong positive association with personal accomplishment ($r = .52$).
• Organizational Commitment: Warr et al. (1979) and Cook and Wall (1980) demonstrated that the WJSAT correlates strongly with organizational commitment ($r = .60$ to $.70$), confirming that workers experiencing task-level fulfillment and context-level equity report superior systemic dedication.

Reliability

The reliability of the WJSAT has been affirmed across hundreds of independent cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention research studies globally. Internal consistency and temporal stability metrics satisfy all standard psychometric criteria for high-stakes research and organizational assessment.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across diverse occupational samples, internal consistency reliability coefficients consistently exceed conventional psychometric standards ($lpha ge .70$ for research; $lpha ge .80$ for diagnostics):

• Total Scale (15 Facets): Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979) established initial Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of $.87$ (Sample 1, $N=200$) and $.85$ (Sample 2, $N=390$). Subsequent meta-analytic and multi-organization studies (e.g., Mullarkey et al., 1999) report total scale alphas between $.88$ and $.92$.
• Intrinsic Subscale: Across varied cohorts, intrinsic alpha coefficients typically range from $.82$ to $.88$, demonstrating exceptional homogeneity among items measuring autonomy, variety, responsibility, and ability utilization.
• Extrinsic Subscale: Alpha coefficients for the extrinsic subscale typically range from $.74$ to $.85$. The slightly lower internal consistency relative to the intrinsic dimension reflects the diverse nature of extrinsic environmental features (e.g., physical working conditions share lower theoretical covariance with supervisory competence or hours of work than ability utilization shares with responsibility).
• Short Forms: The validated 10-item short form (featuring 5 intrinsic and 4 extrinsic items plus global satisfaction) exhibits robust alpha values, typically $.81$ to $.86$ for the overall composite index.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest stability coefficients have been established across varied longitudinal time horizons. Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979) reported a 6-month test-retest correlation coefficient of $r = .63$ ($p < .001$) among stable manufacturing workers whose occupational environments underwent no structural modifications. Sevastos, Smith, and John (1992) reported 12-month retest reliabilities between $r = .58$ and $r = .65$. These stability coefficients reflect an ideal psychometric balance: they demonstrate adequate temporal resilience against minor day-to-day transient moods, while remaining sensitive to genuine macro-level changes in working conditions, compensation structures, or job redesign interventions.

Factor Analysis

The underlying latent dimensional structure of the WJSAT has been thoroughly scrutinized using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the seminal 1979 investigations by Warr, Cook, and Wall, principal components analysis with varimax and oblimin rotations of the 15 job facet items identified a definitive two-factor latent structure accounting for approximately 46% to 52% of the total variance:

• Factor 1 (Intrinsic Satisfaction): Loaded strongly on items measuring task characteristics: Item 2 (Method freedom, loading $lambda = .68$), Item 4 (Recognition, loading $lambda = .62$), Item 6 (Responsibility, loading $lambda = .74$), Item 8 (Ability use, loading $lambda = .76$), Item 12 (Suggestions attention, loading $lambda = .58$), and Item 14 (Variety, loading $lambda = .70$).
• Factor 2 (Extrinsic Satisfaction): Loaded prominently on environmental and relational parameters: Item 1 (Physical conditions, loading $lambda = .61$), Item 3 (Fellow workers, loading $lambda = .55$), Item 5 (Immediate boss, loading $lambda = .67$), Item 7 (Pay rate, loading $lambda = .64$), Item 9 (Industrial relations, loading $lambda = .69$), Item 10 (Promotion chance, loading $lambda = .53$), Item 11 (Management way, loading $lambda = .71$), Item 13 (Work hours, loading $lambda = .54$), and Item 15 (Job security, loading $lambda = .49$).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Modern structural equation modeling and CFA investigations have rigorously tested competing theoretical models of the WJSAT:

• Unidimensional Model: Specifying all 15 items onto a single latent job satisfaction factor routinely yields inadequate model fit (e.g., $\chi^2/ ext{df} > 4.5$, $ ext{CFI} < .85$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .09$), confirming that job satisfaction cannot be reduced to a single monolithic dimension without substantial loss of psychometric fidelity.
• Orthogonal Two-Factor Model: Forcing intrinsic and extrinsic latent factors to be completely uncorrelated ($phi = 0.00$) similarly yields unacceptable fit, failing to capture the systemic interdependencies inherent to occupational settings.
• Oblique Two-Factor Model: Modeling intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction as correlated latent dimensions ($\phi pprox .60 ext{ to } .70$) significantly enhances fit indices. In a comprehensive CFA study by Heritage, Pollock, and Roberts (2015) using a representative occupational sample ($N = 1,021$), the correlated two-factor model demonstrated excellent fit metrics: $\chi^2(89) = 312.44, p < .001$; $ ext{Comparative Fit Index (CFI)} = .952$;$ ext{Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)} = .943$;$ ext{Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)} = .050$ (90% CI [.044, .056]); and $ ext{Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)} = .042$.
• Hierarchical / Bifactor Model: Contemporary structural psychometricians have also confirmed the viability of a bifactor architecture, wherein a general job satisfaction factor ($g$-factor) accounts for common variance across all 15 indicators, while specific intrinsic and extrinsic group factors capture significant orthogonal variance over and above general satisfaction. This bifactor specification confirms that researchers may legitimately compute both an overall composite score and distinct subscale metrics.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics, administration protocols, and scoring parameters of the WJSAT are summarized below:

• Instrument Type: Multidimensional self-report rating scale.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based digital assessment, or structured organizational interview.
• Target Population: Frontline employees, blue-collar workers, technical staff, managerial personnel, and professionals across all corporate, public-sector, and healthcare domains.
• Estimated Completion Time: 3 to 5 minutes for the full 16-item scale; under 2 minutes for the 10-item short form.
• Reading Level: Primary education reading level (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ~5.2), minimizing linguistic ambiguity and cognitive fatigue.
• Total Items: 16 items in the complete battery (15 specific occupational facet items and 1 global job satisfaction evaluation).
• Subscale Composition (Standard 15 Facets):
  • Intrinsic Job Satisfaction (6 or 7 items depending on operational form): Typically encompasses Item 2 (Method freedom), Item 4 (Recognition), Item 6 (Responsibility), Item 8 (Ability use), Item 12 (Suggestions attention), Item 14 (Job variety); some structural models also incorporate Item 10 (Promotion chance).
  • Extrinsic Job Satisfaction (8 or 9 items): Typically encompasses Item 1 (Physical conditions), Item 3 (Fellow workers), Item 5 (Immediate boss), Item 7 (Rate of pay), Item 9 (Industrial relations), Item 11 (Management way), Item 13 (Hours of work), Item 15 (Job security).
  • Global Satisfaction Item: Item 16 (“Now, taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?”).
• Short-Form Composition (10 Items):
  • Intrinsic Subscale (5 items): Item 1 (Freedom to choose method), Item 2 (Variety), Item 4 (Opportunities to use abilities), Item 6 (Recognition), Item 9 (Amount of responsibility).
  • Extrinsic Subscale (4 items): Item 3 (Physical conditions), Item 5 (Colleagues), Item 7 (Hours), Item 8 (Remuneration).
  • Global Item (1 item): Item 10 (Overall feeling about work).
• Response Continuum (Authentic 7-Point Likert-Type Scale):
  • 1 = extremely dissatisfied
  • 2 = very dissatisfied
  • 3 = moderately dissatisfied
  • 4 = not sure
  • 5 = moderately satisfied
  • 6 = very satisfied
  • 7 = extremely satisfied
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Direct Item Scoring: Items are scored positively from 1 to 7. There are no reverse-coded items in the authentic inventory.
  • Intrinsic Satisfaction Score: Calculated as the mean or sum of the designated intrinsic items. For the 6-item intrinsic facet group, theoretical sum scores range from 6 to 42 (or a mean metric of 1.0 to 7.0).
  • Extrinsic Satisfaction Score: Calculated as the mean or sum of the designated extrinsic items. For the 9-item extrinsic facet group, theoretical sum scores range from 9 to 63 (or a mean metric of 1.0 to 7.0).
  • Total Overall Job Satisfaction Score: Calculated as the sum of all 15 facet items (ranging from 15 to 105) or the mean across all 15 items (ranging from 1.0 to 7.0). Higher scores denote higher levels of positive work appraisal.
  • Global Evaluative Index: Item 16 is typically analyzed separately as an independent single-item global indicator to assess congruence with aggregated multi-facet profiles.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was originally published in 1979 in the Journal of Occupational Psychology (now the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology), a journal published by John Wiley & Sons on behalf of The British Psychological Society (BPS).

• Test Publication Year: 1979.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: The copyright for the original article and foundational scale text resides with The British Psychological Society and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
• Academic and Non-Commercial Research Use: Under standard academic fair-dealing guidelines, the scale items may be utilized without monetary charge by university researchers, academic faculties, postgraduate students, and healthcare institutions for non-profit scientific inquiry, empirical validation, or dissertation projects, provided full scholarly attribution is accorded to Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979).
• Commercial and Organizational Consulting Use: For large-scale proprietary surveys, organizational consulting applications, commercial diagnostic software platforms, or fee-generating human resource assessments, formal permission or licensing inquiries should be directed to the permissions department of John Wiley & Sons or through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).

References

Below is a curated selection of seminal and modern validation literature detailing the development, psychometrics, and structural modeling of Warr’s Job Satisfaction Scale:

• Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
• Heritage, B., Pollock, C., & Roberts, L. D. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of Warr, Cook, and Wall’s (1979) Job Satisfaction Scale. Australian Psychologist, 50(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12093
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
• Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Mullarkey, S., Wall, T. D., Warr, P. B., Clegg, C. W., & Stride, C. B. (1999). Measures of Job Satisfaction, Mental Health and Job-Related Well-Being: A Bench-Marking Manual. Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield.
• Sevastos, P., Smith, L., & John, L. (1992). Evidence on the reliability and construct validity of Warr’s (1990) well-being and mental health measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00482.x
• Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Warr, P. B. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work & Stress, 8(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379408259982
• Warr, P. B. (2007). Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Warr, P. B., Cook, J., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x

Items of the Scale