Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility

Kyong Ja Kwon; Min Sun Chu; Jung A Kim

doi:10.7475/kjan.2014.26.5.512

Articles

Page Path

Original Article

Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility

Kyong Ja Kwon¹, Min Sun Chu², Jung A Kim³

Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2014;26(5):512-521.
Published online: October 31, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.5.512

¹Department of Nursing, Hansei University, Gunpo

²Seoul Women's College of Nursing, Seoul

³College of Nursing, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kim, Jung A College of Nursing, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 133-791, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2220-0799, Fax: +82-2-2297-8613, E-mail: joyhippo@hanyang.ac.kr

• Received: August 30, 2013 • Accepted: October 9, 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

22 Views
0 Download
2 Crossref

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
This study examined the effect of work environment and job satisfaction on service quality among staff caring for the elderly.
Methods
A convenient sample was 192 staff members from 95 elderly facilities. Data collection occurred from June to July, 2011 using a self-administered questionnaire. Data was analyzed using SPSS/WIN 18.0.
Results
Among the subscales of Work Environment Scale, the self-realization score was the highest followed by workload, nervousness, and conflict. The mean score of job satisfaction was 71.43. Reliability was the highest followed by assurance, empathy, responsiveness, and tangibles. Predictive factors of service quality included self-realization work environment and job satisfaction.
Conclusion
Exploration of strategies to improve the recognition of self-realization work environment and job satisfaction will be necessary in order to increase of service quality among staffs in elderly facility.
Key Words: Elderly facility; Job satisfaction; Service quality; Work environment

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD
Age (year)		45.94±10.01
	20~29	14 (7.3)
	30~39	29 (15.1)
	40~49	77 (40.1)
	≥0	72 (37.5)
Gender	Male	10 (5.2)
Gender	Female	182 (94.8)
Marital status	Single	34 (17.7)
Marital status	Married	158 (82.3)
Education level	High school	15 (7.8)
	College	84 (43.8)
	University	58 (30.2)
	Graduate school	35 (18.2)
Occupational position	Chief of the facilitty	42 (21.9)
	Staff nurse	78 (40.6)
	Social worker	35 (18.2)
	Others^†	37 (19.3)
Job experience (year)^‡ (n=188)		2.39±0.74
	≤1	30 (15.9)
	＞1~≤2	54 (28.8)
	＞2~≤3	104 (55.3)
Region	Seoul	41 (21.4)
	Gyeonggi-do	121 (63.0)
	Others ^§	30 (15.6)
Facility size (resident number)	≤10	4 (2.1)
	＞11~≤30	29 (15.1)
	＞31~≤50	37 (19.3)
	＞51~≤99	58 (30.2)
	≥100	64 (33.3)

^†Physical therapist (15), occupational therapist (6), nurse aid (16);

^‡It is the Work experience since August 2007;

^§Busan (1), Incheon (6), Daejeon (1), Chuncheongnam-do (11), Gyeongsangnam-do (11).

Table 2.

Summary of Descriptive for the Study Variables (N=192)

Variables	Subscale	Numbers of items	M±SD^†	M±SD^‡	Rank
Work environment	Self-realization	4	14.52±2.29	3.63±0.57	1
	Workload	2	6.42±1.23	3.21±0.62	2
	Conflict	2	5.01±1.08	2.51±0.54	4
	Nervousness	2	5.44±1.40	2.72±0.70	3
Job satisfaction		20	71.43±9.83	3.57±0.49
Service quality	Tangibles	4	15.69±2.37	3.92±0.59	5
	Reliability	5	20.31±2.81	4.06±0.56	1
	Responsiveness	4	15.71±2.71	3.93±0.67	3
	Assurance	4	16.19±3.22	4.05±0.57	2
	Empathy	5	19.64±2.30	3.93±0.57	3
	Total	22	88.03±10.51	4.00±0.47

^†M±SD is (summation of items);

^‡M±SD is (summation of items / numbers of items).

Table 3.

The Work Environment, Job Satisfaction and Service Quality according to General Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)

Variable	Categories	Work environment								Job satisfaction		Service quality
		Self realization		Workload		Conflict		Nervousness		Job satisfaction		Service quality
		M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)
Age (year)	20~29	3.61±0.52	0.94	3.07±0.61	0.56	2.21±0.61	3.24	2.75±0.61	2.62	72.69±11.52	0.17	3.98±0.35	0.22
	30~39	3.49±0.55	(.420)	3.21±0.67	(.638)	2.33±0.57	(.023)	2.55±0.61	(.052)	71.64±9.7	(.910)	3.95±0.67	(.878)
	40~49	3.63±0.54		3.18±0.61		2.56±0.50		2.63±0.65		70.85±9.84		3.99±0.41
	≥0	3.70±0.61		3.28±0.61		2.59±0.53		2.90±0.53		71.74±9.71		4.04±0.47
Gender	Male	3.28±0.61	2.04	2.90±0.61	1.64	2.55±0.55	-0.25	2.45±0.68	1.27	73.22±12.48	-0.56	3.93±0.59	0.43
Gender	Female	3.65±0.72	(.042)	3.23±0.61	(.101)	2.51±0.54	(.802)	2.74±0.70	(.204)	71.34±9.70	(.576)	4.01±0.46	(.667)
Marital status	Single	3.81±0.54	2.00	3.32±0.65	1.14	2.35±0.51	-1.84	2.68±0.61	-0.44	72.94±8.90	0.95	4.13±0.45	1.63
Marital status	Married	3.59±0.57	(.047)	3.19±0.61	(.253)	2.54±0.54	(.066)	2.74±0.72	(.658)	71.10±10.02	(.340)	3.97±0.48	(.156)
Education level	High school^a	3.32±0.60	8.59	3.03±0.35	2.87	2.67±0.45	0.46	2.67±0.74	1.16	67.14±0.85	5.66	3.75±0.51	3.24
	College^b	3.48±0.53	(＜.001)	3.14±0.67	(.038)	2.49±0.51	(.706)	2.70±0.68	(.324)	69.13±0.88	(.001)	3.98±0.50	(.023)
	University^c	3.73±0.52	a, b＜d	3.20±0.60		2.50±0.61		2.66±0.67		73.20±0.96	a, b＜d	3.99±0.44	a＜d
	Graduate school^d	3.96±0.55		3.47±0.55		2.50±0.52		2.93±0.72		76.10±10.83		4.20±0.39
Occupational position	Chief of facility^a	3.96±0.55	6.26	3.53±0.60	7.51	2.59±0.56	2.34	3.00±0.77	4.21	75.92±9.46	5.66	4.16±0.36	2.53
	Staff nurse^b	3.49±0.53	(＜.001)	3.26±0.56 (	(＜.001)	2.58±0.53	(.074)	2.76±0.62	(.007)	68.36±9.28	(.001)	3.92±0.47	(.059)
	Social worker^c	3.63±0.53	a＞b	2.96±0.69	a＞c, d	2.33±0.56		2.46±0.65	a＞c	72.97±8.37	a＞b	3.93±0.49
	Others^d	3.60±0.58		3.01±0.50		2.43±0.48		2.62±0.73		71.68±10.79		4.07±0.55
Job experience	≤1^a	3.56±0.56	3.82	3.15±0.64	2.91	2.38±0.73	1.24	2.75±0.70	1.73	67.89±8.27	5.88	3.89±0.56	1.16
	＞1~≤2^b	3.50±0.57	(.023)	3.08±0.68	(.057)	2.47±0.53	(.290)	2.58±0.76	(.180)	69.33±9.59	(.003)	3.98±0.49	(.316)
	＞2~≤3^c	3.75±0.53	b＜c	3.32±0.55		2.55±0.48		2.79±0.66		73.74±10.00	a, b＜c	4.05±0.44
Region	Seoul^a	3.72±0.51	5.11	3.32±0.61	3.27	2.51±0.51	0.01	2.82±0.68	0.91	71.41±9.26	3.44	4.07±0.56	2.14
	Gunggido^b	3.54±0.54	(.007)	3.13±0.59	(.040)	2.51±0.57	(.996)	2.73±0.69	(.401)	70.38±9.79	(.034)	3.85±0.58	(.120)
	Others^c	3.89±0.69	b＜c	3.41±0.69		2.50±0.44		2.59±0.75		75.75±9.87	b＜c	3.99±0.64

Table 4.

Impact Factors on Service Quality (N=192)

Variables	B	_β	t	p	VIF
Education	-0.22	-.02	-0.38	.702	1.18
Self realization	1.66	.35	3.96	＜.001	1.93
Workload	0.32	.04	0.48	.632	1.47
Conflict	-0.95	-.09	-1.29	.198	1.36
Nervousness	0.39	.05	0.64	.523	1.45
Job satisfaction	0.33	.30	3.46	.001	1.83
		R²=.38, Adj.R²=.36, F=15.22, p＜.001, Durbin-Watson=1.97

REFERENCES

Abdelrazek F., Skytt B., Aly M., El-Sabour M. A., Ibrahim N., Engström M.. 2010;Leadership and management skills of first-line managers of elderly care and their work environment. Journal of nursing management. 18(6):736–-745.
Babakus E., Yavas U., Karatepe O. M., Avci T.. 2003;The effect of management commitment to service quality on employees' affective and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 31(3):272–-286.
Article
Buerhaus P. I., Donelan K., Ulrich B. T., Norman L., Dittus R.. 2006;State of the registered nurse workfore in the United States. Nursing Economic. 24(1):6–-13.
Castle N. G.. 2001;Administrator turnover and quality of care in nursing homes. The Gerontologist. 41(6):757–-767.
Article
Cho G. L., Jeong S., McMilan M., Conway J., Higgins I., Kwon K. J.. 2013;Future directions for care of older people in residential aged care facilities in South Korea..1^st Annual Worldwide Nursing Conference 100–-105.
Cho S. H.. 2011;A survey of the empowerment of the self awareness effects on the quality of service the self-evaluation: Focused on Chungcheongnam-do the workers in the long term care facility for the elderly. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 50:353–-376.
Choi H. K.. 2007;A study on work stress, satisfaction, and dementia attitudes of social care work force of dependent elders. Korean Academy of Social Welfare. 59(3):175–-199.
Friis S.. 1981;From enthusiasm to resignation in therapeutic community: A process evaluation of mental hospital ward with the Ward Atmosphere Scale (WAS). Journal of the Oslo City Hospitals. 31:51–-54.
Harris-Kojetin L., Lipson D., Fielding J., Kiefer K., Stone R. I.. 2004;Recent Findings on Frontline Long-term Care Workers: A Research Synthesis 1999-2003 Office of Disability, Aging, and Long-Term Policy, US Department of Health and Human Services..
Im W. H., Jung S. I., Chae H. T.. 2009;Influences of social worker's professional identity on job satisfaction and quality of service in nursing home: Centered on social worker take charge of care service. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 46:263–-286.
Ivancevich J. M.. 2004. Human Resource Management. 9th ed.. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kim H. J., Kim H. K.. 2011;A study on the influences of the elderly long-term care worker's job stress on the organizational effectiveness. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 51(Spring):191–-213.
Kim J. S., Kim J. K., Han W. S., Shim M. S.. 2012;Effects of national evaluation of long term care hospitals on hospital workers' work environment, job satisfaction and quality of service. Journal of Korean Public Health Nursing. 26(1):137–-146.
Kostiwa I. M., Meeks S.. 2009;The relation between psychological empowerment, service quality, and job satisfaction among certified nursing assistants. Clinical Gerontologist. 32(3):276–-292.
Article
Kwon J. A.. 2009;Clinical Nurses' Working Environment and Intention of Retention Unpublished master's thesis, Hanyang University, Seoul..
Lee E. Y.. 2006;A study on the effects of nursing home employees' job stress on their quality of care service Unpublished master's thesis, Ewha Womans University, Seoul..
Lee H. J.. 2011;The effects of work environment characteristic and job stress on the job satisfaction among caregivers. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 51:125–-144.
Lee S. K., Park J. H.. 1996;A study on relationship between autonomy and group cohesiveness perceived by nurses and their job satisfaction, organizational commitment motivation and intend to stay on jobs. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 2(1):5–-15.
Lock E. A.. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In.In: Dunnette M. D.. Hand book of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Randed Mcnally.
Moos R. H.. 1993. Work Environment Scale-From R Interpretive. . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
National Health Insurance Cooperation. 2011;Long-Term Care Insurance key statistics Retrieved June 27, 2012, from.http://www.nhic.or.kr/portal/site/main/menuitem.a6d1d03ecb101584ea0c3326b210101c.
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L.. 1988;SERVQ UAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64(1):12–-40.
Park T. Y., Chae H. T., Kim D. H.. 2009;A study on job analysis for elderly care facility workers using DACUM job analysis technique. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 46:287–-314.
Rossberg J. I., Friis S.. 2004;Patients' and staff's perceptions of the psychiatric ward environment. Psychiatric Services. 55(7):798–-803.
Ro̸ssberg J., Eiring O., Friis S.. 2004;Work environment and job satisfaction. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 39(7):576–-580.
Statistics Korea. 2013;2013 Aging Statistics Retrieved April 28, 2014, from.http://kosis.kr/customStatis/customStatis_01List.jsp.
Tourangeau A., Cranley L., Laschinger H. K. S., Pachis J.. 2010;Relationships among leadership practices, work environments, staff communication and outcomes in longterm care. Journal of Nursing Management. 18(8):1060–-1072.
Article
Van den Berg T. I., Landeweerd J. A., Tummers G. E., Van Merode G. G.. 2006;A comparative study of organizational characteristics, work characteristics and nurses psychological work reactions in a hospital and nursing home setting. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 43:491–-505.
Zeithaml V. A., Berry L. L., Parasuraman A.. 1996;The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing. 2(4):31–-46.
Zimmerman D. R.. 2003;Improving nursing home quality of care through outcomes data: The MDS quality indicators. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 18(3):250–-257.
Article

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Factors Influencing Quality of Care Service of Caregivers for Preschoolers
Soyeon Jung, Younhee Hong, Sohyune Sok
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(8): 4291. CrossRef
Nurses’ Perceptions of Care Robots in Long-term Care Facilities
Eunmin Hong, Sujin Shin
Journal of Korean Gerontological Nursing.2019; 21(1): 22. CrossRef

Cite

CITE

export

Copy Download

Format
XML Download

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility

Korean J Adult Nurs. 2014;26(5):512-521. Published online October 31, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.5.512

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility

Korean J Adult Nurs. 2014;26(5):512-521. Published online October 31, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.5.512

Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M±SD
Age (year)		45.94±10.01
	20~29	14 (7.3)
	30~39	29 (15.1)
	40~49	77 (40.1)
	≥0	72 (37.5)
Gender	Male	10 (5.2)
Gender	Female	182 (94.8)
Marital status	Single	34 (17.7)
Marital status	Married	158 (82.3)
Education level	High school	15 (7.8)
	College	84 (43.8)
	University	58 (30.2)
	Graduate school	35 (18.2)
Occupational position	Chief of the facilitty	42 (21.9)
	Staff nurse	78 (40.6)
	Social worker	35 (18.2)
	Others^†	37 (19.3)
Job experience (year)^‡ (n=188)		2.39±0.74
	≤1	30 (15.9)
	＞1~≤2	54 (28.8)
	＞2~≤3	104 (55.3)
Region	Seoul	41 (21.4)
	Gyeonggi-do	121 (63.0)
	Others ^§	30 (15.6)
Facility size (resident number)	≤10	4 (2.1)
	＞11~≤30	29 (15.1)
	＞31~≤50	37 (19.3)
	＞51~≤99	58 (30.2)
	≥100	64 (33.3)

^†Physical therapist (15), occupational therapist (6), nurse aid (16);

^‡It is the Work experience since August 2007;

^§Busan (1), Incheon (6), Daejeon (1), Chuncheongnam-do (11), Gyeongsangnam-do (11).

Table 2.

Summary of Descriptive for the Study Variables (N=192)

Variables	Subscale	Numbers of items	M±SD^†	M±SD^‡	Rank
Work environment	Self-realization	4	14.52±2.29	3.63±0.57	1
	Workload	2	6.42±1.23	3.21±0.62	2
	Conflict	2	5.01±1.08	2.51±0.54	4
	Nervousness	2	5.44±1.40	2.72±0.70	3
Job satisfaction		20	71.43±9.83	3.57±0.49
Service quality	Tangibles	4	15.69±2.37	3.92±0.59	5
	Reliability	5	20.31±2.81	4.06±0.56	1
	Responsiveness	4	15.71±2.71	3.93±0.67	3
	Assurance	4	16.19±3.22	4.05±0.57	2
	Empathy	5	19.64±2.30	3.93±0.57	3
	Total	22	88.03±10.51	4.00±0.47

^†M±SD is (summation of items);

^‡M±SD is (summation of items / numbers of items).

Table 3.

The Work Environment, Job Satisfaction and Service Quality according to General Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)

Variable	Categories	Work environment								Job satisfaction		Service quality
		Self realization		Workload		Conflict		Nervousness		Job satisfaction		Service quality
		M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)	M±SD	t or F (p)
Age (year)	20~29	3.61±0.52	0.94	3.07±0.61	0.56	2.21±0.61	3.24	2.75±0.61	2.62	72.69±11.52	0.17	3.98±0.35	0.22
	30~39	3.49±0.55	(.420)	3.21±0.67	(.638)	2.33±0.57	(.023)	2.55±0.61	(.052)	71.64±9.7	(.910)	3.95±0.67	(.878)
	40~49	3.63±0.54		3.18±0.61		2.56±0.50		2.63±0.65		70.85±9.84		3.99±0.41
	≥0	3.70±0.61		3.28±0.61		2.59±0.53		2.90±0.53		71.74±9.71		4.04±0.47
Gender	Male	3.28±0.61	2.04	2.90±0.61	1.64	2.55±0.55	-0.25	2.45±0.68	1.27	73.22±12.48	-0.56	3.93±0.59	0.43
Gender	Female	3.65±0.72	(.042)	3.23±0.61	(.101)	2.51±0.54	(.802)	2.74±0.70	(.204)	71.34±9.70	(.576)	4.01±0.46	(.667)
Marital status	Single	3.81±0.54	2.00	3.32±0.65	1.14	2.35±0.51	-1.84	2.68±0.61	-0.44	72.94±8.90	0.95	4.13±0.45	1.63
Marital status	Married	3.59±0.57	(.047)	3.19±0.61	(.253)	2.54±0.54	(.066)	2.74±0.72	(.658)	71.10±10.02	(.340)	3.97±0.48	(.156)
Education level	High school^a	3.32±0.60	8.59	3.03±0.35	2.87	2.67±0.45	0.46	2.67±0.74	1.16	67.14±0.85	5.66	3.75±0.51	3.24
	College^b	3.48±0.53	(＜.001)	3.14±0.67	(.038)	2.49±0.51	(.706)	2.70±0.68	(.324)	69.13±0.88	(.001)	3.98±0.50	(.023)
	University^c	3.73±0.52	a, b＜d	3.20±0.60		2.50±0.61		2.66±0.67		73.20±0.96	a, b＜d	3.99±0.44	a＜d
	Graduate school^d	3.96±0.55		3.47±0.55		2.50±0.52		2.93±0.72		76.10±10.83		4.20±0.39
Occupational position	Chief of facility^a	3.96±0.55	6.26	3.53±0.60	7.51	2.59±0.56	2.34	3.00±0.77	4.21	75.92±9.46	5.66	4.16±0.36	2.53
	Staff nurse^b	3.49±0.53	(＜.001)	3.26±0.56 (	(＜.001)	2.58±0.53	(.074)	2.76±0.62	(.007)	68.36±9.28	(.001)	3.92±0.47	(.059)
	Social worker^c	3.63±0.53	a＞b	2.96±0.69	a＞c, d	2.33±0.56		2.46±0.65	a＞c	72.97±8.37	a＞b	3.93±0.49
	Others^d	3.60±0.58		3.01±0.50		2.43±0.48		2.62±0.73		71.68±10.79		4.07±0.55
Job experience	≤1^a	3.56±0.56	3.82	3.15±0.64	2.91	2.38±0.73	1.24	2.75±0.70	1.73	67.89±8.27	5.88	3.89±0.56	1.16
	＞1~≤2^b	3.50±0.57	(.023)	3.08±0.68	(.057)	2.47±0.53	(.290)	2.58±0.76	(.180)	69.33±9.59	(.003)	3.98±0.49	(.316)
	＞2~≤3^c	3.75±0.53	b＜c	3.32±0.55		2.55±0.48		2.79±0.66		73.74±10.00	a, b＜c	4.05±0.44
Region	Seoul^a	3.72±0.51	5.11	3.32±0.61	3.27	2.51±0.51	0.01	2.82±0.68	0.91	71.41±9.26	3.44	4.07±0.56	2.14
	Gunggido^b	3.54±0.54	(.007)	3.13±0.59	(.040)	2.51±0.57	(.996)	2.73±0.69	(.401)	70.38±9.79	(.034)	3.85±0.58	(.120)
	Others^c	3.89±0.69	b＜c	3.41±0.69		2.50±0.44		2.59±0.75		75.75±9.87	b＜c	3.99±0.64

Table 4.

Impact Factors on Service Quality (N=192)

Variables	B	_β	t	p	VIF
Education	-0.22	-.02	-0.38	.702	1.18
Self realization	1.66	.35	3.96	＜.001	1.93
Workload	0.32	.04	0.48	.632	1.47
Conflict	-0.95	-.09	-1.29	.198	1.36
Nervousness	0.39	.05	0.64	.523	1.45
Job satisfaction	0.33	.30	3.46	.001	1.83
		R²=.38, Adj.R²=.36, F=15.22, p＜.001, Durbin-Watson=1.97

Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)

†

Physical therapist (15), occupational therapist (6), nurse aid (16);

‡

It is the Work experience since August 2007;

Busan (1), Incheon (6), Daejeon (1), Chuncheongnam-do (11), Gyeongsangnam-do (11).

Table 2. Summary of Descriptive for the Study Variables (N=192)

†

M±SD is (summation of items);

‡

M±SD is (summation of items / numbers of items).

Table 3. The Work Environment, Job Satisfaction and Service Quality according to General Characteristics of the Participants (N=192)

Articles

Page Path

Impact of Work Environment and Job Satisfaction on Service Quality among Staff in Elderly Facility

Full Article

Abstract

REFERENCES

Figure & Data

References

Citations

CITE

Download Citation

Format:

Include:

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

ABOUT

BROWSE ARTICLES

EDITORIAL POLICY

FOR CONTRIBUTORS