CHAPTER- 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

n the previous chapter the reviews of literature were analyzed

which helped the researcher to build up the theoretical and logical

framework. The methodological aspects discussed in the present

chapter covers objectives of the study, hypotheses, sample, and

operational definitions of the variables, standardized tools, procedure

of the data collection and statistical techniques of data analysis.

In order to achieve four goals of research in behavioral science

such as psychology: Description, prediction, understanding, and

creating change, survey research method is used. It helps to develop

detailed descriptions of behavior, often in natural settings. Survey

research method allows describing people's attitudes and opinions.

Description and prediction are essential to the scientific study of

behavior; using the survey technique enables a researcher to make

predictions about behavior and mental processes as and when he or

she discovers and measures observations. It also helps to understand

the "why" of behavior i.e. the cause of the phenomenon.

 Present study is a type of survey research and is based on

random sampling. With respect to this research, the researcher has

used suitable methodology and planned an appropriate research

design. Following are the points involved in the research

methodology:

1) Selection of the appropriate sample design for the study.

2) Application of the appropriate research design in the study.

3) Selection of the appropriate tools for the study.

4) Selection of the appropriate method for data collection.

5) Appropriate administration of tools and data collection.

6) Interpretation and analysis of the data by using appropriate

statistical technique.

7) Interpretation of the results and drawing conclusions.

3.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Aurangabad region is a demographical variable for present

research. According to various bank employees following statement

of problem is stated.

“A study of Job satisfaction, Stress and Anxiety among

Bank Employees”

3.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The objectives of the present study are as under:

1) To examine the job satisfaction with its components of

nationalized and co-operative bank employees.

2) To study the differences, if any, in gender in terms of job

satisfaction with its components.

3) To examine the stress of nationalized and co-operative bank

employees.

4) To study the differences, if any, in gender in terms of stress.

5) To examine the anxiety of nationalized and co-operative bank

employees.

6) To study the differences, if any, in gender in terms of anxiety.

7) To analyze the association between job satisfaction, stress and

anxiety.

3.3 HYPOTHESES

In relation to the above objectives of this study directional

hypothesis have been formulated.

1) Employees of the nationalized bank have more job satisfaction

as compared to employees of the co-operative bank.

2) Males are more satisfied in their job as compared to females.

3) There is an interaction between type of bank and gender in

terms of their job satisfaction.

 4) Employees of the nationalized bank experiences low level

stress as compared to employees of the co-operative bank.

5) Females are more stressful in their job as compared to males.

6) There is an interaction between type of bank and gender in

terms of their stress.

7) Employees of the nationalized bank have more anxiety as

compared to employees of the co-operative bank.

8) Female employees experience more anxiety in their job as

compared to males.

9) There is an interaction between type of bank and gender in

terms of their anxiety.

10) There is a strong but negative association between job

satisfaction and stress, anxiety.

3.4 VARIABLES :

(a) Independent variable

This study shows the effects of two independent variables as below.

1. Type of banks: a) Nationalized bank employees.

b) Co-operative bank employees.

2. Gender: a) Male employees.

b) Female employees.

(b) Dependent Variable

 1. Job satisfaction (Mean score).

2. Stress (Mean score).

3. Anxiety (Mean score).

3.5 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Bank Employees : Those employees who works in the bank,

particularly in nationalized banks and co-
operative banks. These workers are having
similar pay scales and similar positions.

Gender : Male and Female bank employees

Job Satisfaction : Job related satisfaction. Here, the mean score

of the scale of job satisfaction is called as
satisfaction level of the bank employees.

Stress : Job related stress. Here, the mean score of

the stress scale is called as stress level of the
bank employees.

Anxiety : job related anxiety. Here, the mean score of

the anxiety scale is called as anxiety of the
bank employees.

3.6 EXPERIMENT DESIGN

In this research a 2x2 factorial design was used.

Type of Bank
A
Variables Total
Nationalized Co-operative
A-1 A-2
 Male
100 100 200
Gender B-1
B Female
100 100 200
B-2

Total 200 200 400

3.7 RESEARCH TOOLS

For the data collection purpose, researcher has been used

following standardized measures.

1) Asha Job Satisfaction Scale (AJSS)

This is a standardized test. This is constructed and prepared by

Dr. Asha Hingar, with Dr. Uma Mittal, Dr. Vinita Mathur and Miss.

Mansi Parnami.

This test comprises 50 items and following dimensions –

1) Salary and Facilities : The compensation of work in terms of

salary and other allowances, fringe
benefits, overtime made in accordance to
one’s role and responsibilities as well as
the cost of living. Payments made
elsewhere (in other organization) are
also considered.

2) Supervision : The supervisor or senior is able to

motivate, support and train the
subordinate, is tactful and
knowledgeable so that the employees
develop a sense of confidence in him.
3) Promotion : There are ample opportunities for
advancement and a reward system exists,
where merit as well as seniority is given
due consideration. Promotion is given as
a right and a system reveals that those
who are eligible and worthy are certain
that in due course of time they will
certainly be promoted in a time bound
manner.

4) Work Opportunity : The work is arranged in accordance with

the ability and interest of the individual.
Employees get an opportunity to project
their creative skills and take it as a
challenge. Opportunities for initiative
and innovation exist.

5) Human Relations : Fulfillment of an employee’s socio-

psychological needs results in cordial
human relations, which in turn boost up
an employee’s morale and job
satisfaction. An atmosphere of co-
operation concern for each other and a
team feeling prevails resulting in high
morale.

• Reliability

At the initial stage 200 items were selected and they were

given to the experts in the area of management, human resources,

administration, banking, non-government organizations and others.

Besides, working executives in the public and private sectors were

also selected as experts.

After having the responses of the judges, inter-judges

reliability was calculated and selection of items was made on the

basis of the agreements, split-half reliability using Spearman-Brown

formula is 0.79.

• Validity

For analyzing validity of the test it has observed that there are

different methods of validation were used.

Validity components: Cross validation with known criteria

measures are as follows:-

‘r’ Significance
Scale Known Criteria Sample
Values Level
Organizational Indian Female
AJSS -.45 0.01
Role Stress Managers (100)
Organizational Canadian Female
AJSS -.57 0.01
Role Stress Managers (80)
Indian and Canadian
Organizational
AJSS Female Managers -.51 0.01
Role Stress
(180)
Leadership Indian Female
AJSS .43 0.01
Behaviour Managers (100)
Leadership Executives of Carpet
AJSS .46 0.01
Behaviour Industries (100)
From above table it is evident that:

1) Job satisfaction with organizational role stress in the group of

Indian female managers, ‘r’ value is -.45, which is significant at .01

level of significance and in the group of Canadian female

managers, is -.57 which is also significant at .01 level of

significance.

2) Job satisfaction with leader behavior in the group of Indian female

managers, ‘r’ value is .43, which is significant at .01 level of

significance. Whereas in the group of executives of carpet industry

it has ‘r’ value .46, which is significant at .01 level of significance.

• Concurrent Validity

Concurrent validity was also calculated which means the

extent to which the scores on a test are related to the scores of another

already established test administered at the same time or some other

valid criterion available. Another established scale namely Job

Satisfaction Instrument (JSI) by Mishra and others (1993) was used

and the results are as follows: -

 Significanc
'r' e
Scale Scale Sample
Values
Level

Bank Employees, University

Job Satisfaction Instrument Teachers,
AJSS .65 .01
(JSI)
Journalists (139)

Job Satisfaction Instrument

AJSS Bank Employees (65) .65 .01
(JSI)

Job Satisfaction Instrument

AJSS College Teachers (43) .77 .01
(JSI)

Job Satisfaction Instrument

AJSS Journalists (31) .51 .01
(JSI)

Factorial Validation

Factorial validity of a test as determined by correlating the test

with a factor isolated by factor analysis. In order to conduct factorial

validation 50 items scale of job satisfaction was administered to

executives of Bank (250), executives of carpet industry (50),

Canadian female managers (80), and Indian female managers (100).

Their responses were factor analyzed separately.

A comprehensive insightful multivariate analysis was used for

all subscales of Job Satisfaction at the initial level and a keen

observation of Principal Component Matrix (PCM) of Multiple

Factorial Analysis (MFA) was found to be non-linear and Thurstone's

PCM was found to be non specific. Owing to the spurious nature of 'r'
PCM was found to be non-specific. Owing to the spurious nature of

'r', Factor loadings and their orthogonal rotations merely clumped the

variances instead of representing it from true variance. In fact an

astray, discouraged loading was found for all sub-samples both at the

Indian level and at the Canadian level, forced to look at the clumped

and undistributed loading.

Job Satisfaction Level Scores

High Job Satisfaction 35-50

Average Job Satisfaction 25-34

Low Job Satisfaction 0-24

• Norms

Norms of the scale are available on a sample of different

working groups. These norms can be considered as reference points

for analysing level of Job Satisfaction. It is always advisable to

develop norms based on a particular sample.

Dimension-wise Norms for Interpretation of Raw Scores

Dimensions
Salary and Supervisio Human
Job Satisfaction Promotion Work
Facilities n Relations
Level
High 7-10 7-10 7-10 7-10 7-10

Average 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6 5-6

Low 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4

 • Test administration Procedure

The scale comprises of 50 (fifty) items having two alternative

answers, viz., agree and disagree. The subject is asked to choose an

alternative for each item, which best reflects his level of satisfaction

and dissatisfaction with the given item. Instructions given at the

beginning of the scale are as follows: -

• Instructions

Most organizations provide certain facilities and opportunities

for the growth and development of their employees. Keeping in view

your organization you may be satisfied or dissatisfied with those. If

you agree with the given characteristic of your organization then

write (1), if you disagree then write (0) in the response column.

• Scoring

The answers of the respondents are given in two categories,

viz., agree and disagree. They are assigned score (1) for agree and (0)

for disagree. Further items (16-30) are to be scored in reverse order,

i.e., if they have been marked agree then 0 and if marked disagree

then 1.

The total score ranges from 0 to 50. Each job satisfaction

dimension score shall range from 0 to 10. The score on each

dimension will be summed up to find out total job satisfaction score.

All the scores on five dimensions are to be summed up and then

classified in three categories, i.e., High, Average and Low job

satisfaction.

Time Limit: 10-15 Minutes Maximum.

• Utility

This scale will be used to measure the different dimensions of

job satisfaction of white-collar employees in private and public

organizations.

• Limitations of the scale

In such test participants can manipulate their responses

according to the purpose of the test, which may result in social

desirability, and faking of responses. Therefore, at the time of

analysis, other evidences should be taken into consideration in order

to have a true picture of the level of job satisfaction of the respondent.

2) Singh Personal Stress Source Inventory (SPSSI)

This test is constructed and standardized by Dr. Arun Kumar

Singh with the co-operation of Ashish Kumar Singh and Arpana

Singh. This test consists 35 items.

 • Reliability

SPSSI has both test-retest reliability and internal consistency

reliability. For calculating test-retest reliability the inventory was

administered twice with a gap of 14 days on an unselected sample of

200. The test-retest reliability was found to be .79 which was not only

high but also statistically significant. Likewise, internal consistency

reliability by odd-even method was found to be .78 (corrected to full

length) which was highly significant. Thus SPSSI possessed a

sufficient degree of reliability.

• Validity

SPSSI also yielded satisfactory validity. It has sufficient degree

of content validity and concurrent validity. The inventory was

correlated against the Hindi version of social Readjustment Rating

Scale originally developed by Holmes & Rahe (1967) on a sample of

100 and the obtained correlation was .687 which was significant one

providing evidence for sufficient concurrent reliability of the test. A

group of experts (N = 10) provided a high level of consensus

regarding suitability of items in terms of being important indices or

sources of personal stress. The coefficient of concordance

(correlation) among the ranking of 10 judges was .624 which, in

terms of chi-square test of significance, was significant (X2 - K (N-1)

W). Therefore, the PSSI also possessed a sufficient degree of content

validity.

• Norms

A Percentile norm was provided for describing the degree of

stress on the basis of the obtained total score. For this, the inventory

was administered on an unselected sample of 500 (300 males and 200

females), taken from different fields such as college, high schools,

banks, government institutions, some NGOS, etc. between the age

range of 22 years to 55 years.

Table 1: presents percentile norms for male samples and

Table 2: presents Percentile norms for the female samples.

TABLE 1: Percentile Norms for Male sample. (N = 300)

Percentile Rank Score Point Integral Score

95 103·1 104
90 97·2 98
80 80·6 81
70 75·6 76
60 62·7 63
50 55·2 56
40 42·6 43
30 35·8 36
20 23.6 24
10 20·6 21
TABLE 2: Percentile Norms for Female sample. (N = 200)

Percentile Score Integral Score

95 103.4 104
90 98·1 99
80 82·3 83
70 76·2 77
60 64·3 65
50 56·2 57
40 43·2 44
30 35·2 36
20 24·1 25
10 23·6 24

• Qualitative Interpretation

The obtained score on SPSSI can also be qualitatively

interpreted for knowing about the degree or magnitude of personal

stress. Table 3 presents qualitative description of the scores obtained

on SPSSI.

TABLE 3: Qualitative description of the scores on SPSSI

Range of Score Qualitative descrip1ion

80 or higher High level of stress

31 - 79 Moderate level of stress

0- 30 Low level of stress
 • Scoring

The scoring of SPSSI is very simple. Every item marked as

'Seldom' by the testee is given a score of 1, marked as 'Sometimes is

given a score of 2 and marked as ‘Frequently’ a score of 3. Unmarked

items are given a score of zero.

Subsequently, scores earned by the testees on every marked item are

added together to yield a total score. Higher the score, the higher is

the magnitude of personal stress. Likewise, lower the score, lower is

the magnitude of personal stress. The maximum score on SPSSI is

105.

3) Comprehensive Anxiety Test (CA-Test) Revised 2006

This test is constructed by Dr. R. L. Bhardwaj with Dr. H.
Sharma and Dr. M. Bhargava.
It has 90 items and each item has yes / no option of answer.

Reliability of the Test:

The coefficient of reliability has been determined by using the

following two methods:

The test retest method (N = 100) was employed to determine

the temporal stability of the test. The product moment correlation

between test and retest scores has been found to be .83.

By applying the split-half method (Guttmann Formula), the

reliability coefficient of the test has been found to be .94 (N = 100).

Thus results obtained by both methods ensure a very high reliability

of the test.

• Validity of the Test

The co-efficient of validity was determined by computing the

correlation between scores of the present test and other tests or scales

as follows:

1. With Anxiety Dimension of Eight State Questionnaire 'Form A'.

Hindi version by Kapoor and Bhargava.
N= 50r = .68

2. With Anxiety Dimension of Eight State Questionnaire 'Form B'

Hindi version by Kapoor and Bhargava.
N= 50r = .74

3. With Sinhas' Comprehensive Anxiety Test (Hindi) SCAT

N = 80r = .82

With Spielberger’s State and Trait Anxiety Scale.

(1) State Anxiety N = 42r = .42

(2) Trait Anxiety N = 60r = .48

• Administration

It is self administering scale suitable for individual and group

testing. Before administering the scale, it is advisable to emphasize

orally that each reply should be checked as quickly as possible. It

should also be emphasized that all items have to be answered either

'Yes' or 'No'. It also should be kept in mind by the testee that they

should not tell the Subjects the exact purpose for which the test is

used. No time limit has been set for the test. However it is seen that

most of the groups or individuals finish it in 10 to 15 minutes. The

test is administered only after establishing a good rapport with the

testees and giving adequate and proper instructions placed on the title

cover of the test answer sheet.

Scoring

The scoring of the anxiety test is very easy and of quantitative

nature. The test can be scored accurately by hand and no scoring or

stencil key is needed. Each item of the test is answered either by

'Yes', or by 'No'. The response indicated as 'Yes' should be awarded

the score of one and zero for 'No', The total of all the positive or 'Yes'

responses would be the total of anxiety score of the individual and

should be written in the box, the proper place provided for the

purpose on the title page of the test for an easy and smooth working.

Norms

Since norms are often needed for selection and placement of

the individual in a group, percentile norms are calculated for different

samples of populations. A easy and meaningful interpretation can be

made with the percentiles to a particular raw score.

Norms : Description of raw scores and percentiles:

!" " " " #

$ % $ &
 • Interpretation:

Interpretation of percentile norms can be categorized broadly

as under:

S. No. Categories Percentiles

1. Very High or Saturated 80 +

2. High 70

3. Average (Normal) 40-60

4. Low 16-30

5. Very Low up to 15

A person having very high anxiety happens to be tensed,

apprehensive, highly worried, dejected, withdrawn and may also

report headache, frequent abdominal upsets and tiredness. In addition

to it they are unrealistic and show a marked predominance of

irrational thoughts. They always show lack of confidence in their

actions and decisions and do not like to assert in socially interactive

situations.

People having normal anxiety are not disorganizing and non-

adjustive rather they are vigilant, cautious and responsive to

disturbing situations. The normal level of anxiety also motivates the

individual to cope with day to day problems.

A person showing very low level of anxiety may be interpreted

as non-caring, irresponsible and unconcerned with life and

environmental situations. Instead of facing and solving their

problems, they tend to ignore them and expect others to help them.

3.8 POPULATION, SAMPLE SELECTION AND DATA

COLLECTION
In Aurangabad district, there are various Nationalized and Co-

operative banks. According to general observation, there will be

approximately 50000 banking employees in the Aurangabad district,

as they are managers and staff. From these banks and by rule of Taro

Yamane (1970) n=N/1+n (e)2 formula, researcher has randomly

selected 400 bank employees who are working in the either

nationalized and co-operative banks and it also maintain that the

gender distribution. Thus, for the present study, there were 400

randomly selected samples contacted for data collection. All samples

were selected by randomly in Aurangabad city and district area. For

subject there was 2x2 factorial design used. For the data collection,

job satisfaction, stress and anxiety test were used. The analysis of the

data collection was F-test (ANOVA) and L.S.D. test was applied to

find out the significance between two means in specific pairs of sub-
groups formed by different levels of main variables. As well as to

checks to relations between job satisfaction and stress, Persons

correlation method was used.

3.9 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data was analyzed giving thought to the main hypothesis: to

find the differences between employees of nationalized and cooperative

banks according to their gender in terms of job satisfaction, stress and

anxiety. Each assessment was looked at individually and descriptive

statistics were computed for each. Frequency reports on the specific

questions were run to determine agreement within the measures. All

assessments were also correlated with one another to view any existing

relationships between the variables. Total scores for each area of job

satisfaction, stress and anxiety were calculated and the total score was

tabulated as per the individuals and groups.

A two-way between group analysis of variance and correlation

was conducted to examine the difference and relationship between

variables.

• Summary

The detailed plan of the research incorporated in the present

chapter. Objectives, hypotheses and relevant tools and measures

mentioned here. Hypotheses were framed on the basis of previous

literature.