Although job satisfaction is frequently studied, there is no standard, universally accepted way to measure it among medical doctors. Several surveys and scales exist, each measuring slightly different aspects of satisfaction. This inconsistency makes it difficult for decision-makers and leaders to compare studies or choose the right tool.
A recent systematic review tackled this problem by analysing the psychometric properties - namely the reliability and validity - of job satisfaction scales used specifically with medical doctors. This review carefully evaluated what each scale measures (and how well), with the aim of providing much-needed clarity about which tools can actually be trusted.
Here is what the review found and why it matters.
Why job satisfaction is so important for medical doctors
Job satisfaction is more than a general feeling of contentment. It has multiple components:
- Intrinsic elements, such as autonomy, recognition, meaning, and professional development
- Extrinsic elements, such as pay, working conditions, support from colleagues and managers, and organisational culture
- Psychological elements, such as fairness, perceived support and value alignment
Among medical doctors, these factors influence not only personal wellbeing, but also burnout levels, motivation, turnover rates, and may also impact on patient outcomes such as satisfaction and safety.
International research shows wide variation in how doctors feel about their jobs. For example, UK doctors report particularly high stress and low satisfaction, while doctors in other countries report better experiences (although measurement tools can differ, making comparisons tricky). This inconsistency is one of the reasons this review was necessary.
What this systematic review did
The authors followed PRISMA guidelines to ensure a rigorous, transparent process. They searched five major databases - APA PsycINFO, PsycArticles, PsycTests, MEDLINE, and EMBASE - from inception to March 2024.
Out of 1,368 initial records, 35 studies met the criteria, covering 29 different scales.
The authors then evaluated each scale using the COSMIN guidelines, which are internationally accepted standards for assessing health measurement tools.
What the review found
Across the 29 scales reviewed, only four showed consistently strong psychometric properties: the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ), the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS), the Physician Job Satisfaction Scale and the CARDIOSATIS-Equipe Scale.
These four scales demonstrated good validity and reliability, meaning they measure job satisfaction consistently and accurately in medical doctors.
While many tools reported good internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha), fewer demonstrated strong content validity (do items truly represent the concept?), structural validity (does the scale measure what it claims to measure?), reporting of measurement error, and test-retest reliability
This suggests that although many scales appear “good enough,” they may not fully capture the complexity of doctors’ job satisfaction.
The two strongest scales had different strengths
The Physician Job Satisfaction Scale performed best overall. It has strong reliability (α = 0.85) and measures key areas such as autonomy and relationships with patients.
The CARDIOSATIS-Equipe Scale also scored highly, especially for use in telehealth or emergency cardiovascular settings.
The two most commonly used scales - JCQ and JSS - performed well overall, but each has limitations.
The JCQ is reliable and widely validated, but long (34 items), which may reduce completion rates among busy clinicians.
The JSS is shorter and more practical but may miss certain profession-specific stressors unique to doctors.
This systematic review fills a major gap in the literature by critically evaluating how job satisfaction is measured among medical doctors. With only four scales demonstrating solid psychometric performance, the study underscores the need for more robust, comprehensive, and context-sensitive measurement tools.
Why does this matter?
Accurate measurement of job satisfaction is crucial for designing interventions that genuinely support doctors. If organisations use tools that are too narrow, lack validity, or miss key components of medical work, they may draw incorrect conclusions or fail to identify problems early, potentially leading to higher burnout, turnover, and compromised patient care.
This review highlights the need for better, more comprehensive, and profession-specific instruments.
What should researchers and organisations use?
Based on the review:
- For general use, the JCQ and JSS are recommended.
- For physician-specific contexts, especially those involving payment models or telehealth, the Physician Job Satisfaction Scale and CARDIOSATIS-Equipe Scale are very good options.
As no current scale is perfect, the field would benefit from further validation studies, especially across different specialties and healthcare systems.
For healthcare organisations striving to improve doctors wellbeing, and ultimately patient care, choosing the right scale matters. Measuring well is the first step toward meaningful change.