IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0244584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and validation of an instrument in job evaluation factors of physicians in public hospitals in Beijing, China

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Zhang
  • Meixia Liao
  • Pusheng Wang
  • Herng-Chia Chiu

Abstract

Background: Job evaluation has been widely used to establish a foundation for internal equity and other human resource functions. The United Kingdom adopts the National Health Service (NHS) Job Evaluation scheme to determine the pay bands for most NHS staff and ensure equal pay for work of equal value. The challenges of recruiting and retaining physicians in Chinese public hospitals have heightened the need for a reliable job evaluation system to ensure the equality of physician compensation. The aim of this study was to construct job evaluation factors of physicians in Chinese public hospitals based on the NHS Job Evaluation scheme and to examine the reliability and validity of the established system. Methods: Questionnaire surveys and statistical analyses were used to determine the job evaluation factors for physicians. The preliminary screening of the evaluation factors was based on a literature review, focused interviews with physicians and the Delphi method. Based on the results of preliminary screening, a questionnaire with 25 factors was designed to survey physicians regarding the importance of each factor in physician job evaluation. After the pretest, final questionnaire data were collected from 900 physicians by adopting a stratified sampling from 6 tertiary public hospitals in Beijing. A principal component analysis was used for factor extraction and structural validity analysis. The reliability was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. Results: The results of the principal component analysis showed that the 25 physician job evaluation factors were grouped into the 5 dimensions of Task Characteristics, Knowledge, Responsibility, Effort/Environment, and Skills. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the five dimensions ranged from 0.841 to 0.909, which indicated a high level of reliability. The result of the factor analysis indicated fair structural validity. The content validity was established by building onto the NHS Job Evaluation scheme and other well-established job evaluation systems. Conclusions: Our study indicates that the Chinese version of physician job evaluation is an instrument with fair reliability and validity, which fully reflects the characteristics of physicians in Chinese public hospitals. This system can provide an important basis for developing a physician compensation plan and ensuring internal equity in healthcare organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Zhang & Meixia Liao & Pusheng Wang & Herng-Chia Chiu, 2021. "Development and validation of an instrument in job evaluation factors of physicians in public hospitals in Beijing, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244584
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244584
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244584&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0244584?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.