Mediating role of job satisfaction on the relation between staff development and performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework.

Table 1. Validity and reliability of scales

Main scales and items	Factor Loading	AVE	CR	CA
Staff development		0.73	0.95	0.928
D5- Staff members have chance to share experiences with staff members of neighboring schools.	.795
D7-Staff members are aware of the program, its contents, and the overall objectives.	.781
D6- Staff members have chance to share experiences with staff members of neighboring schools.	.778
D4- Coaching has helped novice teachers to solve their problems and/or perform tasks better than they would do it otherwise.	.760
D8- Staff members coordinate the staff development project.	.745
D1- Senior teachers help novice teachers to design development plans	.695
D9- Staff development programs operate according to time tables.	.695
D3- There is developmentally oriented relationship between the mentor and mentee.	.694
D2- Novice teachers have the opportunity to observe the classes of model teachers.	.627
Job satisfaction		0.62	0.91	.855
S3- I feel good working for this school	.816
S2- I receive recognition for my good performance	.770
S4- I feel comfortable with my coworkers	.762
S7- In general terms I have a good job	.744
S8- I think working is good for my health	.725
S1- In my work I can apply my abilities	.663
S5- My salary is adequate	.648
S6- My job gives me job security	.545
Job performance		0.71	0.88	0.811
P10- I worked at keeping my job competencies up-to-date	.774
P9- I took on challenging work tasks, when available	.742
P7-I took on extra responsibilities	.728
P6- I collaborated with others was very productive	.716
P3- I kept in mind the results that I had to achieve in my work	.704
P8- I started new tasks when my old ones were finished.	.694
P1- I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time.	.617

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit Indices of staff development, job satisfaction, and performance

Criteria	Acceptable Boundary/Criteria	Goodness of Fit Values
		For staff development	For job satisfaction	For job satisfaction
X2/SD	≤2= Perfect fit	X^2/SD=2.75	X^2/SD=2.78	X^2/SD=2.5
	≤2,5=Perfect fit (Small population)
	≤3= Perfect fit(large population)
	≤ 5= Moderate fit
GFI/AGFI/NFI/NNFI/IFI/RFI/CFI	≥ 0.95 =Perfect fit	GFI=.87, AGFI=.84, NFI=.96, IFI=.90, NNFI=.96, RFI=.96, CFI=.97,	GFI=.87 IFI=.90 AGFI=.90 NFI=.96 RFI=.96, NNFI=.95 CFI=.98,	IFI=.92, NFI=.94, RFI=.96, NNFI=.96, CFI=.98, GFI=.87 AGFI=.91
	≥ 0.90= Good fit
RMSEA/RMR/SRMR/	≤0.05 =Perfect fit	RMSEA=.070 ,RMR = 0.038 SRMR = 0.049	RMSEA=.081 RMR = 0.042 SRMR = 0.051	RMSEA=.084,RMR = 0.035 SRMR = 0.049
	≤0.08 =Good fit
	≤ 0.10 =Weak fit

Table 3. Teachers’ personal information

Demographic variables		Frequency	Percent
Sex	Male	257	73.3
	Female	94	26.7
Educational Status	Bachelor Degree	240	68.4
	Master Degree	111	31.6
Teachers career structure based on length of service	Junior Teacher	50	14.3
	Teacher	96	27.8
	Associated Teacher	34	9.6
	Associated Leader Teacher	51	14.4
	Leader Teacher	75	20.9
	Senior Teacher	45	12.8
	Total	351	100.0

Table 4. Mean, std. deviation of staff development, job satisfaction, and job performance

Variables	Mean	Std. Deviation
Staff development	3.9047	.63202
Job Satisfaction	3.8444	.6665
Job performance	3.9153	.60963

Table 5. Multivariate Analysis of the job satisfaction of teachers

Variables	Wilks’ Lambda	F	Hypothe df	Error df	Sig.	η^2
Gender	.917	1.386^b	10.000	317	.192	.083
Education level	.948	.837^b	10.000	317	.593	.052
Length of service	.690	.985	60.000	1665.91	.510	.060

Table 6. Multivariate Analysis of the job performance of teachers

Variables	Wilks’ Lambda	F	Hypothe df	Error df	Sig.	η^2
Gender	.827	1.584^b	19.000	308	.068	.016
Education level	.854	1.296^b	19.000	308	.195	.012
Length of service	.519	.886	114.000	1780.5	.791	.014

Table 7. Correlation between staff development, job satisfaction, and teachers’ job performance

Variables	Staff development	Job satisfaction	Job performance
Staff development	1
Job satisfaction	.618**	1
Job performance	.589**	.523**	1

Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01

Figure 2. Confirmed conceptual framework.

The path results showed that teachers’ satisfaction is mediating the relationship between staff development and performance.

Table 8. Direct and indirect effects analysis

Effects	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect
Staff Development →Job performance	0.45	-	0.45
Staff Development →Job satisfaction	0.71	-	0.71
Job satisfaction → Job performance	0.26	-	0.26
Staff Development → Job satisfaction → Job performance	0.45	.19	0.64