A RESEARCH ON SATISFACTION LEVELS OF THE ...ejsr.org/files/arxiv/Jurnal_Nomre_6_2018/1.pdffrom the study. These substances are as follows; (4,14,17). The final version of the scale

Elm və İnnovativ Texnologiyalar Jurnalı Nömrə 6, 2018. 7-41

DOI: 10.5782/2616-4418.6.2018.7

7

A RESEARCH ON SATISFACTION LEVELS OF

THE EMPLOYEES IN FAMILY HEALTH

CENTERS: SAMPLE OF ESKISHEHIR

PROVINCE

Turkan Gecer Institute Business Management and Law, Russia

Introduction

Family health centers are one of the most important institutions of the social

structure. Employee satisfaction gets patient satisfaction together.

Employee satisfaction is defined as: Employee satisfaction is influenced by

organizational factors such as demographic characteristics, personal circumstances,

organizational conditions, organizational communication, organizational structure,

innovation, adoption of changes in the financial conditions, managerial

characteristics, and subsequent factors. (Elyas, 2016). The satisfied employees

increase the efficiency of the institution as well as success. (Erdugan, Yörübulut,

Şahin, Öncel, 2017). In this context (Vural, Dura, Fil, Çiftçi, Torun & Patan,

2012), employee satisfaction is important on the road to success and stressed that

they do more than they like the profession of satisfied employees.

8 Turkan Gecer

Reliability and Factor Analysis Results of Employee Satisfaction Scale

Table 1: Employee Satisfaction Scale Item Analysis Results

SUBSTANCES

Scale

Mean

if Item

Delete

d

Scale

Varianc

e if Item

Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlatio

n

Cronbach'

s Alpha if

Item

Deleted

1- Trainings received within the

organization contribute to the work done. 59,160 78,473 0,425 0,823

2- Correct communication between the

manager and employees. 59,226 73,822 0,557 0,815

3- Individual performance is taken into

account in every award. 60,122 73,054 0,467 0,821

4- Sufficient number of social facilities

(canteen, dining hall, etc.) available. 60,916 78,100 0,236 0,837

5- I love my work. 58,860 76,883 0,480 0,820

6- My job gives me the opportunity to be

a respected person in society. 59,312 75,717 0,497 0,819

7- My communication with managers is

always good. 59,160 75,068 0,574 0,815

8- Management is always open to

innovation. 59,688 70,283 0,674 0,806

9- A good working environment increases

the efficiency of the work done. 58,414 81,708 0,327 0,828

10- I have information about working

temperature, ventilation, lighting and

noise issues. 59,069 79,863 0,320 0,828

11- To be more sensitive to patients,

courses, continuous training and etc. are

needed. 59,288 76,955 0,338 0,828

12- It makes me happy to see that my

efforts are seen and appreciated. 58,988 74,928 0,541 0,816

13- I'm glad I did my job. 58,907 75,210 0,626 0,813

14- I know what to do to participate in the

in-service training activities. 59,422 79,491 0,266 0,831

15- I am satisfied with my working

conditions. 59,479 74,438 0,572 0,815

16- The most important event affecting

the health and safety of employees in the

workplace is work accidents. 59,474 75,678 0,416 0,823

17- It is the duty of the State to give

occupational health and safety training to

workers at workplaces. 59,012 81,501 0,159 0,837

When the results of the item analysis of the employee satisfaction scale in Table 1

are examined, since the relationship of a substance with another substance was

A research on satisfaction levels of the employees in family …. 9

defined as a low relation (Büyüköztürk, 2002). The items below 0,30 were

determined and these items were excluded from the scale. The analysis was

repeated at each inference. The final form of the scale after substance extraction is

given in the table below.

Reliability and Factor Analysis Results of Employee Satisfaction Scale

Table 2: Item Analysis Results of Employee Satisfaction Scale

SUBSTANCES

Scale

Mean

if Item

Deleted

Scale

Variance

if Item

Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if

Item

Deleted

1- Trainings received within the

organization contribute to the work

done. 49,417 61,983 0,429 0,839

2- Manager and employees can

communicate correctly. 49,483 57,879 0,557 0,831

3- Individual performance is taken into

account in every award. 50,379 56,970 0,477 0,838

5- I love my job. 49,116 60,193 0,512 0,834

6- My job gives me the opportunity to

be a respected person in society. 49,569 59,433 0,507 0,834

7- My communication with managers is

always good. 49,416 58,834 0,587 0,830

8- Management is always open to

innovation. 49,945 54,972 0,661 0,823

9- A good working environment

increases the efficiency of the work

done. 48,671 64,809 0,342 0,844

10- I have information about working

temperature, ventilation, lighting and

noise problems. 49,326 63,437 0,307 0,845

11- To be more sensitive to patients,

courses, continuous training and etc. are

needed. 49,545 60,876 0,324 0,848

12- It makes me happy to see that my

efforts are seen and appreciated. 49,245 58,698 0,554 0,831

13- I'm glad I did my job. 49,164 58,658 0,666 0,826

15- I am satisfied with my working

conditions. 49,735 58,500 0,568 0,831

16- The most important event affecting

the health and safety of employees in

the workplace is work accidents. 49,731 59,874 0,394 0,842

When the results of the item analysis on the employee satisfaction scale in Table 2

are analyzed, items below 0.30 were found in the scale and 3 items were excluded

10 Turkan Gecer

from the study. These substances are as follows; (4,14,17). The final version of the

scale is as follows. There are 14 questions about employee satisfaction scale.

Table 3: Item-Total Score Correlation Values of Employee Satisfaction Scale

When the item-total correlation values of the employee satisfaction scale were

analyzed, the item-total correlation values of the 14 items found in the scale were

found to be between 0.400 and 0.739. When the item scores were examined, it was

determined that there was consistency between the items.

There are 14 questions about employee satisfaction scale. According to

Bartlett Globality Test results which are the prerequisites of factor analysis, there is

a sufficient relationship between variables. (p<0,01, p=0,000). As the result of the

Kaiser-Olkin test should not be less than 0.50. (Çokluk, Şekercioğlu &

Büyüköztürk,2014). It has been found that KMO value is more than 0.50 which is

the acceptable lower value and it is determined to make factor analysis.

(KMO=0.813).

Table 4: Results of Normality Test for Distribution of Data

Kolmogorov-

Smirnov

Statistic df p x̄ Median Skewness Kurtosis

Employee

Satisfaction 0,049 210 0,200 53,29 54 -0,339 -0,233

Employee

satisfaction r p

Article 1 0,510 0,000**

Article 2 0,645 0,000**

Article 3 0,597 0,000**

Article 4 0,592 0,000**

Article 5 0,595 0,000**

Article 6 0,660 0,000**

Article 7 0,739 0,000**

Article 8 0,404 0,000**

Article 9 0,400 0,000**

Article 10 0,451 0,000**

Article 11 0,636 0,000**

Article 12 0,723 0,000**

Article 13 0,649 0,000**

Article 14 0,510 0,000**

**P<0,01


As the number of participants to examine the distribution of the datas was over 50,

it was determined that the distribution of the datas was normal as a result of the

Kolmogorov-Smirnova analysis from the normal distribution analysis. (p>0,05).

The normal distribution was similar to the other assumptions of the average of the

proximity of the media and skewness is not between -1.5 and +1.5, although it is

determined that the normal distribution is determined. It was decided to carry out

normal distribution analyzes for the study. According to Gürsakal (2013), if the

sample volume is above n> 30, the distribution indicates that the approximation is

normal. Therefore, since the sample volume is 210, it can be concluded that the

distribution is not normal, but nearly normal. In the light of this information,

normal distribution analyzes were decided to be applied for the study. There are

different views on normal distribution. Özdamar (2015), stated that normality tests

can be performed to determine whether the datas are in conformity with normality

and that one-way analysis of variance will provide the normality condition.

Personal Characteristics of Participants

Table 5: Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Age Number Percent(%)

18-22 18 8,6

23-27 21 10

28-32 14 6,7

33-37 33 15,7

38-44 42 20

44 + 82 39

Total 210 100,0

Education Number Percent(%)

primary 6 2,9

high school 41 19,5

associate 37 17,6

degree 93 44,3

postgraduate 33 15,7

Total 210 100,0

Marital Status Number Percent(%)

single 52 24,8

married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Title Number Percent(%)

doctor 72 34,3

nurse 51 24,3

midwife 59 28,1

technician 2 1,0

operator 7 3,3

health officer 3 1,4

other 16 7,6

Total 210 100,0

12 Turkan Gecer

When the distribution of the demographic characteristics of the surveyed 8,6% 18-

22, 10% 23-27, 6,7% 28-32, 15,7% 33-37, 20% 38-44, 39% 44 and over age. 2.9%

of the participants stated that they had primary education, 19.5% of secondary

education (high school) 17.6% associate degree, 44.3% had graduate degree,

15.7% had post graduate degree. In addition, 24.8% of the participants reported

that they were single and 75.2% were married. 34.3% of the participants were

doctors, 24.3% were nurses, 28.1% were midwives, 1.0% were technicians, 3.3%

of them were operators, 1.4% of them were health officers, 7.6% they work in

other professional groups.

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Employee Satisfaction Scale

SUBSTANCES n x̄ s.s.

1- Trainings received within the organization contribute to

the work done. 210 3,87 0,84

2- Correct communication between the manager and

employees. 210 3,80 1,10

3- Individual performance is taken into account in every

award. 210 2,91 1,34

5- I love my job. 210 4,17 0,92

6- My job gives me the opportunity to be a respected person

in society. 210 3,72 1,01

7- My communication with managers is always good. 210 3,87 0,96

8- Management is always open to innovation. 210 3,34 1,22

9- A good working environment increases the efficiency of

the work done. 210 4,62 0,58

11- To be more sensitive to patients, courses, continuous

training and so on are needed. 210 3,74 1,20

12- It makes me happy to see that my efforts are seen and

appreciated. 210 4,04 1,02

15- I am satisfied with my working conditions. 210 3,55 1,02

16- The most important event affecting the health and safety

of employees in the workplace is work accidents. 210 3,56 1,17

Total 210 45,20 7,35

When the descriptive statistics of the employee satisfaction scale in Table 6 are

analyzed, it was determined that the employee satisfaction scale (x̄ = 45,20) was at

a high level. It is determined that the item with the highest level of employee

satisfaction scale is, "A good working environment increases the efficiency of the

work" with 4,62 and the item with the lowest level is 2,91 with " Individual

performance is taken into account in every award."

The results of factor analysis and reliability analysis are given in table 7.


Table 7: Factor Analysis Results of Employee Satisfaction Scale

Factors Article Nu

Factor

Descriptors

Factor

Descriptors

Factor

Reliability

FA

CT

OR

1

Article 8 0,804

Article 2 0,766

Article 7 0,732

Article 15 0,634 27,298 0,817

Article 6 0,619

Article 3 0,615

Article 5 0,485

FA

CT

OR

2 Article 11 0,766

Article 9 0,675

Article 16 0,543 17,124 0,639

Article 1 0,532

Article 12 0,520

Total

46,999 0,846

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Scale Validity

0,813

Bartlett Globality Test Ki

kare:

723,366

sd:

66

p:

0,000

Büyüköztürk (2002), specifies that the factor load value of 0.45 and higher and

this application will give better results, but can be reduced to 0.30 if the number of

items is less than the fact that the factor load value was applied as 0.45 in this

study.

According to the (Cortina 1993,p.103) “For example in the 12-item case

with the correlation of .70, coefficient alpha is. .74.” As a result of factor analysis,

12-item employee satisfaction scale was collected under 2 factors and these 2

factors explained 46.999% of the total variance.

(Büyüköztürk,2007;Tavşancıl,2005;Akt; Çokluk, et al. 2014), in the case of

multiple-factor patterns, they stated that the explained variance is enough between

40% and 60%. In addition, the Cronbach’s Alpha is widely used in the evaluation

of the scale. The reliability coefficient was between 0 and 1 and the lower limit was

between 0.60 and 0.70. (Cortina; Aktaran; Çankır,2016).

Because the factor loadings should be at least 10% of the distance between

the factors in which they are collected (Büyüköztürk, 2002). As a result of the

factor analysis, items 13 and 10 were excluded from the scale.

When the items belonging to the factors are examined;

Factor 1:

7 expressions are collected under 1 factor and load values are shown in

Table 8. This factor is named as Management and Employee.

14 Turkan Gecer

Table 8: Management and Employee

FACTOR 1: Management and Employee Factor

Load

8- Management is always open to innovation. 0,804

2- Correct communication between the manager and

employees. 0,766

7- My communication with managers is always good. 0,732

15- I am satisfied with my working conditions. 0,634

6- My job gives me the opportunity to be a respected person

in society. 0,619

3- Individual performance is taken into account in every

award. 0,615

5- I love my job. 0,485

Factor loads of Management and Employee factor were determined as 0,485-0,804.

5 expressions were collected under 2 factors and load values are shown in

Table 9. This factor is named as ”Education, Dignity and Productivity.”

Factor 2:

Table 9: Education, Reputation and Productivity

FACTOR 2: Education, Respect and Productivity Factor

Load

11- To be more sensitive to patients, courses, continuous training

and so on are needed. 0,766

9- A good working environment increases the efficiency of the

work done. 0,675

16- The most important event affecting the health and safety of

employees in the workplace is work accidents. 0,543

1- Trainings received within the organization contribute to the

work done. 0,532

12- It makes me happy to see that my efforts are seen and

appreciated. 0,520

The factor loadings for education reputation and productivity

factor were determined to be between 0.520 and 0.766.

Table 10: Testing of the discriminantity of substances

according to the upper and lower groups of 27%


Articles sig. t p

ARTICLE

1 0,032 0,847 0,000**

ARTICLE

2 0,074 1,057 0,000**

ARTICLE

3 0,080 1,252 0,001*

ARTICLE

4 0,082 1,742 0,002*

ARTICLE

5 0,086 2,165 0,002*

ARTICLE

6 0,088 2,279 0,002*

ARTICLE

7 0,116 2,415 0,014*

ARTICLE

8 0,148 2,508 0,017*

ARTICLE

9 0,670 3,116 0,025*

ARTICLE

10 0,707 3,180 0,032*

ARTICLE

11 0,835 3,194 0,084*

ARTICLE

12 0,853 3,473 0,213*

ARTICLE

13 0,915 3,731 0,293*

ARTICLE

14 0,918 3,739 0,399*

**p<0,01 *p<0,05

Employee satisfaction levels are listed from small to large in order to determine the

upper and lower groups of 27% of the participants. 27% of the employee

satisfaction levels, the lowest first 57 and the highest first 57 were examined. 10

items were found to be significant when the discriminant values of the substances

were compared. (p<0,05).

Low

High n x̄ s.s.

Employee

satisfaction Low 57 56,5856 7,22245

High 57 49,9481 9,34426

16 Turkan Gecer

It was determined that the employee satisfaction of the lower and upper employees

was different after the t-test to compare the satisfaction of the lower and upper

employees. High; ( x̄=49,9481) Low; ( x̄=56,5856).

Results

Table 11: Age Variation Distribution

Table 12: Analysis of Employee Satisfaction Levels According to Age

Variables

Leven

e Test

F

Scale Age n x̄ s.s. Statics p

p

Employee

Satisfactio

n 18-22 18

50,5

4 5,57

23-27 21

49,1

9 5,46

28-32 14

47,2

0 6,93 1,817

0,11

1

5,08

1

0,000*

*

33-37 33

45,1

3 5,73

38-44 42

43,7

3 7,09

44 + 82

43,4

3 7,98

**p<0,01

1.group 18-22 age, 2.group 23-27 age, 3.group 28-32 age, 4.group 33-37 age,

5.gorup 38-44 age, 6.group 44+ age.

Ho: Employee satisfaction levels do not vary according to age.

H1: Employee satisfaction levels vary by age.


18-22 18 8,6

23-27 21 10

28-32 14 6,7

33-37 33 15,7

38-44 42 20

44 + 82 39

Total 210 100,0


“One of the most common ways to assess differences betwen groups is to

perform oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests.”(Sweet & Grace-

Martın,2012,p.135).

According to the results of one-way Anova test to determine whether

employee satisfaction levels differ according to age variable; The level of

satisfaction of the participants according to age level was statistically significant at

95% confidence level. (F=5,081 P=0,000, P<0,01). Scheffe test was performed to

determine the meaningful difference from which group of post hoc tests were

homogenous. According to the results of Scheffe test, it was determined that there

was a significant difference between the 1st group and the 4th group of the

employee satisfaction level of the participants, between the 1st group and the 5th

group and between the 1st group and 6th group. Age 18-22 years old (x̄=50,54),

employee’s satisfaction is higher than 23-27 age (x̄=49,19), 28-32 age (x̄=47,20),

33-37 age (x̄=45,13), 38-44 age (x̄=43,73), 44 + age (x̄=43,43).

Table 13: Distribution of Education Variable

Table 14: Results of the Analysis of Employee Satisfaction Levels According to

Education Variable

Levene

Test

F

Scale

Education

Level n x̄ s.s. Statistics p

p

Employee

Satisfaction primary 6

49,0

0 5,93

high

school

4

1

48,9

0 5,60

associate

3

7

46,1

1 8,52 1,187

0,31

8

6,11

3

0,000*

*

graduated

9

3

44,2

7 6,66

post

graduated

3

3

41,5

3 7,82

**P<0,01

1st group is primary school, 2nd is high school, 3rd is associate, 4th is

graduated, 5th is post graduated.

Education Level Number Percent(%)

Primary 6 2,9

high school 41 19,5

Associate 37 17,6

Graduated 93 44,3

post graduated 33 15,7

Total 210 100,0

18 Turkan Gecer

Ho: Employee satisfaction levels of the participants do not differ according to their

educational status.

H1: Employee satisfaction levels of the participants vary according to their

educational status.

According to the results of the one-way Anova test to determine whether

the employee satisfaction levels differ according to the training variable; It was

determined that the satisfaction levels of the participants were statistically

significant at 95% confidence level. (F=6,113, P=0,000, P<0,01). Scheffe test was

performed to determine the meaningful difference from which group of post hoc

tests were homogenous. According to the results of Scheffe test, it was determined

that there was a significant difference between the 2nd group and the 4th group of

the employees' satisfaction level and 2nd group and the 5th group. Secondary

education (high school) is has a higher satisfaction level than(x̄=48,90), graduated

(x̄=44,27) and post graduated (x̄=41,53) levels.

Table 15: Is your working environment the way you want? Question by Age

Status

Table 16: Is your working environment the way you want? Question by Age

Status

Age

Is your working

environment the way you

want?

Yes Partially No x2

p

18-

22 n 7 10 1

% 38,90% 55,60% 5,6%

28-

32 n 14 16 5


18-22 18 8,6

23-27 21 10

28-32 14 6,7

33-37 33 15,7

38-44 42 20

44 + 82 39

Total 210 100,0

Is your working environment the way

you want? Number

Percent(%)

Yes 63 30,0

Partially 110 52,4

No 37 17,6

Total 210 100,0


% 40,00% 45,70% 14,3% 22,701 0,004*

33-

37 n 10 22 1

% 30,30% 66,70% 3,0%

38-

44 n 6 20 16

% 14,30% 47,60% 38,1%

44 + n 26 42 14

% 31,70% 51,20% 17,1%

*P<0,05

Ho: It is not meaningful in terms of the answers given to the question of whether

your working environment is the way you want between the age groups of the

participants.

H1: It is meaningful in terms of the answers given to the question of whether your

working environment is the way you want between the age groups of the

participants.

A chi-square analysis was performed to examine the relationship between

the answers given to the question of whether or not the participants' working

environment is the way you want them to be. According to the results of the chi-

square analysis, the relationship between age groups and those who respond to

your study environment is statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

( x2=22,701;p=0,004;p<0,05). There is a low level of relationship between the age

status and the answers given to the question of whether your work environment is

the way you want it to be. (Cramer’s V-0,232).

Table 17: Relationship between the marital status and the question of whether

or not your work environment is safe

Table 18: Relationship between the marital status and the question of whether

or not your work environment is safe

Marital Status

Is your work environment

safe?

Yes No x2

p

Single n 30 22


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Is Your Working Environment Safe? Number Percent(%)

Yes 91 43,3

No 119 56,7

Total 210 100,0

20 Turkan Gecer

% 57,70% 42,30%

Married n 61 97 5,803 0,016*

% 38,60% 61,40%

*P<0,05

Ho: Marital status is not meaningful in terms of safety of working environments

between groups.

H1: Marital status is meaningful in terms of safety of working environments

between groups.

Chi-square analysis was performed to examine the relationship between

safety of work environments according to marital status of participants. According

to the chi-square analysis, the relationship between marital status and safety of

work environments is statistically significant at 95% confidence level

( x2=5,803;p=0,016;p<0,05). There is a low level of relationship between marital

status and the safety of participants' working environments. (Cramer’s V-0,166).

Table 19: The question of “Are your opinions taken as employees on work

place and health?” distribution by marital status

Tablo 20: The question of “Are your opinions taken as employees on work

place and health?” distribution by marital status

Marital Status

Are your opinions taken

as employees on work

place and health?

Yes No

p

Single n 7 2

% 77,8% 22,2% 0,268

Married n 16 1

% 94,1% 5,9%

p>0,05

Ho: According to the marital status of the participants, they are not meaningful in

terms of the answers given to the question of whether they are taken as employees

in the workplace health.


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Are your opinions taken as employees

on work place and health? Number Percent(%)

Yes 19 9,0

Partially 4 1,9

No 3 1,4

Total 210 100,0


H1: According to the marital status of the participants, they are meaningful in

terms of the answers given to the question of whether they are taken as employees

in the workplace health.

According to the marital status of the participants, chi-square analysis was

done to examine the relationship with the answers given to the question of whether

you received your opinions as occupational health workers in your institution.

According to the chi-square analysis, the relationship between the answers given to

the question whether the marital status is taken as the employees of the workplace

health is not statistically significant at 95% confidence level. (p=0,268;p>0,05).

There is a low level of relationship between the marital status and the answers

given to the question of whether the respondents are employed as occupational

health workers in the workplace (Cramer’s V-0,243).

Table 21: Is there enough material and equipment in your working

environment, the cleanliness of your working environment is sufficient?

Table 22: The Distribution of “Your Work Environment Is Sufficient”

Question According to Marital Status

Is there enough material and equipment

in your working environment Number

Percent(%)

Yes 127 60,5

Partially 71 33,8

No 12 5,7

Total 210 100,0

The cleanliness of your working

environment is sufficient Number

Percent(%)

Yes 128 61,0

Partially 72 34,3

No 10 4,8

Total 210 100,0


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Is your work environment clean enough? Number Percent(%)

Yes 128 61,0

Partially 72 34,3

No 10 4,8

Total 210 100,0

22 Turkan Gecer

Table 23: The Distribution of “Is your work environment clean enough?”

Question According to Marital Status

Marital Status

Is your work environment

clean enough?

Yes Partially No x2

p

Single n 29 20 3

% 55,8% 38,5% 5,8 0,803 0,669

Married n 99 52 7

% 62,7% 32,9% 4,4

p>0,05

Ho: According to the marital status of the participants, it is not significant in terms

of the answers given to the question of whether your work environment is

sufficient.

H1: According to the marital status of the participants, it is significant in terms of

the answers given to the question of whether your work environment is sufficient.

The chi-square analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the

answers given to the question of whether the cleanliness of your work environment

is sufficient according to the marital status of the participants. The relationship

between the answers given to the question of whether your work environment is

adequate is not statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

(x2=0,803;p=0,669;p>0,05) There is a low level of relationship between the marital

status and the answers to the question of whether your work environment is

adequate. (Cramer’s V-0,062).

Table 24: Is Workplace Health and Safety Unit Established in Your

Workplace?

Distribution by Marital Status

Table 25: Is Workplace Health and Safety Unit Established in Your

Workplace?


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Is Workplace Health and Safety Unit

Established in Your Workplace? Number Percent(%)

Yes 26 12,4

No 184 87,6

Total 210 100,0


Distribution by Marital Status

Marital Status

Is Workplace Health

and Safety Unit

Established in Your

Workplace?

Yes No

p

Single n 9 43

% 17,3% 82,7% 0,229

Married n 17 141

% 10,8% 89,2%

p>0,05


there is a workplace health unit established in the workplace according to the

marital status of the participants.

H1: It is meaningful in terms of the answers given to the question of whether there

is a workplace health unit established in the workplace according to the marital

status of the participants.


the answers given to the question of whether the workplace health unit was

established in the workplace according to the marital status of the participants.

According to the chi-square analysis, the relationship between the marital status

and the answers given to the question of whether a workplace health unit has been

established in your workplace is not statistically significant at 95% confidence

level. ( p=0,229;p>0,05). There is a low level of relationship between the marital

status and the answers given to the question whether the workplace health unit was

established (Cramer’s V-0,086).

Table 26: Is In-Service Training Provided in Your Institution? Distribution by

the marital status

Table 27: Is In-Service Training Provided in Your Institution? Distribution by

the marital status


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Is In-Service Training Provided in

Your Institution? Number Percent(%)

Yes 135 64,3

No 75 35,7

Total 210 100,0

24 Turkan Gecer

Marital Status

Is In-Service Training

Provided in Your

Institution?

Yes No x2

p

Single n 25 27

% 48,1% 51,9%

Married n 110 48 7.909 0.007*

% 69,6% 30,4%

*p<0.05

Ho: According to the marital status of the participants, in-service training is not

significant in the institution they work with.

H1: According to the marital status of the participants, in-service training is

significant in the institution they work with.

The chi-square analysis was conducted to examine the relationship

between the answers given to the question of whether there is in-service training in

your institution according to the marital status of the participants. According to the

chi-square analysis, the relationship between the marital status and the answers

given to the in-service training is statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

( x2=7,909;p=0,007;p<0,05). There is a low level of relationship between the

marital status and the answers given to the question of whether in-service training

is provided in your institution. (Cramer’s V-0,194).

Table 28: Do you think this training is sufficient? Distribution by the marital

status

Tablo 29: Do you think this training is sufficient? Distribution by the marital

status


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Do you think this training is sufficient? Number Percent(%)

Yes 47 22,4

Partially 77 36,7

No 11 5,2

Total 210 100,0


Marital Status

Do you think this

training is sufficient?

Yes Partially No

x2 p

Single n 14 10 1

% 56,0 40,0 4,0 6,165 0,046*

Married n 33 67 10

% 30,0 60,9 9,1

*P<0,05


these trainings are sufficient according to the marital status of the participants.

H1: It is meaningful in terms of the answers given to the question of whether these

trainings are sufficient according to the marital status of the participants.


between the answers according to their marital status. According to the chi-square

analysis, the relationship between the marital status and the answers given to the

question whether the training is adequate is statistically significant at 95%

confidence level (x2=

6,165; p=0,046;p<0,05). There is a low level of relationship

between the marital status and the answers given to the question whether the

training is adequate is statistically significant or not (Cramer’s V-0,214).

Table 30: “Do you feel that you belong to this institution?” Question

Distribution According to the Marital Status

Table 31: “Do you feel that you belong to this institution?” Question

Distribution According to the Marital Status


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Do you feel that you belong to this

institution? Number Percent(%)

Yes 183 87,1

No 27 12,9

Total 210 100,0

26 Turkan Gecer

Marital Status

Do you feel that you

belong to this

institution?

Yes No x2

p

Single n 48 4

% 92,3% 7,7%

Married n 135 23 1,646 0,200

% 85,4% 14,6%

p>0,05

Ho: There is no difference between the answers given to the question of whether

you feel you belong to this institution among the marital status groups.

H1: There are differences between the answers given to the question of whether

you feel you belong to this institution among the marital status groups.


between the answers given to the question of whether you feel yourself belonging

to this institution according to the marital status of the participants. According to

the chi-square analysis, the relationship between the marital status and the answers

to the question you feel you belong to this institution is not statistically significant

at 95% confidence level. ( x2=1,646;p=0,200;p>0,05). There is a low level of

relationship between marital status and responders to the question of whether you

feel that you belong to this institution (Cramer’s V-0,089).

Table 32: “Is there any precaution for employees against the violent

behavior?” Question Distribution According to Education Status

Education Status Number Percent(%)

Primary Education 6 2,9

High School 41 19,5

Associate Degree 37 17,6

Graduated 93 44,3

Post Graduated 33 15,7

Total 210 100,0

Is there any precaution for employees

against the violent behavior? Number Percent(%)

Yes 25 11,9

No 152 72,4

Partially 33 15,7

Total 210 100,0


Table 33: “Is there any precaution for employees against the violent

behavior?” Question Distribution According to Education Status

Education Status

Is there any precaution for

employees against the violent

behavior?

Yes No Partially x2 p

High

School

n 10 27 10

% 21,3 57,

4 21,3

Associate

n 8 21 8

% 21,6 56,

8 21,6

18,0

86

0,006

*

Graduated

n 5 77 11

% 5,4

82,

8 11,8

Post

Graduated

n 2 27 4

% 6,1 81,8 12,1

*p<0,05


there is a precaution against the violence among education groups.

H1: It is meaningful in terms of the answers given to the question of whether there

is a precaution against the violence among education groups.

According to the educational status of the participants, chi-square analysis

was performed to examine the relationship between the responses to the question.

The relationship between the responses was statistically significant at 95%

confidence level. ( x2=18,086;p=0,006;p<0,05). There is a low level of relationship

between the level of education and the responses to the question (Cramer’s V-

0,208).

Table 34: Marital Status Distribution According to the Question of Whether

“Is your work environment comfortable?”


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Is your work environment comfortable? Number Percent(%)

Yes 98 46,7

Partially 96 45,7

No 16 7,6

Total 210 100,0

28 Turkan Gecer

Table 35: Marital Status Distribution According to the Question of Whether

“Is your work environment comfortable?”

Marital Status Is your work environment

comfortable?

Yes

Partiall

y No x

2 p

Single

n 27 24 1

% 51,9 46,2 1,9

Married n 71 72 15

3,3

55

0,18

7

% 44,9 45,6 9,5

p>0,05


your working environment is comfortable between the marital status groups.

H1: It is meaningful in terms of the answers given to the question of whether your

working environment is comfortable between the marital status groups.


between the answers given to the question of whether or not the study environment

is comfortable according to the marital status of the participants. According to the

chi-square analysis, the relationship between marital status and responses was not

statistically significant at 95% confidence level (x2=3,355;p=0,187;p>0,05). There

is a low level of relationship between marital status and given answers (Cramer’s

V-0,126).

Table 36: “How many hours per day do you work?”, “Do you work more than

your working time?”, If your answers are yes what is the reason?

Average Working Hours per Day

Number

Percent(%)

8 hours

144

68,6

8 hours

58

27,6

Another

8

3,8

Total

210

100,0

Do you work more than your working time?

Number

Percent(%)

Yes

36

17,1

No

174

82,9


Table 37: Your Working Time in the Profession

Table 38: The Results of the Analysis of Employee Satisfaction Levels and the

Differences in the Time of Working in Profession

Levene

Test

F

Scale

Working in

Profession n x̄ s.s.

Statistic

s p

p

Satisfac

tion

4 years and

less 28

49,9

2

5,7

1

Between 5-10

years 46

46,8

2

6,6

4 1,681

0,17

2

10,2

87

0,000

**

Between 10-15

years 27

47,1

9

5,4

3

15 years and

more

10

9

42,8

2

7,5

7

**P<0,0

1

1st group is 4 years or less, 2

nd group is between 5-10 years, 3th group is between

10-15 years, 4th group is 15 years or more.

Total

210

100,0

If your answers are yes what is the reason?

Number

Percent(%)

I like to work

2

1,0

More time for patiens

5

1,4

To get additional payment

6

2,9

Other

23

11,0

Total

210

100,0

Working time Number Percent(%)

4 years and less 28 13,3

Between 5-10 years 46 21,9

Between 10-15 years 27 12,9

15 years and more 109 51,9

Total 210 100,0

30 Turkan Gecer

Ho: The employee satisfaction levels of the participants do not differ according to

the working time in the profession.

H1: The employee satisfaction levels of the participants differ according to the

working time in the profession

According to the results of the one-way Anova test to determine whether

employee satisfaction levels vary according to the working time in the profession:

It was found that the satisfaction level of the participants was statistically

significant at 95% confidence level (F=10,287 P=0,000, P<0,01). Scheffe test was

performed to determine the meaningful difference from which group of post hoc

tests were homogenous. According to Scheffe test, it was determined that there was

a significant difference between the 1st group and the 4th group, between the 2nd

group and the 4th group and between the 3rd group and the 4th group. Working

time 15 years and above is lower than (x̄=42,82), working time in the profession is

4 years and below (x̄=49,92), between 5-10 years (x̄=46,82), between 10-15 years

(x̄=47,19).

Table 39: As in every profession, health- care professionals should also be

aware of the risks and dangers that the profession brings and should take

precautions against these risks. (Devebakan, 2007, Aktaran: Cebeci, 2013).

“Training skills, anger control, and in particular communication with angry

patient and patient relative” and “employees to take measures against violent

behavior” trainings were given to you? (Sağlık Bakanlığı Çalışan Güvenliğinin

Sağlanması Genelgesi 14 Mayıs 2012, 23 Sayılı Aktaran: Soyer,s.21).

Question Distribution According to Titles

Title Number Percent(%)

Doctor 72 34,3

Nurse 51 24,3

Midwife 59 28,1

Technician 2 1,0

Operator 7 3,3

Health Officer 3 1,4

Another 16 7,6

Total 210 100,0

As in every profession, health-care

professionals should also be aware of the

risks and dangers that the profession

brings and should take precautions

against these risks. (Devebakan,2007, Number Percent(%)


Tablo 40: As in every profession, health-care professionals should also be

aware of the risks and dangers that the profession brings and should take

precautions against these risks. (Devebakan, 2007, Akt: Cebeci, 2013).

“Training skills, anger control, and in particular communication with angry

patient and patient relative” and “employees to take measures against violent

behavior” trainings were given to you? (Sağlık Bakanlığı Çalışan Güvenliğinin

Sağlanması Genelgesi 14 Mayıs 2012, 23 Sayılı Akt: Soyer,s.21). Question

Distribution According to Titles

Title

Yes No x

2 p

Doctor n 15 57

% 20,8% 79,2%

Nurse n 20 30

% 40,0% 60,0%

Midwife n 22 38

% 36,7% 63,3% 12,565 0,014*

Technician n 3 5

% 37,5% 62,5%

Health Officer n 12 8

% 60,0% 40,0%

*P<0,05

Ho: There is no difference between who answer the questions; As in every

profession, health-care professionals should also be aware of the risks and dangers

that the profession brings and should take precautions against these risks.

(Devebakan, 2007, Akt: Cebeci, 2013). “Training skills, anger control, and in

particular communication with angry patient and patient relative” and “employees

Akt: Cebeci 2013). “Training skills,

anger control, and in particular

communication with angry patient and

patient relative” and “employees to take

measures against violent behavior”

trainings were given to you? (Sağlık

Bakanlığı Çalışan Güvenliğinin

Sağlanması Genelgesi 14 Mayıs 2012,

23 Sayılı Akt: Soyer,s.21). Question

Distribution According to Titles

Yes 72 34,3

No 138 65,7

Total 210 100,0

32 Turkan Gecer

to take measures against violent behavior” trainings were given to you? (Sağlık

Bakanlığı Çalışan Güvenliğinin Sağlanması Genelgesi 14 Mayıs 2012, 23 Sayılı

Akt: Soyer,s.21). Question Distribution According to Titles.

H1: There are differences between who answer the questions: As in every

profession, health-care professionals should also be aware of the risks and dangers

that the profession brings and should take precautions against these risks.

(Devebakan, 2007, Akt: Cebeci, 2013). “Training skills, anger control, and in




Akt: Soyer,s.21). Question Distribution According to Titles

As in every profession, health-care professionals should also be aware of the risks

and dangers that the profession brings and should take precautions against these

risks. (Devebakan, 2007, Akt: Cebeci, 2013). “Training skills, anger control, and in




Akt: Soyer,s.21). Question Distribution According to Titles.

The relationship between the answers to the question is statistically

significant at 95% confidence level. (x2=12,565;p=0,014;p<0,05). There is a low

level of relationship between those who respond to the question (Cramer’s V-

0,245).

Table 41: The relationship between the marital status and the question of “Do

you have an additional job outside your organization?”

Table 42: The relationship between the marital status and the question of “Do

you have an additional job outside your organization?”

Marital Status

Do you have an additional job

outside your organization?

Yes No

p


Single 52 24,8

Married 158 75,2

Total 210 100,0

Do you have an additional job outside

your organization? Number

Percent(%)

Yes 8 3,8

No 202 96,2

Total 210 100,0


Single n 2 50

% 3,8% 96,2% 1,000

Married n 6 152

% 3,8% 96,2%

p>0,05

Ho: Among the marital status groups, Do you have an additional job outside the

institution you work for? question is not meaningful.

H1: Among the marital status groups, Do you have an additional job outside the

institution you work for? question is meaningful.


participants' answers. The relationship between the answers given according to the

chi-square analysis results is not statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

( p=1,000;p>0,05). There is a low level of relationship between marital status and

those who answer the question of whether you have an additional job outside the

institution you work with (Cramer’s V-0,001).

DFA

Figure 1: Employee Satisfaction DFA Path Diagram

Table 1: Results of Measurement Models for Employee Satisfaction Scale

Factor Standardized Loads t-value R2

Employee

Satisfaction

34 Turkan Gecer

M2 0,73 11,86 0,531

M3 0,52 7,96 0,266

M4 0,72 10,65 0,513

M5 0,62 9,31 0,389

M6 0,73 12,16 0,540

M7 0,92 16,42 0,844

M10 0,64 9,52 0,411

M11 0,70 10,49 0,488

M12 0,46 6,59 0,215

(Lee,2007; Aktaran: Çelik & Yılmaz ), confirm confirmatory factor analysis as

follows: Confirmatory factor analysis (DFA) is a natural branch of the AFA model.

While DFA analysis of employee satisfaction scale was performed, the

sub-dimensions of the scale were named Factor = F1, Factor = F2. Employee

satisfaction is one of the sub-dimensions of the scale on the size of F1 with 0,92

coefficient. If “My communication with administrators is always good.” on the size

of F2 with 0,70 coefficient, “Being more sensitive to patients, there is a need for

continuous training etc.” substance is the most effective substance.

In addition, the relationship between F1 and F2 sub-dimensions was 0.91,

and this relationship was not significant. (p>0,05)

M1= “Trainings received within the organization contribute to the work

done.”

M8= ” Management is always open to innovation.”

M9= ” A good working environment increases the productivity of the work

done.”

Substances were excluded from DFA analysis. Because of the item 12 is

close to 0.50, it is appropriate to remain in scale. (Güney, Taşkıran & Özkul, 2014).

“The aim is to determine the validity and reliability of the measures used to

represent the constructs of interest.” (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw 2000,p.89).

Therefore, the compliance criteria for DFA are given in the table below.

Table 2: Employee Satisfaction Values for Compliance Criteria for DFA

Model

Compliance

Criteria

Excellent

Compliance

Acceptable Compliance Development

of the Values

Scale

χ2/sd ≤3 ≤5 3,284


RMSEA 0 < RMSEA <0.05 0.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.10 0,104

SRMR 0 ≤ SRMR <0.05 0.05 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0.10 0,046

GFI 0.95 ≤ GFI ≤ 1 0.90 ≤GFI ≤ 0.95 0,933

AGFI 0.90 ≤ AGFI ≤ 1 0.85 ≤ AGFI ≤ 0.90 0,863

(The Reference: Schermelleh-Engel and Moosbrugger, 2003). (RMSEA: Root Mean Square

Error of Approximation, SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, GFI: Goodness

of Fit Index, AGFI: AdjustedGoodness of Fit Index).

Table 2 is exmined as follows: The RMSEA value of the developed cale

is between the acceptable fit index ( RMSEA= 0,104, 0.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.10). The

SMRM value is in the excellent fit index (SMRM=0,046, 0≤ SRMR ≤ 0.05). The

GFI value is in the acceptable fit index (GFI=0,933, 0.90 ≤GFI ≤ 0.95). The AGFI

value is in the acceptable fit index (AGFI= 0,863, 0.85 ≤ AGFI ≤ 0.90). As a result

of DFA analysis performed; related factors were verfied at 95% (p<0.05 p=0,000)

and the compliance indexes were found to be within acceptable values, and the

compatibility of the mode was determined to be acceptable (X2/df=72,25/22≤5).

Conclusion and recommendations

In order to measure the job satisfaction of the employees in Family Health

centers, the relevant area was screened and the reliability analysis results of the

satisfaction scale developed in accordance with the expert opinions were examined.

These substances were excluded from the scale since they had substances below

0.30. In addition, as a result of the normality tests for the distribution of datas, it

was decided to apply normal distribution analyzes for the study. (Yang & Green,

2009;Aktaran: Kula Kartal & Mor Dirlik, 2016), high internal consistency is

possible with the coefficient approaching 1. It is easier to accomplish this with the

Cronbach alpha coefficient. Therefore, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was applied to

the reliability and internal consistency of the sub-dimensions. Çokluk, et al.(2014),

in order to determine the construct validity of the study, while the factor analysis

was applied, varimax maximum variability rotation was performed by the vertical

rotation technique which is one of the rotation stages.

Two factors were obtained and Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficients of

each factor were determined as 0,817 and 0,639 respectively. Employee

satisfaction scale collected under 2 factors and determined that these 2 factors

explained 46.999% of the total variance. (Büyüköztürk,2002), the difference

between the two load values should be at least 0.10 and in this context 2 questions

have been removed from the factor. The KMO value of 12 items after the question

was removed was determined as 0.813. Total correlation values were found

36 Turkan Gecer

between 0,400 and 0,739. The discriminability of the substances was tested

according to the lower and upper groups of 27%. One-way variance (ANOVA)

analysis and chi-square tests were performed and frequency analysis was

performed for all datas. The findings of the obtained datas are interpreted

statistically by using the tables. (X2/df=72,25/22≤5). It is determined that the model

is among the acceptable compliance values.

1) The level of satisfaction of the participants in the study applied to the

personnel working in the family health centers of Eskişehir varies according to the

age variable. The satisfaction levels of the 18-22 age group were higher than those

in the other age group. It was found that satisfaction level decreased with

increasing age.

2) It was determined that the level of employee satisfaction decreased as

the level of education increased. High school graduates have higher levels of

satisfaction than graduated and post graduates.

3) The surveyed personnel stated that the working environment was more

insecure compared to the singles who were married with 61,40%.

4) It was found that those who were married in terms of occupational

health were referred to more opinions with 94.1% compared to singles.

5) In the study, married people stated that their workplaces were 62.7%

cleaner than singles.

6) Married with the question of in-service training is given to 69.6% yes,

singles answered no with 51.9% It is stated by the married people that the trainings

are partially sufficient.

7) In general, the sense of belonging is felt intensely in all of the personnel

working in Eskişehir family health centers, It was observed that this feeling was

more common among the employees who had a marital status with 92,3%.

8) There is a significant relationship between the answers to the question of

”Are precaution taken against violence?”. As the level of education increases, the

number of answerers increases. It was found that graduated and post graduate

employees said no with 82,8% and 81,8%. It has been determined that no

precaution were taken against the violence for the employees of family health

centers in Eskişehir.

9) Employee satisfaction levels vary according to the duration of work in

the profession. It was determined that the level of satisfaction of the personnel


working in the Eskişehir family health centers decreased as the working time

increased.

10) Single respondents answered. “Is your working environment

comfortable?” question with 51.9% and the participants who were married gave the

answer partially with 45.6%.

11) It is determined that the training given to the employees in the family

health center is insufficient.

As in every profession, health-care professionals should also be aware of

the risks and dangers that the profession brings and should take precautions against

these risks. (Devebakan, 2007, Akt: Cebeci, 2013). “Training skills, anger control,

and in particular communication with angry patient and patient relative” and

“employees to take measures against violent behavior” trainings were given to

you? (Sağlık Bakanlığı Çalışan Güvenliğinin Sağlanması Genelgesi 14 Mayıs

2012, 23 Sayılı Akt: Soyer,s.21).The highest answer was no with 79.2% from the

doctors. In addition, 69.6% have the highest answer yes by married employee to

the question of whether in-service training is provided in your institution. 60.9% of

the respondents who answered yes stated that these trainings were partially

adequate.

12) 96.2% of employees answered no to the “Do you have an additional

job?” question.

Human must work. This situation is by nature. It is the most natural right to

work in healthy and safe environments. (TMMOB, 2017), however, it is the main

task to protect the integrity of the soul and the body of the. these practices are

under the responsibility of the state to conduct, inspect and follow up. More

effective measures should be taken against the violent behavior of the personnel.

- Trainings should be more frequent. In addition, how useful and efficient

these trainings should be followed.

- In Eskişehir family health centers, it is stated that employees are not

provided with adequate service training and the trainings should be more frequent

And also must be followed how useful and productive these trainings should be.

- As employee satisfaction decreases as age progresses, research into the

reasons for this can be done.

References and notes:

Büyüköztürk, Ş., (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı, ss.32,118,119. Ankara:

Pegem A.Yayıncılık.

38 Turkan Gecer

Cebeci, H., (2013).Hastanelerde İş Kazaları ve Çalışan Güvenliği: Karabük Şehir Merkezi

Örneği Akademik Platform Uluslararası İşletme ve Yönetim Dergisi Cilt.:1

Sayı:1 .s.63,(62-82)-

https://arastirmax.com/en/system/files/dergiler/214632/makaleler/1/1/arastir

max-hastanelerde-kazalari-calisan-guvenligi-karabuk-sehir-merkezi-

ornegi.pdf

Çelik,H.E.,&Yılmaz,V.,(2013).Lisrel 9.1 ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi, s.43,

(2.baskı).Ankara:Anı Yayıncılık.

Çokluk,Ö.,Şekercioğlu,G.,&Büyüköztürk,Ş.,(2014).Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli

İstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları ss.207,232,239,( 3.Baskı). Ankara:

Pegem Akademi.

Cortina, J.M., (1993). What is coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and

applications, Journal of Applied Psychology, p.103.Vol:78 98-104.

Çankır, B., (2016). Öğrencilerin öz-yeterlilikleri, değişime karşı dirençleri ve girişimcilik

ile olan ilişkisi. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler ve Eğitim Araştırmaları

Dergisi, s.1165, 2 (4), 1161-1170.

Diamantopoulos A.,& Siguaw JA.,(2000). Introducing LISREL: A Guide For The

Uninitiated, p.89, London: Sage Publications.

DİYAGRUP Yeni SRC 1-2-3-4 MEB Ortak Ders-İş sağlığı ve güvenliği, çevre güvenliği

kalite müşteri memnuniyeti soruları deneme sınavı testi (Erişim

Tarihi:14.11.2018)-http://diyaegitim.com/yeni-src-1-2-3-4-meb-ortak-ders-is-

sagligi-ve-guvenligi-cevre-guvenligi-kalite-musteri-memnuniyeti-sorulari-

deneme-sinavi-testi/

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Strateji Geliştirme Daire Başkanlığı 2013 Yılı Çalışan

Memnuniyet AnketRaporu.(2014)-(ErişimTarihi:01.04.2018)-

http://strateji.deu.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/EK-3-2013-

%C3%87ALI%C5%9EAN-MEMNUN%C4%B0YET%C4%B0-ANKET-

RAPORU.pdf

Elyas S., (2016). İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Çalışan Memnuniyetin

Sağlanmasında Örgütsel Faktörlerin Rolü: Bir Özel Hastaneye İlişkin

Araştırma Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.

Erdugan, F.,Yörübulut, S., Şahin, E.,& Öncel, S.Y., (2017). Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp

Fakültesi Hastanesinde Hasta ve Çalışan Memnuniyeti, Mehmet Akif Ersoy

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, s.166, 9(18)165-177.

Doi:10.20875 makusobed-302769.

Güney, T., Taşkıran, E., & Özkul, E., (2014). Çalışanların duygularını yönetme

becerilerinin örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı üzerindeki etkisi; sabiha gökçen

havalimanı çalışanları üzerine bir araştırma.15.Ulusal Turizm Kongresinde

Sunulmuş Bildiri. s.1093.Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Gürsakal N.,(2013).Çıkarımsal İstatistik istatistik2 s.35. Bursa: Dora.

Kula Kartal, S.,& Mor Dirlik, E. (2016). Geçerlik kavramının tarihsel gelişimi ve

güvenirlikte en çok tercih edilen yöntem: Cronbach Alfa Katsayısı. Abant

İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, s.1870, 16(4), 1865-

1879.(Erişim Tarihi: 10.10.2018)-http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-

file/291942

Özdamar, K., (2015). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (10.Baskı, Cilt

1,s.300), Nisan Kitabevi: Eskişehir.

Soyer, A., “Sağlıkta Dönüşüm” Kamu Sağlık Çalışanları Türk Tabipler Birliği Mesleki

Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi, s:21,cilt 11, sayı,42.

Sweet,S.,&Grace-Martin, K.,(2012). Data analysis with SPSS: A first course in applied

statistics, p.135. (4th.ed.) :Allyn&Bacon.

TMMOB, (2017). İşçi Sağlığı Ve İş Güvenliği Raporu Türk Mühendis Ve Mimar Odaları

Birliği.s.2.(Erişim Tarihi: 08.09.2018)-

http://www.emo.org.tr/ekler/c696d7ec5bf5194_ek.pdf

http://diyaegitim.com/yeni-src-1-2-3-4-meb-ortak-ders-is-sagligi-ve-guvenligi-cevre-guvenligi-kalite-musteri-memnuniyeti-sorulari-deneme-sinavi-testi/



http://strateji.deu.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/EK-3-2013-%C3%87ALI%C5%9EAN-MEMNUN%C4%B0YET%C4%B0-ANKET-RAPORU.pdf



http://www.emo.org.tr/ekler/c696d7ec5bf5194_ek.pdf


Topçu, M.Ü.,(2009). Malatya İl Merkezinde Çalışan Sağlık Personelinin İş Doyumu ve

Etkileyen Faktörler. İnönü Üniversitesi/Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Doktora

Tezi, Malatya.

Vural, F., Dura A.,A.,Fil, Ş.,Çiftçi, S.,Torun,S.,D., & Patan, R.,(2012).Sağlık çalışanlarında

memnuniyet, kurumda kalma ve örgütsel bağlılığa etki eden faktörler

Balıkesir Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi,s.137,1(3),137-144-

(ErişimTarihi:01.11.2018)-http://www.journalagent.com/bsbd/pdfs/BSBD-

24633-RESEARCH_ARTICLE-VURAL.pdf

40 Turkan Gecer

XÜLASƏ

Ailə sağlamlıq mərkəzlərində çalışan işçilərin səviyyələrinin

dəyərləndirilməsi: Əskişəhər bölgəsi timsalında

Türkan Geçər

Biznes İdarəçiliyi və Hüquq İnstitutu, Rusiya

Bu məqalə Ailə sağlamlığı mərkəzlərinin xidmət keyfiyyətinin artırılması, bu

istiqamətdə fəaliyyət göstərən işçilərin məmnuniyyətini ölçmək və düzgün

qiymətləndirmək, eyni zamanda Ailə Sağlamlığı Mərkəzlərində çalışanların

məmnuniyyət səviyyələrini araşdırmaq üçün lazımi tədbirləri müəyyən etmək

məqsədi daşıyır . İş məmnuniyyəti və Malatya Sağlıq mərkəzlərində çalışan tibb

işçilərinə təsir edən müəyyən faktorların araşdırılması araşdırmanın əsas

mahiyyətini təşkil edir. Araşdırmada 2014-cü ildə çap edilmiş Doqquz Eylül

Universitetinin Strateji İnkişaf Departamentinin 2013-cü il üçün işçi

məmnuniyyəti üzrə hesabatından istifadə olunaraq,eyni zamanda 2009-cu ildə

Topçu, M.Ü tərəfindən sorğu hazırlanmışdır.

Bunları bir araya gətirmək məqsəd tərəzimizin hər iki gözünü statistic

məlumatlarla zənginləşdirərək, daha effektiv bir iş ortaya çıxarmaqdır.Sorğuda əks

olunan 1-dən 7-yə qədər olan suallar tərəzinin bir gözünü, 1-dən 5-ə qədər olan

suallar isə ikinci gözünü təşkil edir.Araşdırma nümunəsində, Ailə sağlamlığı

mərkəzlərində çalışan 210 işçilər arasında dəyərləndirmə aparılmışdır. Məqalədə

əsasən üzbəüz aparılan intervyu metodundan istifadə edilmişdir.

Açar sözlər : İşçi məmnuniyyəti, işçi təhlükəsizliyi , ailə sağlamlıq mərkəzi,

sorğu, xidmət təlimi


РЕЗЮМЕ

Оценка уровня сотрудников, работающих в центрах семейного

здоровья: на примере Эскишехирского района

Туркан Ҝечер

Институт Делового Администрирования и Права, Россия

Эта статья направлена на повышение качества услуг, предоставляемых

центрами семейного здоровья, измерение и оценку удовлетворенности

работников этой области, а также определения необходимых мер для

изучения уровня удовлетворенности сотрудников в центрах семейного

здоровья. Удовлетворенность работой и исследование определенных

факторов, влияющих на работников здравоохранения, работающих в

медицинских центрах Малатья, составляют основу исследования. В этом

исследовании M.U.Topçu подготовил опрос в 2009 году, использование

отчета об удовлетворенности сотрудников за 2013 год Департамента

стратегического развития Университета Доггуз Эйлюль подготовленный в

2014 году. Цель их объединения - обогащение обоих чашек наших весов

статистической информацией и предоставление более эффективной работы.

Вопросы от 1 до 7 отраженные в вопроснике составляют одну чашу наших

весов, а вопросы от 1 до 5 - другую. Примером исследования, была проведена

оценка среди 210 сотрудников, работающих в семейных медицинских

центрах. В основном в статье использовался метод непосредственного

интервью.

Ключевые слова: удовлетворенность работников, безопасность работников,

центр семейного здоровья, опрос, сервисное обучение.

Documents

A RESEARCH ON SATISFACTION LEVELS OF THE ...ejsr.org/files/arxiv/Jurnal_Nomre_6_2018/1.pdffrom the study. These substances are as follows; (4,14,17). The final version of the scale