The Development of an Instrument to Measure Attitudes toward Benefits

Abstract

The dimensionality of a new multidimensional benefits satisfaction questionnaire called the Attitudes Toward Benefits Scale was examined using a principal components analysis with an orthogonal rotation, and the parallel analysis criterion was used to determine the number of components to retain. It was found that the items loaded on three separate components, as had been hypothesized, and that only one of the components, satisfaction with benefits, was statistically significantly correlated with the benefit subscale of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Attitudes towards benefits among entrepreneurial employees

“…Item 5 also loaded on two of the dimensions -ease of replacement and importance of benefits -although in an inverse fashion for the two dimensions -willingness to exchange ones benefits for cash is positively related to the ease of replacement of benefits, while negatively related to the importance of benefits. Hart and Carraher (1995) found a similar pattern of item loadings with their sample of educators. Table III.…”

“…To meet this need the Attitudes Towards Benefits Scale (ATBS) was developed by Hart (1990) with a sample of 468 mental health care workers and validated by Hart and Carraher (1995) with a sample of 212 teachers. The ATBS is a multi-dimensional scale that purports to measure not only an individual's level of satisfaction with their benefits, but also the perceived importance of benefits, and the ease of replacement of a benefits package.…”

Antecedents and consequences of basic versus career enrichment benefit satisfaction

“…Employers have long been concerned about bene®t costs and providing the right`mix' to attract and retain employees, as well as keep unions out (Huseman and Hat®eld, 1978). Finding that certain bene®ts may not be valued by employees at least to the extent of costs borne by the employer, may suggest that such bene®ts be dropped or that the money could be better spent as direct payments to employees (Hart and Carraher, 1995).…”

Income Level and the Value of Non-Wage Employee Benefits

“…Organizations spend a large portion of their payroll budget on providing benefits to employees, yet research suggests that the influence benefits have on employees is not directly equal to the amount of money spent by an organization to provide those benefits (Gerhart and Milkovich 1992). The argument has been made that if employees prefer monetary compensation to benefits then the employer is essentially wasting money on benefit provision (Hart and Carraher 1995). It appears however, that benefits represent both a monetary and non-monetary value to employees (Weathington and Jones 2006).…”