Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

144
2004, and Edwards et al., 2008) which have accompanied the publishing of the MSIT producing strong reliability
statistics, utilising the MSIT in the context of Pilot Study 1 appears to have affected its suitability for use. Finally,
the overall Cronbach’s results for the MSIT were also found to be inadequate. These results suggested that the use
of the MSIT and MBI-GS within one overall survey to assess the types of stress faced as well as the impact of this
stress would not be appropriate.
As such a further pilot study was developed, with the MSIT again acting as a tool to measure psychosocial
stress, and this time with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Scale providing an assessment of the outcome
effects. Cronbach’s alpha results indicated good internal consistency at the accepted (Cronbach, 1951) 0.7 level.
In this second pilot seven out of 22 participants commented, with individuals responding positively about the face
validity of the new combination of surveys, and one participant also stating that the new combination of tools was
much better than those in the first pilot. In comparison to Pilot Study 1, Cronbach’s alpha results for each of the
factors inherent within the MSIT and the overall MSIT results are all acceptable, thus indicating better suitability for
use alongside the MBI-GS (which also provided strong Cronbach’s outcomes). Although there are various
influences which may have swayed this outcome, for example small sample size and the potential of practice
effects, these results combined with the qualitative statements from participants as to the suitability for use each
indicate that the second combination of tools was better than the first within the context of the present study.
Therefore it was decided that a combination of the MSIT and MBI-GS would make up the survey, as opposed to
utilising the GHQ-12 as a measure of psychosocial stress outcomes.