Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

184
Table 12: Pearson’s correlation Bivariate results for MBI-GS vs. MSIT variables.
Deman Control M. P.
Relationshi Role Change
ds
Support Support ps
Exhaustion .55** -.11 -.38** -.31** .27** -.37** -.30**
Cynicism .31** -.19 -.50** -.43** .39** -.55** -.59**
Professional .11 .44** .52** .42** -.28** .39** .44**
Efficacy
Note: a .01 significance level used in order to minimise risk of Type 1 error.
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Correlational analyses (Table 12) suggest that each factor has at least one statistically significant
association at the 0.01 level. Indeed, Managerial Support, Peer Support, Relationships, Role and Change were each
found to be statistically significantly associated with all three of the factors within the MBI-GS. Additionally,
Demands was found to be significantly related to Exhaustion and Cynicism on the MBI-GS, while Control was
significantly associated solely with Professional Efficacy. Similarly, both Exhaustion and Cynicism were found to be
statistically related to six out of the seven MSIT factors with Control the only non-significantly associated factor,
whereas Professional Efficacy was related to each factor apart from Demands.
These results would therefore suggest that five of the MSIT factors influence each of Exhaustion, Cynicism
and Professional Efficacy, whereas Control and Demands related to Exhaustion/Cynicism and Professional Efficacy,
respectively. Similarly the results suggest that each MBI-GS factor influences six of the seven MSIT variables.
However, while correlational analysis looks at the relationship between two given variables, a regression is also to
be used in order to predict the performance of one variable (DV) when the second is manipulated (IV). Therefore
while the correlational results above suggest that there are multivariate MSIT influences on each of the MBI-GS