Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

199
To summarise, a simple visual comparison of the multivariate linear regression results as depicted in Table
13 (Survey 1) and Table 20 (Survey 2) clearly show that the priorities influencing stress-related outcomes indicate
similarities and differences. For example, both surveys found that Demands and Control were the main factors
implicated with the experience of Exhaustion. Despite this these two factors explained a greater percentage of
variance in Survey 2 (Adjusted R²=.498) than they did in Survey 1 (Adjusted R²=.331). Similarly both surveys
implicated Change as strongly associated in the experience of Cynicism, and overall both models explained greater
than 40% of variance. However Survey 1 also demonstrated that Role was strongly related to Cynicism, an
outcome not mirrored in Survey 2. Lastly, the antecedents for feelings of Professional Efficacy were completely
different between the two surveys. While Survey 1 found that each of Managerial Support, Role, Control and
Demands together explained 41% of variance, Change was the only factor in Survey 2 to do so and thus explaining
just 25% of variance.
4c) High vs. Non-High Scorers
Table 21 below shows the differences between those individuals who scored 'high' on overall burnout scores
(high levels of Exhaustion and Cynicism, and low levels of Professional Efficacy) and those who did not score highly
on either Exhaustion or Cynicism, or low on Professional Efficacy. The table therefore illustrates whether or not a
significant difference is demonstrated between the two sub-populations on each of the seven MSIT factors.
Analysis identifies significant differences between the two groups on six of the seven MSIT factors, without
significance between the groups on the Demands factor alone. As in Phase 1, each of the significant outcomes