Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

305
experience within the JDCS, and despite the subjective nature of the presented study allowing participants every
chance to discuss problems relating to Control, it was not discussed as an issue.
The results of both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the project therefore suggest that, despite
many researchers and research studies providing strong evidence for the JDCS, a wide-scale re-evaluation of the
model is required. As was originally suggested by the authors of the model (Theorell, 1996) and as a criticism
often levelled at JDCS researchers (Jones et al., 1998) it is suggested that the scope of the JDCS is too narrow to
adequately cover many of the aspects of the modern dynamic workplace which can lead to the experience of
stress.
3b) Overall Survey Results in Relation to Previous Studies
The presented study is one of the very first to utilise the MSIT as a measure of psychosocial workplace stress
hazards alongside a measure of chronic stress-related outcomes (see attached journal article currently in press,
Appendix 12). However, multivariate linear regression analysis results from the current study, in addition to results
from two other contemporary studies, are demonstrated in Table 30. Results largely suggest that the findings of
the three studies are similar, although with obvious inevitable differences. It is worth noting that the two
comparison studies were chosen because they both utilised a version of Maslach Burnout Inventory which is akin to
the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey. Additionally it should also be noted that the Management
Standards Indicator Tool is a relatively new therefore and under-reported psychosocial hazard survey tool meaning