20.01.2015 Views

Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

364<br />

Appendix 2: Pilot Study Results Table<br />

Out of 22<br />

responde<br />

nts, 9<br />

comment<br />

ed. Some<br />

of which<br />

are:<br />

Pilot Study 1<br />

Participant Comments<br />

Qualitative Results - Comments<br />

Is not a clear link between health<br />

questions and work.<br />

The GHQ is life, rather than work,<br />

related.<br />

Easy to complete, no difficulty<br />

understanding the questions.<br />

Comment Analyses<br />

These comments make it<br />

clear that while the majority<br />

of those who made<br />

comments found the<br />

questionnaires easy to<br />

follow, the majority of<br />

problems were with the<br />

GHQ, and particularly<br />

because it is too life-rather<br />

than work-related.<br />

Quantitative Results – Pilot Study 1, N=22<br />

Cronbach’s Alpha results:<br />

MSIT<br />

Overall<br />

Cont<br />

rol<br />

Dema<br />

nds<br />

M.<br />

Support<br />

P.<br />

Support<br />

Relations<br />

hips<br />

Rol<br />

e<br />

Chan<br />

ge<br />

GHQ-<br />

12<br />

.64 .87 .89 .65 .79 .71 .78 .55 .87<br />

Out of 22<br />

responde<br />

nts, 7<br />

comment<br />

ed. Some<br />

of which<br />

are:<br />

Pilot Study 2<br />

Participant Comments<br />

Qualitative Results - Comments<br />

It looks very professional but I don’t think<br />

the frequency response set on the<br />

MindGarden questionnaire works well.<br />

Much better than the previous version.<br />

Seems to be work-orientated, whereas the<br />

last one could have been anything.<br />

The Likert scales seem to be a problem –<br />

sometimes they make it difficult to assess<br />

what they are actually measuring.<br />

Quantitative Results – Pilot Study 2, N=17<br />

Comment Analyses<br />

Comments generally<br />

positive about this<br />

version as opposed to<br />

that distributed in the<br />

first pilot. Main issue<br />

seems to be the use of<br />

Likert scales, but the<br />

use of these have been<br />

heavily validated over<br />

time.<br />

MSIT Contro Demand M. P. Relations Role Change<br />

Overall l s Support Support hips<br />

.92 .90 .85 .87 .88 .70 .76 .87<br />

MBI-GS (Overall) Exhaustion (EX) Cynicism (CY) Personal Efficacy<br />

(PE)<br />

.90 .93 .95 .89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!