Measures Flashcards
Frequency of nature visits at work and leisure time was measured?
With two (2) separate questions.
At the beginning of the survey, the participants were informed that our definition of green and nature environments includes areas such as parks, forests, fields, meadows, marshes, rocks, fells, beaches, waters, playgrounds, and playing fields.
The first question related to nature visits during leisure time:
“How often do you visit green and nature environments?”
The participants indicated the frequencies of their visits separately for the summer season (May to September) and winter season (October to April) on a scale from never (1) to daily (7)
The second question?
Related to the frequency of nature visits at work: “Do you spend time outside in green and nature environments at work?” The response scale ranged from never (1) to daily (6).
How was outdoor activities in nature enquired?
“How do you normally use green and nature environments?” The participants selected the types of activities in nature they normally engage in from a given list of 16 activities (0 = no, 1 = yes). The list included a range of activities that described being in nature (e.g., enjoying scenery, relaxing, and dwelling), exercising in nature (e.g., walking and jogging, cycling, skiing), going on nature trips and travels (e.g., spending time at a summer cottage, boating), and the use of nature’s resources (e.g., picking berries and mushrooms, hunting and fishing).
Work engagement was measured ?
Work engagement was measured with the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.
The dimensions of vigor (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”), dedication (e.g., “I am enthusiastic about my job”) and absorption (e.g., “I feel happy when I am working intensely”) were all measured with three items.
The rating scale ranged from never (1) to daily (7).
The three dimensions of work engagement were included separately in the analyses.
Burnout was measured?
with the Bergen Burnout Inventory with nine items (BBI−9) whose factorial invariance (muuttumaton) has been supported across organizations and measurement times. The dimensions of exhaustion (e.g., “I am snowed under with work”), cynicism (e.g., “I feel dispirited at work and I think of leaving my job”), and inadequacy (ammatillisen itsetunnon heikentyminen/tehottomuus/riittämättömyys) (e.g., “I frequently question the value of my work”) were all measured with three items. The rating scale ranged from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (6).
What were demographic characteristics included in the analysis?
Age, gender, education, having children.
How did participants evaluated their job stressors?
Effor-Reward Imbalance Scale (ERI scale)
Our study’s participants evaluated their efforts with three items (e.g., “I have constant time pressure due to a heavy workload”) and rewards with seven items (e.g., “I receive the respect I deserve from my superiors”). The response scale ranged from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (4).
Further questions regarding nature exposure and accessibility were included in the survey: the duration of the nature visits during leisure time in summer and winter, the distance to the nearest natural area from home, and the length of the commute via nature.
These variables did not contribute to the variability between participants and therefore were not included in the Latent Profile Analysis. Instead, these variables were taken into consideration as covariates in the Analyses of Covariance, since they related to well-being measures with the exception of the length of the nature visits during leisure time in the summer, which was not shown to be a significant covariate.
Nämä muuttujat eivät vaikuttaneet osallistujien väliseen vaihtelevuuteen, joten niitä ei sisällytetty piilevän profiilin analyysiin. Sen sijaan nämä muuttujat otettiin kovariaateina huomioon kovarianssianalyyseissä, koska ne liittyivät hyvinvointitoimenpiteisiin lukuun ottamatta kesällä vapaa-ajan luontokäyntien kestoa, jonka ei osoitettu olevan merkittävä kovariaatti
LPA? Was used to?
Latent Profiel Analysis
was used to identify different subsamples of employees in regard to their nature exposure and outdoor activities in nature.
The profiles were identified with the three questions specified earlier, that is, the frequency of nature visits during leisure time in summer and winter, the frequency of nature visits at work, and the types of outdoor activities in nature environments during leisure time.
Deciding the number of profiles?
Was based on several fit indices.
First, the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC),
the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin (VLMR) test,
the Lo-Mendell-Rubin test (LMR),
and
the Bootsrapped Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) were calculated.
The lower the BIC values are?
The better the model is.
In the VLMR, LMR and BLRT?
In the VLMR, LMR and BLRT, p < 0.05 indicates that k profiles are sufficient compared to k + 1 profiles
What was the second fit indice?
Second, a good solution was seen to be indicated when there was successful convergence, a high entropy value (range 0–1) and at least 1% of the participants in a profile.
Toiseksi, hyvän ratkaisun havaittiin osoittavan onnistuneen lähentymisen, korkean entropia-arvon (vaihteluväli 0–1) ja vähintään yhden prosentin profiilin osallistujista.
The third indice/criterion?
The third and most important criterion was that the identified profiles are meaningful (significant, valid, relevant).
They contucted(carry out, johtaa) analysis. First, second?
First, the identified profiles were compared with t-tests (continuous variables) and χ2-tests (categorical variables) in regard to demographic, work- and nature-related factors.
Second, separate Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs) were run for each well-being outcome in order to evaluate how the identified profiles are related to occupational well-being (i.e., vigor, dedication, absorption, exhaustion, cynicism, inadequacy). In these analyses, only the statistically significant covariates were included in the final models.
