The Effects of Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors on Academic LIS Professionals’ Health and Well-Being
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective – This study seeks to investigate the degree of counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWB) experienced by library and information science (LIS) professionals and how these behaviors contribute to physical, mental, and chronic health outcomes. While health outcomes may be present independent of CWB, this study seeks to explore the relationship between the two to provide context to the growing incidence of burnout among academic LIS professionals. Methods – This quantitative study analyzed 327 responses to a survey about colleague behavior and health sent to LIS professionals through library community electronic mailing lists. The survey contained demographic questions, questions about CWB, questions about health experiences, and questions about the perceived relationship between work and health. Counterproductive workplace behaviors were rated on a seven-point Likert scale. A behavior score was calculated by adding the Likert values of the 12 behavior questions. This score was used when comparisons about CWB were compared by demographics and health responses. Statistical analysis of survey results was performed using RStudio. Results – The mean total behavior score was 39. 107 respondents’ total behavior scores fell in the low range, 202 in the moderate range, and 18 in the high range. There was no significant relationship found between demographic factors and behavior score. A negative relationship was observed between duration of employment in an academic library and presence of mental health issues (F(5, 310) = 10.114, p = 5.5e-09). A similar relationship was observed between duration of employment in the respondents’ current library and presence of mental health issues (F(5, 311) = 9.748, p = 1.15e-08). Level of CWB experienced was found to have a relationship with the perceived ability to maintain good mental (F(2, 324) = 36.34, p = 5.75e-15), physical (F(2, 324) = 23.82, p = 2.24e-10), and chronic health (F(2, 323) = 13.04, p = 3.57e-06). Generally speaking, lower levels of CWB were associated with fewer challenges maintaining health. Conclusion – Low to moderate levels of CWB are common in academic libraries. These behavior levels are associated with an increase in health challenges. LIS professionals perceive work as being a factor that contributes to having trouble maintaining good mental and physical health and toward successfully managing chronic health conditions. Further study is needed to determine the degree to which experiencing CWB in the workplace affects health. Further study is also needed to determine if certain behaviors impact health outcomes more than others.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,045 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».