MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984718746 · doi:10.1037/a0029837

Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: The moderating effect of organizational ICT support.

2012· article· en· W1984718746 on OpenAlexaff
Arla Day, Stephanie Paquet, Natasha Scott, Laura Hambley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Health Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTechnostress in Professional Settings
Canadian institutionsBP (Canada)Saint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyBurnoutStructural equation modelingPsychologyBusinessWorkloadExploratory researchKnowledge managementApplied psychologyComputer scienceClinical psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many employees are using more information communication technology (ICT) as part of their jobs, few studies have examined the impact of ICT on their well-being, and there is a lack of validated measures designed to assess the ICT factors that may impact employee well-being. Therefore, we developed and validated a measure of ICT demands and supports. Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, we found support for 8 ICT demands (i.e., availability, communication, ICT control, ICT hassles, employee monitoring, learning, response expectations, and workload) and two facets of ICT support (personal assistance and resources/upgrades support). Jointly, the ICT demands were associated with increased strain, stress, and burnout and were still associated with stress and strain after controlling for demographics, job variables, and job demands. The two types of ICT support were associated with lower stress, strain, and burnout. Resources/upgrades support moderated the relationship between learning expectations and most strain outcomes and between ICT hassles and strain. Personal assistance support moderated the relationship between ICT hassles and strain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations408
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational Health PsychologySame topicTechnostress in Professional SettingsFrench-language works237,207