A Study of role conflict, role ambiguity, locus of control, job satisfaction and participation in decision making among front-line vocational service workers for mentally retarded adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was an investigation of individual and \norganizational factors, as perceived by front-line vocational \nservice workers from Adult Rehabilitation Centres (ARC \nIndustries) for mentally retarded adults. The specific \nvariables which were measured included role conflict/role \nambiguity (role factors), internal/external locus of \ncontrol (individual differences), job satisfaction with \nwork and supervision (job attitudes) and participation \nin deci~ion making (organizational factor). The exploration \nof these constructs was conducted by means of self-report \nquestionnaires which were completed by sixty-nine out \nof a total of ninety front-line employees. The surveys \nwere distributed in booklet form to nine distinct rehabilitation \nfacilities from St. Catharines, West Lincoln, Greater \nNiagara, Port Colborne, WeIland, Fort Erie, Hamilton, \nGuelph and Brantford. The survey data was evaluated \nby the statisti.cal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) \nwhich used the Pearson Product Moment Correlation procedure \nand a compar~son of means test. A comparison of correlation \ncoefficients test was also conducted. This statistical \nprocedure was calculated mathematically. The results \nobtained from the statistical evaluation confirmed the \nprediction that self-reported measures of participation \nin decision making and satisfaction (work and supervision) \nwould be negatively correlated with role conflict and \nrole ambiguity. As well, the speculation that perceived satisfaction (work and supervision) would be positively \ncorrelated with participation in decision making was \nempirically supported. Internal and external locus of \ncontrol did not contribute to a significant difference \nin r~sponses to role perceptions (conflict and ambiguity) , \nsatisfaction (work and supervision) or the correlational \nrelationship between participation in decision making \nand satisfaction (work and supervision). Overall, the \nfindings from this study substantiated the importance \nof examining employee perceptions in the workplace and \nthe interrelationships among individual and organizational \nvariables. This research was considered a contribution \nto the general area of occupational stress and to the \nstudy of individuals in work organizations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".