The Connection between Motivation and Job Significance among Academically Trained Employees: A Case Study of Workers in Out-of-Home Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Side by side with awareness of the rights of people with disabilities, attention is now focusing on the caregivers of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and on how they enhance the quality of life of this population group. In community-based residential facilities, these care workers provide people with IDD with training and support in activities of daily living, educational and social activities, and a wide range of medical and psychological treatments. Despite the challenges and significance of this work, there is a shortage of high-quality personnel. The current study examined the association between motivation and perceived meaning in one’s job and satisfaction and intention to leave among care workers in out-of-home facilities for people with IDD. The sample included 79 care workers with post-secondary education employed at out-of-home facilities of the Welfare Ministry, in non-managerial roles as direct caregivers, counselors, and coordinators, in Northern Israel. The main finding of the study is low motivation and satisfaction. In addition, a positive association was found between work motivation and satisfaction with the workplace, and a negative association between satisfaction with the work itself, and intention to leave the workplace. No significant association was found between finding meaning in one’s job and satisfaction with the work. The study sheds light on this important yet understudied area. Although it is very important to place skilled educated personnel in caregiving roles among the disabled in general and those with IDD living in out-of-home facilities in particular, it is also necessary to strengthen the ties between academic education and actual reality of working in the field with people with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".