Influence of Perceived Organisational Support on the Dimensions of Psychological Well-being of Police Personnel in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological well-being of police personnel may be dependent on the kind of support they received in the organisation, especially in the heat of challenges and stress encountered in the course of performing their duties. Against this backdrop, this study investigated how the levels of perceived organisational support (low, moderate and high) influence the dimensions (control of self and events, happiness, social involvement, self-esteem, mental balance and sociability) and overall psychological well-being of police personnel in Nigeria. Purposive, proportionate, and accidental sampling techniques were used to select 1193 police personnel (652 males; 541 females) from two states in Nigeria. Their ages ranged from 24 to 59 years with a mean age of 38.08 years (SD = 8.27). They responded to measures of perceived organisational support and psychological well-being. Results of the One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni’s post hoc analyses showed that perceived organisational support significantly influenced all the dimensions of psychological well-being, except mental balance, such that police personnel who had high level of perceived organisational support had higher control of self and events, happier, socially more involving, had higher positive evaluation of themselves, more sociable, and higher overall psychological well-being than those who had moderate or low level of perceived organisational support. This study recommends that police organisations and the supervisory agencies should institute psychological programs that target and improve the dimensions, with special focus on mental balance, and overall psychological well-being of police personnel.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".