Role Characteristics And Their Relationships To Job Attitudes Among Workers In Maryland Adolescent Behavioral Treatment Centers

Maryland DHMH 1Role Characteristics and Their Relationships to Job Attitudes Among Workers in MarylandAdolescent Behavioral Treatment CentersMichael J. WalkUniversity of Baltimore Maryland DHMH 2Executive SummaryThe Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene operates three residential treatment programs for emotionally disturbed children and adolescents. Present problems among employee attitudes and turnover rates have prompted the current investigation into employee perceptions of their work experiences and the relationships between those perceptions and relevant job attitudes. In particular, this study built upon the work of Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) and other researchers to examine employees’ perceptions of role characteristics (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload) and their reported job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions.Survey responses were collected from 300 employees randomly selected from all of the treatment centers. In general, we found that high levels of role stress were associated with low levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment and with high levels of turnover intentions. We also found that different staff positions experienced role stress to varying degrees.In particular, direct-care staff reported the highest levels of role stress and the lowest levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as well as the highest levels of turnover intentions. Also, male staff reported experiencing more role stress and less positive job attitudes than their female counterparts.This research provides practical and concrete areas of action if employee retention and satisfaction are to be improved. In particular, reducing role ambiguity, conflict, and overload by making role expectations clear, complementary, and reasonable should help improve the existing psychological climate, job attitudes, and eventually, client care. Maryland DHMH 3Role Characteristics and their Relationships to Job Attitudes among Workers in MarylandAdolescent Behavioral Treatment CentersThe Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) operates three residential treatment programs for emotionally disturbed youth. The state of Maryland calls these centers Regional Institutes for Children and Adolescents (RICA). These three facilities offer day and residential treatment for several hundred children and adolescents with severe emotional and psychological problems. The facilities classify staff into three main types: administrative, clinical, and direct-care (or residential). Administrative staff are the upper-level employees who oversee actions of clinical and residential staff and deal with the paperwork, politics, and monetary concerns that are relevant to the institute. Clinical staff are either licensed social workers or psychologists or are interns pursing doctoral degrees in a related field. These staff act as therapists not only with the students but also their families and develop therapeutic treatment plans by working with residential staff. The direct-care staff work in the residence halls of the institute—providing supervision, counseling, crisis intervention, recreation, and the day-to-day care of the students. The three centers combined employ approximately 1000 employees, of which, 40% are direct care, 30% are clinical, and 30% are administrative.The DHMH became concerned when reports of high turnover rates, low job satisfaction, and low employee loyalty (i.e., commitment to the organization and its ideals) became increasingly prevalent among the three RICAs—especially within direct-care staff. The following technical report is the result of DHMH’s request that these problems be investigated with hopes to develop recommendations for improving the employee climate among these treatment centers.INITIAL INVESITGATIONS Maryland DHMH 4In order to better understand some possible causes of the reported organizational difficulties, three focus groups were conducted at each of the three RICAs. At each RICA, a sample of 5-10 employees from each major division (i.e., administrative, clinical, and direct care) was gathered for discussion of any extant organizational problems. The information from these interviews led to the investigation of the psychological climate within the institutes with a focus on employees’ role characteristics and resulting job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions.THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDMuch research has been done examining psychological climate and its relationship with important job-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, turnover, and others (see Parker, et al., 2003). In particular, Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) developed a questionnaire to measure two important role characteristics, role ambiguity and role conflict. The items they developed have been used by many researchers (e.g., Good, Page, & Young, 1996; Hang-yue, Foley, & Loi,2005; Keller, 1975; Kemery, Mossholder, & Bedeian, 1987).Role AmbiguityRole ambiguity is the degree of perceived ambiguity in demands, criteria, and relationships with other tasks-jobs-roles (House, Schuler, & Levanoni, 1983). In other words, a job high in role ambiguity is one where the expectations, outcomes, and responsibilities are not clearly defined or predictably followed by employees and management. In the current study, focus group discussions suggested that, especially for direct-care staff, employee roles were not plainly circumscribed. Several researchers have found that role ambiguity is negatively related to general job satisfaction (Acker, 2004; Glisson & Durick, 1988; Good, Page, & Young, 1986; Hang-yue, Foley, & Loi, 2005; Kemery, Mossholder, & Bedeian, 1987); however, debate is still Maryland DHMH 5 ongoing as to the limits and causes of this relationship. For example, Keller (1975) found that role ambiguity was negatively related only to the intrinsic aspects of job satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with one’s work) and not extrinsic aspects of job satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with pay, coworkers, etc.). Also, Chang and Hancock (2003) found that that negative relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction was present in newly employed nursing graduates (two to three months on the job), but it disappeared when the same employees were surveyed after working for a year. Despite the possible limits of the construct and the continuing investigations into its uses and validity, the bulk of the scientific evidence suggests that ambiguous roles do predict low levels of job satisfaction.A negative relationship has also been found between role ambiguity and organizational commitment. Glisson and Durick (1988) surveyed human service workers and found that employees reporting high levels of role ambiguity also reported low levels of organizational commitment. Once again, the evidence is not unanimous; for example, Good, Page, and Young (1996) surveyed department store workers and found no significant relationship between role ambiguity and organizational commitment. A possible reason for this discrepancy is the type of organization under investigation and the differential weight placed upon each worker’s role in the organization. That is, even if employees in both organizations experienced similar levels of role ambiguity, human service workers may perceive their roles as more important to the organization; therefore making the existing role ambiguity more affectively powerful.Also, role ambiguity has been shown to predict turnover intentions among social workers (Acker, 2004), staff assisting the intellectually disabled (Hatton, 2001), and general university staff (Kemery, Mossholder, & Bedeian, 1987). However, although Hang-yue, Foley, and Loi (2005) found a positive relationship between role ambiguity and turnover intentions among Maryland DHMH 6 professional Hong-Kong clergy, this relationship was non-significant when they controlled for job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion.As with all scientific constructs, the evidence is mixed as to the validity of the relationship between role ambiguity and organizational commitment; however, in this study, I expect that role ambiguity will be negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment and will be positively related with turnover intentions. I also expect to find a significantly higher level or role ambiguity among direct care staff than both clinical and administrative staff.Role ConflictRole conflict is the degree to which role performance is seen as affected by pressures to engage in conflicting or mutually exclusive behaviors (House, Schuler, & Levanoni, 1983). Similar to role ambiguity, focus groups indicated that role conflict was a possible area of concern for RICA employees, especially direct care staff. In particular, several direct care staff reported having to bend or break what they felt to be an unfair treatment policy. Also, with multiple directors and coordinators, entry-level or lower-level staff often received conflicting directions and/or tasks from different managers and supervisors. Role conflict has been shown in past research to be negatively related to job satisfaction among workers in the social services (Acker, 2004; Glisson & Durick, 1988) as well as the private sector (Good, Page, & Young, 1996; Kemery, Mossholder, & Bedeian, 1987). Keller’s (1975) research suggested that role conflict was negatively associated with the extrinsic aspects of work satisfaction (i.e., supervision, pay, and promotions) but not intrinsic aspects.Role conflict is also negatively related to organizational commitment (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Good, Page, & Young, 1996) and positively related to turnover intentions (Acker, 2004; Maryland DHMH 7Hang-yue, Foley, & Loi, 2005; Hatton, et al., 2001; Kemery, Mossholder, & Bedeian, 1987). In fact, Hang-yue, Foley, and Loi (2005) found that role conflict remained a significant predictor of turnover intentions even after controlling for emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction.In this study, I expect to find that role conflict with be negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment and positively related with turnover intentions. I also expect to find, based on focus group discussions, that direct-care staff will report a significantly higher degree of role conflict than both clinical and administrative staff.Role OverloadRole overload is the degree to which role performance is seen as affected by inadequate time, training, and resources (see Chang & Hancock, 2003 and Thiagarajan, Chakrabarty, & Taylor, 2006, for similar yet less broad definitions of this construct). One of the most common complaints among direct care workers was a lack of adequate training to help them deal with the multi-faceted demands of residential mental health work including one-on-one and group counseling, crisis intervention and manual restraint, dealing with families of clients (especially difficult ones), etc. Also, direct-care staff reported a lack of supplies and tools necessary for satisfactory residential unit operation. Clinical staff reported the greatest amount of role overload with respect to time; they reported handling a caseload of several clients, assisting with the school program, and completing all necessary paperwork and reports in a timely manner.While most recent work on role overload has been in the domain of work-family conflict (e.g., Kelly & Voydanoff, 1985), some researchers have focused on role overload within the confines of the organization. For example, Chang and Hancock (2003) found that role overload was negatively related to job satisfaction among newly employed nursing graduates (however, that relationship was non-significant after one-year on the job). Also, Hang-yue, Foley, and Loi Maryland DHMH 8(2005) found a positive relationship between role overload and turnover intentions among professional Hong Kong clergy (however, when emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction were controlled, the relationship became non-significant). Since the evidence supporting the construct of intra-organizational role overload is mixed and sparse, the construct requires further investigation and validation.In this study, I expect to find that role overload will be negatively related to job satisfaction. I also expect that administrative staff will report lower levels of role overload than both clinical and direct-care staff.HypothesesBecause of the weight of extant scientific evidence and the results of preliminary investigations via focus groups, several hypotheses have been developed for the current study.H1. Role ambiguity will be negatively correlated with job satisfaction.H2. Role ambiguity will be negatively correlated with organizational commitment.H3. Role ambiguity will be positively correlated with turnover intentions.H4. The role ambiguity mean for direct-care staff will be significantly higher than the means for both clinical and administrative staff.H5. Role conflict will be negatively correlated with job satisfaction.H6. Role conflict will be negatively correlated with organizational commitment.H7. Role conflict will be positively correlated with turnover intentions.H8. The role conflict mean for direct-care staff will be significantly higher than the means for both clinical and administrative staff.H9. Role overload will be negatively correlated with job satisfaction. Maryland DHMH 9H10. The role overload mean for administrative staff will be significantly lower than the means for both clinical and direct-care staff.METHODMeasuresUnless otherwise noted, all items utilized a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), all scale scores were created by averaging applicable item responses, and higher scale scores indicate higher levels of the construct. Item order was randomized within each scale, and each scale was placed on its own page of the questionnaire— except for demographic variables, which were all placed on the last page. (See Appendix A for a complete copy of the questionnaire.)Independent VariablesRole ambiguity. Role ambiguity was measured using House, Schuler, and Levanoni’s (1983) scale consisting of 11 items, which included such statements as, “I don’t know what is expected of me,” and “The planned goals and objectives are not clear.” The scale demonstrated sufficient internal consistency (α = .92).Role conflict. Role conflict was measured using House, Schuler, and Levanoni’s (1983) scale consisting of seven items, which included such statements as, “I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment,” and “I receive incompatible requests from two or more people.” The scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .88).Role overload. In order to measure role overload, a new scale was developed consisting of six items; for example, “I am expected to do too much in too little time,” and “The training I received inadequately prepared me for my duties.” The seven-item scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α = .76). Examination of the item-total statistics indicated that Maryland DHMH 10 deleting item 1, “I don’t have enough time to complete my daily tasks,” would raise coefficient alpha to .77. Because the increase in alpha was negligible and because the item was theoretically important to the construct, it was decided to retain the item and use the complete scale in subsequent analyses.Demographics. Participants were also asked to provide their age (in years), tenure (i.e., time at current facility, in years and months), years of education, position type (i.e., administrative, clinical, or direct-care), and gender.Dependent VariablesJob satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the three items measuring general job satisfaction from Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey. An example item is, “I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do on this job.” The scale demonstrated insufficient internal consistency (α = .19). Examination of the item-total statistics indicated that deletion of item 1 (“Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with the job,”) would substantially increase the scale’s reliability. The item was deleted and the remaining two items demonstrated marginal internal consistency (α = .70).Organizational commitment. Cook and Wall’s (1980) scale was used to measure organizational commitment. The scale consists of nine items such as, “I feel myself to be part of the organization,” and “I am quite proud to tell people who it is I work for.” The nine items were internally consistent (α = .85); however, examination of the item-total statistics suggested that deletion of item 1 (“I am quite proud to tell people who it is I work for,”) would increase coefficient alpha. Item 1 was therefore deleted, resulting in an eight-item scale with adequate internal consistency (α = .87). Maryland DHMH 11Turnover intentions. The three-item turnover subscale of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire was used to measure turnover intentions. Two of the items had a response scale which ranged from not at all true (1) to completely true (7); one item (“How likely is it that you will actively look for a new job in the next year?”) had a response scale which ranged from not at all likely (1) to very likely (7). The scale demonstrated sufficient internal consistency (α = .81).ProcedureIn order to obtain a representative sample of the employees at all three RICA locations, complete employee rosters were obtained from each facility. These rosters were then compiled and stratified by position type (i.e., administrative, clinical, and direct-care); systematic sampling of every third employee was conducted resulting in a sample of 340 that was representative of the population in regard to position type.Selected employees received questionnaires, cover letters, and reply envelopes via intra- institutional mail. Participants were asked to complete the survey on company time and to return it in the provided envelope via intra-institutional mail in no longer than three weeks. Survey responses were completely anonymous. After two weeks, follow-up letters were mailed to all participants thanking them if they had already completed the survey and asking those who had not yet completed the survey to do so.ParticipantsOf the 340 employees selected, 300 returned usable surveys for a response rate of 88%. The resulting sample contained 174 (58%) females. In terms of position type, the sample contained 88 (29.3%) direct-care employees, 122 (40.7%) clinical employees, and 90 (30%) administrative employees. (See Table 1 for a presentation of participant gender across position Maryland DHMH 12 types.) It is important to note that the distribution of return rates across position types is not representative of the target population (which is 40% direct-care, 30% clinical, and 30% administrative). This discrepancy could represent a source of response bias.Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for participant age, tenure, and years of education across all three position types. The sample included participants ranging in age from 18 to 65 years, in tenure from 0 to 16.32 years, and in education from 9 to 21 years. The total sample had a mean age of 32.88 years (SD = 13.10), a mean tenure of 6.27 years (SD = 3.59), and a mean education level of 14.81 years (SD = 4.12). Logically, there were significant differences in age (F(2, 297) = 13.13, p < .001), tenure (F(2, 297) = 14.42, p < .001), and education (F(2, 297) = 11.64, p < .001) among the three position types. Specifically, post-hoc tests revealed that direct care staff were significantly younger than both clinical and administrative staff, administrative staff had significantly longer tenure than both direct-care and clinical staff, and administrative staff had significantly more years of education than the other staff types (all post-hoc tests were significant at p < .01).RESULTSFactor StructureThe questionnaire in this study included 39 items hypothesized to measure six latent variables: role conflict (RC), role ambiguity (RA), role overload (RO), job satisfaction (JS), organizational commitment (OC), and turnover intentions (TI). When checking initial reliabilities, two items, JS1 and OC1, were deleted due to low inter-item correlations. There were11 items measuring role ambiguity (RA1 – RA11), seven items measuring role conflict (RC1 – RC7), six items measuring role overload (RO1 – RO6), two items measuring job satisfaction (JS2 and JS3), eight items measuring organizational commitment (OC2 – OC9), and three items Maryland DHMH 13 measuring turnover intentions (TI1 – TI3). In order to verify the hypothesized factor structure of the 37 items, LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006) was used to calculate confirmatory factor analyses of the inter-item correlation matrix. In the hypothesized measurement model, each item was loaded on its hypothesized factor only.The hypothesized measurement model demonstrated mediocre fit. The chi-square value was significant, χ2(614, N = 300) = 775.95, p < .01; and, other goodness of fit indices indicated marginal fit, RMSEA = .03, GFI = .88, CFI = .99. The model fit the data better than the null 2 model, χ diff(52) = 19877.85, p < .01. Following the suggestions of Bagozzi and Yi (1988), the error variances were then examined for negative or non-significant values and the factor loadings were examined to locate non-significant values. No problems were found in the matrix of error variances; however, the factor loading for RO1 (.45) was relatively small compared to the other loadings (all greater than .58). Despite the relatively small value, the model parameter was significant (B = .49, t = 7.51, p < .01).In order to follow Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) suggestions for testing nested models, I then created an unconstrained model to see if adding a path to the hypothesized model would create a significant difference in model fit. I examined the modification indices to determine what path to add to the model that would result in the greatest increase in model fit and found that freeing RO1 to load on the role conflict factor was expected to produce the largest change in the chi-square value of the model. The respecified model’s chi-square value was non-significant, χ2(613, N = 300) = 647.33, ns, and the model fit the data significantly better than the 2 hypothesized model, χ diff (1) = 128.62, p < .01, suggesting that RO1 was not a good measure of role overload. When allowed to load on role conflict, RO1’s loading on role overload became non-significant (B = -.07, t = -1.11, ns), while RO1’s loading on role conflict was significant (B Maryland DHMH 14= .78, t = 11.82). Because of RO1’s poor performance as a measure of role overload, I decided to delete the item from subsequent analyses and to retest the model’s fit.Without RO1, the revised model demonstrated satisfactory fit, χ2(579, N = 300) = 627.20, ns), RMSEA = .02, GFI = .90, CFI = 1.00. Examination of the error variances and factor loadings revealed no problem items. I examined the factor loading modification indices to see if adding any path to the model produced a notable increase in model fit and found that allowing RO6 to load on the turnover intentions (TI) factor resulted in the largest expected change in chi- square; however, the expected change was only 6.74. I freed the path from RO6 to the TI factor and ran the analysis again to test this unconstrained revised model.The resulting model fit, χ2(578, N = 300) = 620.59, ns, was significantly better than the 2 revised model, χ diff(1) = 6.61, p < .05; however, all other fit indices remained unchanged. In addition, while the loading of RO6 on TI was significant (B = .24, t = 2.67, p < .05), the completely standardized loading (.17) was quite smaller than the loading of RO6 on RO (.56). Because the degree of cross-loading for RO6 was low, and the gain in model fit by freeing the path from RO6 to TI was marginal, I decided to retain the revised model as the final measurement model. However, because an item (RO1) was deleted from the analysis, these results should be cross-validated on another sample.Method BiasIn order to assess the data for evidence of method bias, I added a latent method factor to the final model upon which all items were allowed to load (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff, 2003, for a detailed discussion of this technique). Because the model initially failed to converge (possibly because the error variance of RA9 was large and negative according to a tentative solution), the error variance of RA9 was constrained to equal the error variance of RA1, Maryland DHMH 15 a conceptually similar item. When this constraint was placed upon the model, LISREL was able to calculate a solution. The resulting model fit, χ2(544, N = 300) = 576.83, ns, was significantly 2 better than the final model’s fit, χ diff(35) = 50.37, p = .04, but produced no important changes in other standard fit indices (except RMSEA was decreased from .02 to .01) or factor loadings. Therefore, while evidence for possible method variance was present, its effects seemed to be minimal.SummarySee Table 3 for a comparison of fit indices for all tested measurement models. The initial hypothesized model including 37 items loading on six constructs demonstrated mediocre fit. A single item, RO1 (“I don’t have enough time to complete my daily tasks”) was deleted because it loaded onto role conflict rather than role overload. The resulting model with 36 items demonstrated satisfactory model fit. This revised measurement model was then tested against a common method variance model where all items were loaded onto a general method factor to investigate the data for evidence of common method bias. While the common method model did fit the data significantly better than the revised measurement model, the gain in model fit was marginal, suggesting a lack of any substantial method bias.Hypothesis TestingTable 4 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations for all six scales in this study. (Note that all correlations between scale scores were significantly different from zero). It was hypothesized that role ambiguity would be negatively related to job satisfaction (H1) and organizational commitment (H2) and positively related with turnover intentions (H3). All three hypotheses were supported; a higher level of role ambiguity was associated with a Maryland DHMH 16 lower level of job satisfaction, r(300) = -.39, p < .01, a lower level of organizational commitment, r(300) = -.56, p < .01, and a higher level of intention to leave, r(300) = .52, p < .01.Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 were that role conflict would be negatively correlated with job satisfaction, negatively correlated with organizational commitment, and positively correlated with turnover intentions, respectively. All three hypotheses were supported. Participants reporting a higher level or role conflict reported a low level of job satisfaction, r(300) = -.32, p < .01, a low level or organizational commitment, r(300) = -.48, p < .01, and a high level of intention to leave, r(300) = .35, p < .01.Hypothesis 9 was that role overload would be negatively related to job satisfaction. The data supported this relationship; participants who reported a high level of role overload reported a low level of job satisfaction, r(300) = -.30, p < .01.Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations for the scale scores of role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload across the three position types. Concerning the particular position types, it was hypothesized that direct-care staff would report significantly higher levels of role conflict (H4) and role ambiguity (H8) than other staff. It was also hypothesized that administrative staff would report significantly lower levels of role overload than other staff (H10). In order to investigate these hypotheses, six independent-samples t-tests were conducted using α = .008 to correct for inflation of the experiment-wise alpha-level.Results supported all hypotheses. That is, direct-care staff had significantly higher levels of role ambiguity than both clinical staff, t(208) = 5.24, p < .001, and administrative staff, t(176) = 10.07, p < .001. Direct-care staff had significantly higher levels of role conflict than both clinical staff, t(208) = 3.88, p < .001, and administrative staff, t(176) = 7.01, p < .001. And Maryland DHMH 17 administrative staff had significantly higher levels of role overload than both direct-care staff, t(176) = 7.21, p < .001, and clinical staff, t(210) = 4.04, p < .001.Results by GenderMeans of all study variables across genders were examined for significant differences. (See Table 6 for means, standard deviations, and t-test results for all study variables by gender.) It was found that males reported significantly higher mean levels of role ambiguity, t(298) = 4.60, p < .01, role conflict, t(298) = 3.27, p < .01, role overload, t(298) = 3.59, p < .01, and turnover intentions, t(298) = 4.10, p < .01, than females. Therefore, on average, males’ climate perceptions were more negative than females’ perceptions, and males reported being more likely to leave the organization within the near future. In addition, males, on average, reported lower levels of job satisfaction, t(298) = -2.09, p < .01, and organizational commitment, t(298) = -3.22, p < .01, than females. Taken together, this evidence suggests that there is a significant gender difference present at these facilities that needs further investigation.Results by Position TypeHypotheses 4, 8, and 10 investigated the differences among position types across the independent variable scales. However, it is important to examine the data for differences in the dependent measures (i.e., job attitudes) among position types. Means and standard deviations for the three dependent measures analyzed by position type as well as ANOVA results testing for differences between position types are presented in Table 7.ANOVA analyses indicated that within every dependent variable, there was at least one group mean that was different from the rest. Post-hoc analyses indicated that all mean scores for all positions were significantly different from all other position mean scores. That is, all positions reported significantly different mean levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and Maryland DHMH 18 turnover intentions. In particular, job satisfaction increased linearly from direct-care staff (M = 3.45) to clinical staff (M = 3.94) to administrative staff (M = 4.36). This same pattern was also found for organizational commitment. The direct-care staff reported the lowest mean level of organizational commitment (M = 3.67), clinical staff reported a medium level (M = 4.02), and administrative staff reported the highest level (M = 4.47). Finally, direct care staff had the highest mean score for turnover intentions (M = 4.13), clinical staff had the middle mean score (M = 3.58), and administrative staff had the lowest mean score (M = 3.00).These results suggest a disparity in staff experiences across different position types, with direct-care staff having the most negative job attitudes and administrative staff having the most positive job attitudes.Regression AnalysesWhile all hypotheses were supported in initial analyses, it is important to control for the various demographic variables which have been found to significantly affect scores on study variables. Hierarchical regression was used to all hypothesized relationships between role characteristics and job attitudes when controlling for demographic and position variables. Demographic and position variables were entered into the first block of the regression equation; the predictor (e.g., role ambiguity) was entered into the second block of the equation.Job SatisfactionIt was hypothesized that role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload would be negatively related to job satisfaction (H1, H5, and H9, respectively). All three of these hypotheses were supported according to correlational analyses previously reported. Using multiple regression, it was found that participant characteristics (i.e., age, tenure, position, etc.) explain a significant amount of variance in job satisfaction, F(5, 296) = 7.12, p < .01, R2 = .11. It Maryland DHMH 19 is important to note, however, that only staff position had a significant beta-weight (β = .21, t = 3.17, p < .01).Role ambiguity. Adding role ambiguity as a predictor resulted in a significant increase in R2, Fchange(1, 293) = 23.73, p < .001, ΔR2 = .07. Therefore, while participant variables account for a significant proportion of the variance in job satisfaction, role ambiguity explains a significant additional amount of variance, supporting H1. Taken together, role ambiguity and the participant variables account for approximately 18% of the variance in job satisfaction, F(6, 293)= 10.34, p < .01. The beta-weight of role ambiguity was significant (β = -.31, t = -4.87, p < .001); however, the beta-weight of staff position became non-significant (β = .09, t = 1.31, ns), suggesting the possibility that the relationship between staff position and job satisfaction is mediated by role ambiguity.Role conflict. When role conflict was used as a predictor in addition to the demographic variables, the resulting model explained a significant amount of variance in job satisfaction, F(6, 293) = 8.64, p < .001, R2 = .15, which was a significant increase in variance explained, Fchange(1, 293) = 14.62, p < .001, ΔR2 = .04, supporting H5. Examination of model coefficients indicated that role conflict was a significant predictor of job satisfaction (β = -.23, t = -3.82, p < .001). In contract to role ambiguity, role conflict’s addition to the model did not make the beta- weight of staff position non-significant (β = .15, t = 2.14, p < .05) even though the beta-weight was decreased from β = .21.Role overload. When role overload was used as a predictor in addition to the demographic variables, the resulting model explained a significant amount of variance in job satisfaction, F(6, 293) = 7.97, p < .001, R2 = .14, and role conflict explained a significant amount of incremental variance over and above demographic variables, Fchange(1, 293) = 11.04, p < . Maryland DHMH 2001, ΔR2 = .03, supporting H9. Examination of the model coefficients indicated that role overload was a significant predictor of job satisfaction (β = -.20, t = -3.32, p < .01). The coefficient of position type remained significant even with the addition of role overload to the regression model (β = .16, t = 2.31, p < .05).Role characteristics as a set. In order to examine the predictive power of role characteristics as a set of variables, hierarchical regression was used by inserting all demographic variables in block one and all role variables in block two. The model including all role characteristics and demographics explained a significant amount of variance in job satisfaction, F(8, 291) = 8.66, p < .001, R2 = .19, and the addition of role characteristics to the model containing only demographics resulted in significant incremental variance explained, Fchange(3,291) = 10.13, p < .001, ΔR2 = .08. However, examination of the model coefficients suggested that out of all the variables entered into the model (including demographics and role characteristics), only role ambiguity was a significant unique predictor of job satisfaction (β = -.22, t = -3.16, p < .01).Organizational CommitmentIt was hypothesized that role ambiguity and role conflict would be negatively related to organizational commitment (H2 and H6, respectively). Previous correlational analyses supported both hypotheses. In order to examine the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and organizational commitment when controlling for participant characteristics, hierarchical regression was used by entering all demographic variables (age, tenure, position type, etc.) into the first block of the regression equation. These participant characteristics accounted for a significant amount of variance in organizational commitment, F(5, 294) = 14.75, p < .001, R2 = .20. Out of the five demographic variables, however, only tenure (β = .24, t = 4.23, p < .001) and Maryland DHMH 21 position type (β = .27, t = 4.19, p < .001) significantly contributed to the prediction of organizational commitment.Role ambiguity. When role ambiguity was entered in the second block of the regression equation, the resulting model accounted for 36% of the variance in organizational commitment, F(6, 293) = 26.88, p < .001. This increase in R2 was significant, Fchange(1, 293) = 70.14, p < .001, ΔR2 = .15, supporting H2. In addition, the regression coefficient of role ambiguity was significant (β = -.46, t = -8.38, p < .001), and tenure remained a significant predictor of organizational commitment (β = .18, t = 3.43, p < .01). However, with role ambiguity included in the model, position type was no longer a significant predictor (β = .08, t = 1.32, ns), suggesting that role ambiguity possibly mediates the relationship between position type and organizational commitment.Role conflict. When role conflict was entered in the second block of the regression equation (instead of role ambiguity), the resulting model accounted for a significant amount variance in organizational commitment, F(6, 293) = 22.22, p < .001, R2 = .30. This was a significant improvement over the demographics only model, Fchange(1, 293) = 47.80, p < .001, ΔR2 = .11, supporting H6. Examination of the model regression weights indicated that role conflict was a significant predictor (β = -.37, t = -6.91, p < .001). In addition, the two demographic variables, tenure and position type, remained significant predictors of organizational commitment (β = .21, t = 3.86, p < .001, and β = .16, t = 2.57, p < .05, respectively).Role ambiguity and role conflict as a set. With the demographic variables entered in block one and both role ambiguity and role conflict entered in block two, the resulting model explained a significant proportion of variance in organizational commitment, F(7, 292) = 27.18, Maryland DHMH 22 p < .001, R2 = .40. The role variables explained significant incremental variance over and above demographic variables, Fchange(2, 292) = 46.76, p < .001, ΔR2 = .19. Out of the seven predictors, only one demographic variable, tenure (β = .17, t = 3.34, p < .01), and both role variables, role ambiguity (β = -.37, t = -6.28, p < .001) and role conflict (β = -.24, t = -4.37, p < .001), were significant unique predictors of organizational commitment.Turnover IntentionsIt was hypothesized that both role ambiguity and role conflict would be positively related to turnover intentions (H3 and H7, respectively). These hypotheses were supported according to correlational analyses previously reported. However, to investigate the predictive power of role characteristics over and above demographic variables, hierarchical regression was used by entering participant characteristics into the regression equation as block one. These variables accounted for a significant proportion of variance in turnover intentions, F(5, 294) = 11.94, p < .001, R2 = .17. Out of the five demographic variables, only tenure and staff position were significant predictors of turnover intentions (β = -.27, t = -4.59, p < .001, and β = -.17, t = -2.59, p < .05, respectively).Role ambiguity. When role ambiguity was added to the regression equation as block two, the resulting model accounted for a significant proportion of variance in turnover intentions, F(6,293) = 22.37, p < .001, R2 = .31. In addition, this model accounted for significant incremental variance over and above demographic variables, Fchange(1, 293) = 62.11, p < .001, ΔR2 = .15, supporting H3. The regression weight for role ambiguity was significantly different from zero (β = .45, t = 7.88, p < .001); moreover, the addition of role ambiguity to the demographics-only model decreased the value of the regression weights for both tenure and staff position. The Maryland DHMH 23 weight for staff position was reduced to non-significance (β = .01, t = .20, ns), while the weight for tenure remained significantly different from zero (β = -.21, t = -3.84, p < .001).Role conflict. When role conflict was added to the regression equation as block two (instead of role ambiguity), the resulting model accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in turnover intentions, F(6, 293) = 13.39, p < .001, R2 = .22. This model accounted for significant incremental variance over and above demographic variables, Fchange(1, 293) = 17.34, p < .001, ΔR2 = .05, supporting H7. The regression weight for role conflict was significantly different from zero (β = .24, t = 4.16, p < .001). The regression coefficients of tenure and staff position were reduced by the addition of role conflict to the regression equation; tenure’s coefficient remained significant (β = -.24, t = -4.29, p < .001) while position type’s coefficient did not (β = -.10, t = -1.50, ns).Role ambiguity and role conflict as a set. In order to investigate the relative contribution of role ambiguity and role conflict as a set of variables to the prediction of turnover intentions, both role ambiguity and role conflict were entered into a regression equation as block two; demographic variables were entered as block one. The role-characteristics and demographics model explained a significant amount of variance in turnover intentions, F(7, 292) = 19.60, p < .001, R2 = .32, and this model explained significant incremental variance over and above the demographics-only model, Fchange(2, 292) = 32.39, p < .001, ΔR2 = .15. However, when role ambiguity and role conflict were entered as a set of variables, role conflict was no longer a significant predictor of organizational commitment (β = .09, t = 1.54, ns), while role ambiguity and tenure remained significant predictors (β = .41, t = 6.70, p < .001, and β = -.20, t = -3.78, p <.001, respectively).DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Maryland DHMH 24This research provides a number of practical ways DHMH could attempt to improve employee retention, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.First, the constructs and measures of role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload seem valid in the settings of this research, and further use of them by administration could prove as a useful tool for analyzing, monitoring, and diagnosing staff issues and track progress in positively enhancing the psychological climate of RICA staff.Secondly, there was a definite pattern of group discrepancies among several study variables. In particular, there was a distinct difference among the psychological climate perceptions and job attitudes between direct-care staff and other position types. Concretely, staff who work most directly with the client population (and provide the largest proportion of treatment) are the ones who are reporting higher levels of role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload as well as lower levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to stay. Rapid turnover in residential mental health settings can be a pervasive and damaging problem with regard to adequate client treatment. Rapport takes time and energy to develop, and a constant shifting of staff only hinders positive client progress. Work should be done to make direct-care staff’s roles more clearly defined and easy to follow. Changes could be made in staff training, staff time allocation, and organizational structure to provide adequate knowledge, time, and support to direct-care staff.Also, further investigations should be conducted to assess the reasons behind the higher levels of role stress and negative job attitudes among males. One possible reason could be that, in a residential mental health setting, males are often chosen over females to participate in manual restraints, which can be very dangerous and extremely stressful. This disparity could be a cause Maryland DHMH 25 behind the observed data patterns across genders. Also, there were more male direct-care workers than female direct-care workers. So, the observed differences between males and females regarding role characteristics and job attitudes could be a function of the positions typically occupied by each gender.The limitations of this study include the underresponse of direct-care workers relative to other position types. This could introduce a response bias if those direct-care workers who failed to return their surveys were systematically different (e.g., busier, younger, less experienced, more experienced, or contemplating job relocation) than those direct-care workers who completed their surveys.Also, because this research is merely cross-sectional, proffering causal relationships should be done with caution. It is unclear as to whether role characteristics cause job attitudes (as the bulk of scientific theory supposes) or job attitudes cause perceptions of role characteristics. More research, including longitudinal research, should be done to underscore causal relationships among the constructs discussed herein.Finally, an important area for future research for the DHMH could be how role characteristics affect actual job performance as assessed by objective sources (i.e., managers or supervisors or patient turnaround time, etc.). Because high-quality treatment is desired across all RICAs, it is worthwhile to investigate the correlates of optimal operation.SummaryThis research investigated the relationships between role characteristics (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload) and job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions) among direct-care, clinical, and administrative staff at Maryland’s three residential treatment centers for emotionally disturbed youth. Survey data Maryland DHMH 26 suggested that high levels of role ambiguity, conflict, and overload were related with low levels of job satisfaction. Moreover, high levels of role ambiguity and conflict were related with low levels of organizational commitment and high levels of turnover intentions. All of these relationships were significant even when holding gender, age, years of education, tenure, and position type constant. In addition, it was found that direct care staff and males reported relatively higher levels of role ambiguity, conflict, and overload as well as more negative job attitudes than other staff types and females.High-quality psychological treatment is crucial in residential mental health settings— especially when children and adolescents are the target population. In order to provide high- quality treatment, high-quality staff must be recruited and retained. It is imperative for DHMH to act upon these research findings in a circumspect and yet proactive fashion to enhance employee experiences at RICA centers and to enrich the lives of the young people they aspire to treat. Maryland DHMH 27ReferencesAcker, G. M. (2004). The effect of organizational conditions (role conflict, role ambiguity, opportunities for professional development, and social support) on job satisfaction and intention to leave among social workers in mental health care. Community Mental HealthJournal, 40(1), 65-73.Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.Chang, E. & Hancock, K. (2003). Role stress and role ambiguity in new nursing graduates in Australia. Nursing and Health Sciences, 5, 155-163.Cook, J. & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Quarterly, 33, 61-81.Good, L. K., Page, T. J., & Young, C. E. (1996). Assessing hierarchical differences in job-related attitudes and turnover among retail managers. Academy of Marketing Science, 24(2), 148-156.Harris, M. M., & Bladen, A. (1994). Wording effects in the measurement of role conflict and role ambiguity: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. Journal of Management, 20(4), 887-901. Maryland DHMH 28Hatton, C., Emerson, E. Rivers, M., Mason, H., Swarbick, R., Mason, L., et al. (2001). Factors associated with intended staff turnover and job search behaviour in services for people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45(3), 258-270.House, R. J., Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales: Reality or artifacts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 334-337.Hang-yue, N., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2005). Work role stressors and turnover intentions: a study of professional clergy in Hong Kong. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 2133-2146.Keller, R. T. (1975). Role conflict and ambiguity: correlates with job satisfaction and values. Personnel Psychology, 28, 57-64.Kelly, R. F., & Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work/family role strain among employed parents. Family Relations, 34, 367-374.Kemery, E. R., Mossholder, K. W., & Bedeian, A. G. (1987). Role stress, physical symptomology, and turnover intentions: A causal analysis of three alternative specifications. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 11-23.Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost., H. A., & Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389-416.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Maryland DHMH 29Table 1Percentages of Males and Females within Each Position TypePosition Type Gender Direct-Care Clinical Administrative Total Male 22% 15.3% 4.7% 42% Female 7.3 25.3 25.3 58 Total 29.3 40.7 30 100 Maryland DHMH 30Table 2Means and Standard Deviations of Age, Tenure, and Years of Education by Position TypeDirect Care Clinical Administrative Total Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD Age 27.38 10.62 33.97 12.84 36.78 13.99 32.88 13.10 Tenure (in years) 5.01 3.51 6.08 3.59 7.75 3.16 6.27 3.59 Education (in years) 13.49 3.95 14.64 4.07 16.33 3.90 14.81 4.12 Maryland DHMH 31Table 3Fit Indices for all Tested Measurement Models (N = 300)Model χ2 df RMSEA GFI CFI Null 20653.80 666 Hypothesized 775.95 614 .03 .88 .99 Respecified Modela 647.33 613 .01 .90 1.00 Revised (Final) Modelb 627.20 579 .02 .90 1.00 Unconstrained Revised Modelc 620.59 578 .02 .90 1.00 Model with Method Factord 576.83 544 .01 .90 1.00 aRole overload item 1 was allowed to load on the role conflict factor in addition to the role overload factor. bRole overload item 1 was deleted from the model. cRole overload item 6 was allowed to load on the turnover intentions factor in addition to the role overload factor. dA method factor was added to the model; all items were allowed to load on the method factor. Maryland DHMH 32Table 4Descriptives and Correlations among Scale ScoresVariables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Role Ambiguity 4.94 .93 --- 2. Role Conflict 5.02 .81 .52 --- 3. Role Overload 4.50 .99 .51 .44 --- 4. Job Satisfaction 3.92 1.26 -.39 -.32 -.30 --- 5. Organizational Commitment 4.05 .84 -.56 -.48 -.42 .28 --- 6. Turnover Intentions 3.57 1.45 .52 .35 .41 -.28 -.43 Note. All correlations presented in this table are significant at p < .01. Maryland DHMH 33Table 5Differences in Role Characteristics between Position TypesDirect-Care Clinical Administrative Role Characteristic M SD M SD M SD Role Ambiguity 5.53** .72 4.95 .84 4.34 .84 Role Conflict 5.42** .76 5.01 .75 4.62 .76 Role Overload 4.95 .80 4.54 .97 4.00** .95 Note. To correct for experiment-wise alpha level due to multiple planned comparisons, α = .008 was used in all t-tests.**Mean difference is significant at p < .001. Maryland DHMH 34Table 6Descriptives of Study Variables by GenderMale FemaleVariable M SD M SD Mdiff t(298) Role Ambiguity 5.21 .87 4.73 .91 .48 4.60** Role Conflict 5.19 .75 4.89 .83 .31 3.27** Role Overload 4.73 .92 4.33 1.00 .41 3.59** Job Satisfaction 3.75 1.17 4.05 1.30 -.31 -2.09** Organizational Commitment 3.87 .79 4.18 .85 -.31 -3.22** Turnover Intentions 3.96 1.52 3.28 1.33 .68 4.10** **p < .01. Maryland DHMH 35Table 7Descriptives and ANOVA results for Dependent Measures Analyzed by Position TypeDirect-Care Clinical Administrative Variable M SD M SD M SD F(2, 297) Job Satisfaction 3.45 1.20 3.94 1.20 4.36 1.25 12.65** Organizational Commitment 3.67 .73 4.02 .81 4.47 .80 23.09** Turnover Intentions 4.13 1.41 3.58 1.45 3.00 1.29 14.77** **p < .01. Maryland DHMH 36APPENDIX A: SURVEY ON WORK ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS ______This survey asks you to describe your attitudes and perceptions toward various aspects of your work environment. Remember, all of your responses will be kept absolutely confidential.Participation in this project is voluntary.Your responses are very important and greatly appreciated. Maryland DHMH 37INSTRUCTIONS  Try to answer every question as honestly as you can. You do not have to answer a question if you find it objectionable.  There are several parts to the survey. Please read carefully the instructions for each part.Instructions Will be Provided at the Beginning of Each SectionINFORMATION FROM THIS SURVEY IS USED STRICTLY FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES. ALL ANSWERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL.  The survey looks lengthy, but generally takes about 20 minutes to fill out. We appreciate the time you are giving in helping with this research.  When you have finished, please put it into the provided envelope and seal it shut. Please place the sealed envelope in inter-institutional mail.THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING! Maryland DHMH 38Part 1: Retention OpinionsFor each of the following statements, please indicate the likelihood that you will still be working for your current organization using the following scale: 7 Completely True 6 Moderately True 5 Somewhat True 4 Undecided 3 Somewhat Untrue 2 Moderately Untrue 1 Not at all True___ 1. I will probably look for a new job in the next year.___ 2. I often think of quitting.Please use the following answer choices for question #3. 7 Very Likely 6 Moderately Likely 5 Somewhat Likely 4 Undecided 3 Somewhat Unlikely 2 Moderately Unlikely 1 Not at all Likely___ 3. How likely is it that you will actively look for a new job in the next year? Maryland DHMH 39Part 2: Perceptions of the Work EnvironmentThe following items ask for your perceptions of your job. Please respond to each statement according to what happens in your work role using the following scale:1------2------3------4------5------6------7 Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree___ 1. My authority matches the responsibilities assigned to me.___ 2. I don’t know what is expected of me.___ 3. My responsibilities are clearly defined.___ 4. I feel uncertain about how much authority I have.___ 5. I know what my responsibilities are. ___ 6. I have clear planned goals and objectives for my job.___ 7. The planned goals and objectives are not clear.___ 8. I don’t know how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion.___ 9. I know what is expected of me.___ 10. Explanations are clear of what has to be done.___ 11. My boss makes it clear how he will evaluate my performance. Maryland DHMH 40Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement using the following scale:7 Strongly Agree 6 Moderately Agree 5 Slightly Agree 4 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Slightly Disagree 2 Moderately Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree___ 1. I often get myself involved in situations in which there are conflicting requirements.___ 2. There are unreasonable pressures for better performance.___ 3. I am often asked to do things that are against my better judgment.___ 4. I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it.___ 5. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment.___ 6. I receive incompatible requests from two or more people.___ 7. I have to do things that should be done differently under different conditions. Maryland DHMH 41Part 3: Feelings of SatisfactionFor each of the following statements, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree by circling one of the seven alternatives below each statement.1. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with the job.1------2------3------4------5------6------7 Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree2. I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do on this job.1------2------3------4------5------6------7 Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree3. I frequently think of quitting this job.1------2------3------4------5------6------7 Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree Maryland DHMH 42Part 4: Perceptions of the Work Environment (continued)The following items ask for your perceptions of your job. Please respond to each statement according to what happens in your work role using the following scale:7 Strongly Agree 6 Moderately Agree 5 Slightly Agree 4 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Slightly Disagree 2 Moderately Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree___ 1. I don’t have enough time to complete my daily tasks.___ 2. I am expected to do too much in too little time.___ 3. The training I received adequately prepared me for my duties.___ 4. I was trained well enough to successfully complete all my responsibilities.___ 5. I am provided with the resources necessary to complete my daily tasks.___ 6. I can easily obtain everything I need to complete my assigned duties. Maryland DHMH 43Part 5: Feelings of CommitmentThe following items ask for your perceptions of your organization. Please respond to each statement according to your feelings using the following scale:1------2------3------4------5------6------7 Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Agree Agree___ 1. I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for.___ 2. I sometimes feel like leaving this employment for good.___ 3. I'm not willing to put myself out just to help the organization.___ 4. Even if the firm were not doing too well financially, I would be reluctant to change to another employer.___ 5. I feel myself to be part of the organization. ___ 6. In my work I like to feel I am making some effort, not just for myself but for the organization as well.___ 7. The offer of a bit more money with another employer would not seriously make me think of changing my job.___ 8. I would not recommend a close friend to join our staff.___ 9. To know that my own work had made a contribution to the good of the organization would please me. Maryland DHMH 44The following information will help me compare your responses to those provided by other individuals. This information is confidential and will be used for research purposes only. 1. Position Type (please check one): ____ Administrative ____ Clinical ____ Direct-Care2. Gender: ______Male ______Female3. Age: ______4. Time employed by your current organization: Years: ______Months: ______5. Education (please report the number of years counting from Kindergarten to highest level of education completed): ______Thank you for your assistance!Please place your completed survey in the envelope, seal it, and place it in intra- institutional mail.

Role Characteristics And Their Relationships To Job Attitudes Among Workers In Maryland Adolescent Behavioral Treatment Centers

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support