- Email: [email protected]
Work Locus of Control as a Moderating Influence on the Quality of Work Life for Radiation Therapists
8PSL-PDVTPG$POUSPMBTB.PEFSBUJOH*OnVFODF
POUIF2VBMJUZPG8PSL-JGFGPS3BEJBUJPO5IFSBQJTUT John French DCR(T). ACT, CMS, BSc.(Hons), FCAMRT, MSc. Chief Radiation Therapist
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was undertaken as part of the requirements for an MSc. Degree from Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge, England. The author would like to thank all of the Radiation Therapists in British Columbia for participating in this survey.
AB S T RA C T
RÉSUMÉ
R
BEJBUJPO5IFSBQJTUTQSBDUJTJOHJO#SJUJTI$PMVNCJB $BOBEB XFSF TVSWFZFE UP EFUFSNJOF UIF FYUFOU PG XPSLSFMBUFE TUSFTTPST BOE SFTVMUBOU KPC TUSBJOT "MTP NFBTVSFE XBT UIF QFSTPOBMJUZ WBSJBCMF PG 8PSL -PDVT PG $POUSPM 8-0$ GPS SFTQPOEFOUT8-0$ JT UIF EFHSFF UP XIJDI JOEJWJEVBMT GFFM UIFZ IBWFJOnVFODFPWFSXPSLSFMBUFESFXBSETPSQVOJTINFOUT5IPTF XJUI BO JOUFSOBM MPDVT GFFM CFMJFWF UIBU UIFZ IBWF DPOUSPM XIJMF UIPTFUIBUIBWFBOFYUFSOBMMPDVTCFMJFWFUIBUSFXBSETBSFNPSF HPWFSOFECZFYUFSOBMGBDUPSTTVDIBTMVDLPSUIFBDUJPOTPGPUIFST 5IF SFTVMUT DPNQBSFE UIF QFSDFQUJPO PG TUSFTT BOE QSFWBMFODF PG KPC TUSBJOT GPS UIPTF XJUI B NPSF FYUFSOBM MPDVT DPNQBSFE UP UIPTF XJUI B NPSF JOUFSOBM 8-0$ *U XBT GPVOE UIBU UIPTF XJUIBNPSFFYUFSOBMMPDVTXFSFNPSFMJLFMZUPFYQFSJFODFCPUI JOUFSQFSTPOBM DPOnJDU BU XPSL BOE PSHBOJ[BUJPOBM DPOTUSBJOUT 5IFZ BMTP FYIJCJUFE MPXFS BõFDUJWF XFMMCFJOH FYQFSJFODFE NPSFMPXQMFBTVSFFNPUJPOTBOEIBEMPXFSQIZTJDBMXFMMCFJOH 3FTQPOEFOUT XJUI B NPSF FYUFSOBM MPDVT TDPSFE MPXFS PO KPC TBUJTGBDUJPO SBUJOHT 5IF SFTVMUT TVQQPSU FYJTUJOH MJUFSBUVSF JEFOUJGZJOHUIBUQFSDFQUJPOTPGKPCTUSFTTBOESFTVMUBOUKPCTUSBJOT BSFBGVODUJPOPGQFSTPOBMJUZBTXFMMBTFOWJSPONFOU
N
PVTBWPOTFõFDUVÏVOTPOEBHFBVQSÒTEFTSBEJPUIÏSBQFVUFT FYFSÎBOU MFVS QSPGFTTJPO FO $PMPNCJF#SJUBOOJRVF $BOBEB QPVS EÏUFSNJOFS MÏUFOEVF EFT GBDUFVST EF TUSFTT EBOT MFVS USBWBJM FU EFT UFOTJPOT RVJ FO SÏTVMUFOU /PVT BWPOT B ÏHBMFNFOU NFTVSÏMBWBSJBCMFEVTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFEFTQFSTPOOFTJOUFSSPHÏFT-F TJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUMFGBDUFVSTFSWBOUËNFTVSFSMFEFHSÏEJOnVFODF RVF MJOEJWJEV FTUJNF BWPJS TVS MFT SÏDPNQFOTFT FU MFT QVOJUJPOT SFMJÏFTËTPOUSBWBJM-FTJOEJWJEVTRVJPOUVOTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFJOUFSOF DSPJFOUBWPJSMBNBÔUSJTFEFMBTJUVBUJPOBMPSTRVFDFVYRVJPOUVOTJUF EF DPOUSÙMF FYUFSOF DSPJFOU RVF MFT SÏDPNQFOTFT TPOU MF SÏTVMUBU EF DJSDPOTUBODFTFYUÏSJFVSFTDPNNFMBDIBODFPVMFTHFTUFTEBVUSVJ -FTSÏTVMUBUTDPNQBSFOUMBQFSDFQUJPOEVTUSFTTFUEFTUFOTJPOTSÏTVMUBOU EVUSBWBJMDIF[DFVYEPOUMFTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUQMVUÙUFYUFSOFFUDFVYEPOU MFTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUJOUFSOF/PVTBWPOTBDPOTUBUÏRVFMFTJOEJWJEVTEPOU MFTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUQMVUÙUFYUFSOFPOUQMVTTPVWFOUUFOEBODFËDPOOBÔUSF EFT DPOnJUT SFMBUJPOOFMT BJOTJ RVF EFT DPOUSBJOUFT PSHBOJTBUJPOOFMMFT BV USBWBJM*MTÏQSPVWFOUBVTTJNPJOTEFCJFOÐUSFBõFDUJG FYQÏSJNFOUFOUEFT ÏNPUJPOTNPJOTBHSÏBCMFTFUDPOOBJTTFOUNPJOTEFCJFOÐUSFQIZTJRVF -FT QFSTPOOFT JOUFSSPHÏFT EPOU MF TJUF EF DPOUSÙMF FTU QMVUÙU FYUFSOF PCUJFOOFOU EFT SÏTVMUBUT NPJOT ÏMFWÏT TVS MÏDIFMMF EF MB TBUJTGBDUJPO BV USBWBJM -FT SÏTVMUBUT BQQVJFOU EBOT MB EPDVNFOUBUJPO BDUVFMMF Ë TBWPJS RVFMFTQFSDFQUJPOTEVTUSFTTBVUSBWBJMFUEFTUFOTJPOTRVJFOSÏTVMUFOU EFQFOEFOUUPVUBVUBOUEFMBQFSTPOOBMJUÏRVFEVNJMJFV
INTRODUCTION The level of stress amongst Radiation Therapists (RTs) has been examined in the literature, with some evidence suggesting that the amount of stress may be unduly high. 1 As a result, RTs may experience job strains or responses to stress. These responses can range from changes in affective, or emotional well-being, to decreased physical well-being and includes responses such as burnout or depression. Repeated exposure to stress can lead to actual disease, with a connection between stress and cardiovascular disease well established.2 A high level of burnout amongst RTs has been previously identified, with a study of 603 RTs from the United States of America (USA) identifying that RTs had a higher level
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
of burnout, as measured on the Maslach Burnout Inventory, than other professional groups such as nurses. Factors that may influence burnout were also assessed, including stress; social support, specifically reassurance of worth and guidance; and workload, based on number of patients treated per week by the respondents. The results found that burnout was particularly high in areas of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and higher than normative values for nurses across a range of settings. The results indicated that the variables measured had an impact on burnout. Personal and environmental stress and workload increased emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, while social support in the form of reassurance of worth and guidance had an inverse correlation with these aspects of burnout. 2
QBHF
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
In contrast, a 1998 survey of 45 RT’s, dosimetrists and managers in the State of Florida revealed an overall higher level of satisfaction and less burnout amongst the study group compared to national norms. However, the RTs did indicate that they felt unappreciated by other health care providers. RTs were satisfied primarily with their patient contact and the technical aspects of the job. A positive workplace culture and benefits such as time off for professional development increased work satisfaction and it was suggested that management attitude might play a greater role in employee job satisfaction than individual demographics or personality characteristics. The study also concluded that benefits played a large role in determining where people work. This study had a much smaller sample size than other studies, which may account for the difference in findings. 3 A 2000 study conducted by French examined the level of job satisfaction amongst RTs across Canada. This study used the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) developed by Spector; to measure job satisfaction rates for a sample of 197 RTs from English speaking Canada. The results found that satisfaction levels were consistent with normative values, but the study did identify that organizational constraints such as adequate resources, time to deliver adequate care, training for tasks, operating conditions and workload were significant variables contributing to dissatisfaction. Workload was identified as the biggest factor influencing job dissatisfaction, with a prevailing sense that the workload was too high, there was too much overbooking and that more staff were required to do the job properly. Several respondents noted that they felt stressed or burnt out due to the high workloads they had to deal with. The study also found that those who exhibited higher levels of job dissatisfaction were more likely to state that they were likely to leave their current place of employment within the next 2 years.4 These studies have focused predominantly on the impact of environmental variables on work-related stress or job satisfaction. Little attention has been paid to the impact of personality factors of RTs, despite substantial evidence that personality plays a significant role in the perception of stress and attitudes toward work. 5 One such personality construct is Locus of Control (LOC). LOC is an important construct in psychological theories. It can be defined as an individual’s generalized expectancies regarding the forces that determine rewards and punishments in life. Those with an internal LOC view events as resulting from their own actions. People with an external LOC view events as being under the control of external factors such as luck or the actions of others. LOC can also be a facet construct, that it may be applied to general beliefs and also to beliefs about work (Work LOC) or health (Health LOC).6 Psychological research indicates that those with an external LOC are less likely to reach their full potential because of the motivational, emotional and cognitive defects associated with a perceived inability to influence their future outcomes. Externally focused individuals are more likely to suffer from
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
QBHF
depression and other conditions because they believe that their actions cannot improve their current condition. Conversely those that are internally focused are more likely to believe that their own efforts influence their outcomes, and thus are more likely to meet challenges and succeed in their future endeavors. Even if events are not controllable to a great degree, those with an internal LOC have a belief that they can influence events, and this belief can contribute to psychological well-being 7. Several outcomes are affected by LOC. For example, those with an internal LOC tend to have more academic success and work harder at school than those with a more external locus. 8 LOC may also have a moderating effect on health. Research has indicated that those with an internal locus tend to take a more active interest in their health, experience more positive psychological outcomes such as reduced depression or anxiety and experience better physical health than those with an external locus. 6 Work LOC is a measure of the amount of control people feel that they have over their work environment. Work LOC has been found to correlate with several organizational relevant variables. Those with a more internal locus have a tendency to be more satisfied with their jobs, see their supervisors as higher on consideration and initiating structure, report less role stress, perceive more autonomy and control, and enjoy longer job tenure.9 The literature predicts that Work LOC will have a moderating effect on the stresses and strains experienced at work. The intent of this study was to determine if Work LOC acts as a moderating influence on perceptions of work stressors, resultant strains and job satisfaction for those working in the profession of Radiation Therapy. METHODOLOGY In February 2003, a survey was conducted of RTs working at four cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada. The survey was delivered over a secure intranet connection. The survey was designed to measure job stressors, specifically: interpersonal conflict, workload and the extent of organizational constraints; and resultant job strains in the forms of job related affective well-being and the presence of physical symptoms. The level of job satisfaction of respondents was measured using a single item question, with a Likert scale response ranging from very poor to very good. Also measured was the personality construct of Work Locus of Control. Approval to conduct the research was obtained from the Clinical Investigations Committee at the BCCA. The following survey instruments were used: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS); Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS); Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI); Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI); Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (Jaws) and Work LOC Scale (WLCS). The Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS) is
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
a 4-item, summated rating scale designed to assess the perception of conflict at work. Respondents were asked how often a variety of conflict situations arise, with answers provided on a five- point Likert scale response ranging from never to extremely often. The overall response scores vary from 4, representing zero conflict, to a maximum of 20. The scale has been used extensively and has a published internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of average .74 across 13 studies.10 The Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) is designed to measure organizational constraints, which can be defined as situations or things that interfere with task performance at work. The survey is an 11-item survey measuring 11 constraint areas, such as poor equipment, organizational rules and procedures. All items are summed into a total score. A Likert scale response is used to identify the frequency at which constraints are experienced, ranging from less than once per month or never to several times per day. The scale has a final score ranging from 11 to 55. Because the survey items are individual constructs, internal consistency reliability ratings are not relevant (ibid). The Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) is a 5-item summed scale designed to assess the amount or quantity of physical work in a job, as opposed to qualitative workload, which is the mental effort required to do the work. Survey items assess the frequency at which respondents work hard, fast, have a great deal to be done, have little time to get things done and have more work to do than can be done well. Responses use a Likert scale ranging from less than once per month or never to several times per day. Scores for the QWI range from 5 to 25. The scale has an average internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of .82 across 15 studies (ibid). The Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI) is an 18-item scale that assesses physical, somatic health symptoms thought by stress researchers to be associated with psychological distress. Each is a condition or state about which a person would likely be aware, such as headache or fatigue. Respondents are asked to indicate for each symptom if they didn’t have it, had it, or saw a doctor for it in the past 30 days. The survey can be used to measure three constructs: namely; the number of symptoms present PSI(YES), the number for which required seeing a doctor PSI(DOC), and sum of both PSI(SUM). Possible scores range from 0 to 18. No coefficient data exist for this survey.10 The Work LOC Scale (WLCS) is a 16-item tool designed to assess control beliefs in the workplace. It is a domain specific LOC scale and has been found to correlate at about .50 to .55 with general LOC. Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) generally ranges from .80 to .85. Test-retest reliability for a year was reported as .60. The survey asks respondents to assess the extent to which they agree or disagree with a variety of statements relating to control in the workplace, such as “promotions are given to employees who perform well on
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
the job.” Responses use a Likert scale ranging from “disagree very much” to “agree very much” (ibid). The survey items are scored with final scores ranging from 16, representing high internality, to 96, representing high externality 9. The Job-related Affective Well-being Scale, (JAWS) is a 30-item scale designed to assess people’s emotional reactions to their job. Each item is an emotion, and respondents are asked how often they have experienced each at work over the prior 30 days. Responses are made with a five-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “extremely often”. The JAWS includes a wide variety of emotional experiences, both negative and positive, such as feeling elated or feeling discouraged. The scale also includes sub-scales which measure responses to clusters of emotions or feelings corresponding to the following four categories; High Pleasure High Arousal (HPHA), High Pleasure Low Arousal (HPLA), Low Pleasure Low Arousal (LPLA) and Low Pleasure High Arousal (LPHA). Overall scores on the total JAWS scale range from 30 to 150, and scores on the sub-scales range from 5 to 25. Coefficient alpha scores for this scale range from 0.8 – for sub-scale items to 0.95 for the overall total score.11 The survey tools were selected for several reasons. The tools have been tested for reliability and validity, and have normative values from a variety of settings available. This meant that results from this study could be compared to other studies, providing a meaningful assessment of the extent of stressors and strains amongst RTs relative to other workers. Work Locus of Control was determined as internal or external by splitting the cohort into two groups, based on response to the WLCS scale, namely; those having above average scores (more external) and those having below average scores (more internal). This was done to provide two equally sized cohorts with WLOC scores either above or below the mean score. T-tests were used to identify any differences between the responses to other scales and sub-scales for each group. A T-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other. RESULTS A total of 131 surveys were completed, equivalent to a 69% response rate. Overall responses to the survey items were consistent with normative values, the only significant difference being somewhat lower scores on the organization constraints (OCS) scale, with the RT cohort scoring 18.78 compared to a norm of 21.3 (p<0.0002). The Work LOC of respondents was determined by grouping respondents into two groups based on the average response to this scale. Those with a tendency to be more external, having an above average score (mean 49.07), and those tending to be more internal, having a below average score (mean score 34.71). The average Work LOC score for this sample was 40.8,
QBHF
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
compared to the normative score for Canada for Work LOC of 40.6, from a sample size of 297, and for the USA of 39.9 from a sample size of 3,969. The impact of Work LOC on the perception of job stressors is demonstrated in Figure 1.
negative affectivity, or the tendency to experience negative emotions. 5 It is then probably unsurprising that Work LOC plays a significant role in moderating both perceptions of stressors and responses to stress in the workplace.
The scores for job-related affective well-being can be seen in Figure 2, for the affective well-being sub-scales in Figure 3 and for the presence of physical symptoms in Figure 4.
This should be considered when determining strategies to improve conditions of work. It is important for organizations to maintain a high quality of work life, but it is possible that efforts of reducing overall stress will have a different effect depending on the personality of those impacted by such efforts.
Respondents with a more internal LOC score had a higher score on the affective well-being (JAWS) scale (p< .01). They also exhibited higher scores on the HPHA (p<.01) and HPLA (p<.03) scales, indicating a greater tendency to experience pleasurable emotions, and lower scores on the LPLA (p<.01) and LPHA (p<.01) scales, meaning less tendency to experience unpleasurable emotion. Internals also experienced less conflict (ICAWS) (p<.02), less organizational constraints (OCS) (p<.01) and less workload (QWI) (p<0.02) compared to externals. Internals also had less physical symptoms (p<.01) and less overall symptoms (p<.01) than internals. Internals also as less symptoms that required a doctor’s visit, though statistically, this was not as significant (p<.12). The average Work LOC scores for respondents who rated their job satisfaction from poor to very good are demonstrated in Figure 5. Those with very good job satisfaction had a more internal WLOC score than those with satisfactory (p<.01) or poor levels (p<.01). Also, those with good levels of job satisfaction had a more internal score than those with satisfactory (p<0.01) or poor (p<0.01) levels of satisfaction. DISCUSSION As predicted in the literature, notably by Spector, Work LOC had a significant impact in determining individual perceptions of work-related stress, resultant job strains and levels of job satisfaction. 5,9 Those who had a more external locus tended to experience more interpersonal conflict at work and more organizational constraints, as demonstrated on the ICAWS and OCS tools than those with an internal locus. They also perceived that they had a larger workload, measured with the QWI tool, than those with an external locus. Perhaps as a result of this, they also experienced lower affective well-being, with a tendency to experience emotions related to low pleasure, compared to the internal cohort, measured using the JAWS scales and sub- scales. They also exhibited more in the way of actual physical symptoms, measured on the PSI scales, and had lower levels of job satisfaction. Given that the RTs in the study work in essentially similar environments, the differences are plausibly related to differences in personality. While Work LOC is only one aspect of personality, it does tend to correlate with other personality constructs, such as
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
QBHF
This illustrates the complexity of understanding job-related stresses and strains. Individuals respond differently to the stresses that they perceive, likely as a function of their personality. As a result, the personality of employees is an important factor when considering the extent of job stress within the workplace. CONCLUSION As predicted elsewhere, Work Locus of Control is an important indicator of the level of stress and resultant strains experienced by Radiation Therapists. Those with a more external Work Locus of Control were more likely to perceive conflict and organizational constraints as stressors, have lower affective well-being, more physical symptoms and less job satisfaction than those with a more internal locus. This illustrates the importance of personality factors as a moderating influence in the level of stressors and strains associated with a job. While this does not limit the responsibility of organizations to provide a high quality workplace, it does suggest that the impact of such efforts will vary depending on the personality of the employees within the workplace. REFERENCES 1.
Ackroyd D., Caison A., Adams R.D., 2002 “Burnout in Radiation Therapists: The Predictive Value of Selected Stressors” Journal: Int. J. Radiation Oncology, Biol., Phys. 52 (3) 816-821.
2.
Matteson M.T., Ivanevich J.M., 1988, “Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource and Management Strategies” 1st Edition, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco, U.S.A.
3.
Johnson D.J., Roberts C., Trotti A., Greenburg H.M.,1998 “Professional satisfaction among radiation therapists: a regional survey” Radiation Therapist 7 (4) 76-83
4.
French, J.G. 2000 “Job Satisfaction amongst Radiation Therapists - A Canadian Study” Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology 31 (4) 168-175.
5.
Spector, P.E. 1997 “Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences” Vol 1, Edition 1 Sage Publications, California, U.S.A.
6.
Oberle, K. 1991 “A decade of research in Locus of Control: What have we learned” Journal of Advanced Nursing 16 pp 800-806.
7.
Wise, M. 1999 “Locus of control in our daily lives” Miami University Access Date: Dec 2002. Internet reference URL: www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/control
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
9. 10.
11.
Findley M.J., Cooper H.M,1983 “Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 pp 419-427. Spector, P.E. 1988 “Development of the work locus of control scale” Journal of Occupational Psychology 61 pp 335-340. Spector P.E., Jex S.M., 1998 “Development of four self report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory and Physical Symptoms Inventory” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3(4) 356-367.
Figure 4. Scores on the PSI scales for those with an internal versus external WLOC
3CORE ON SUBSCALES
8.
03)9%3
Van Katwyk P.T., Fox. S., Spector P.E., Kelloway, E.K. 2000 “Using the Job-Related Affective Well-being scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 pp 219-230.
Figure 5. WLOC score and level of job satisfaction
7,/# SCORE
03)35-
)NTERNAL 7,/# %XTERNAL 7,/#
03)$/#
3CALES
Figure 1. Scores on the ICAWS, OCS and QWI Scales for those with an Internal and External Locus of Control !VERAGE SCORE ON EACH SCALE
'OOD
6ERY GOOD
)#!73
/#
17)
3TRESSOR 3CALES
0OOR
!VERAGE SCORE ON EACH SCALE
Figure 2. Scores on the JAWS Scale for those with an Internal and External Locus of Control
).4%2.!, 7,/#
%84%2.!, 7,/#
6.61
7.45
ICAWS
OCS
17.14
21.04
QWI
15.57
17.62
JAWS
108.89
100.18
HPHA
14.59
12.98
HPLA
17.87
16.78
LPHA
8.82
10.33
LPLA
11.34
13.05
PSI(YES)
3.68
5.16
PSI(DOC)
0.38
0.69
4.07
5.85
)NTERNAL 7,/#
%XTERNAL 7,/#
#OHORT
Figure 3. Scores on the JAWS sub scales for those with an Internal versus External WLOC
3CORE ON SUBSCALES
3ATISFACTORY
,EVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION
)NTERNAL 7,/# %XTERNAL 7,/#
PSI(SUM)
7,/#
Poor
53.6
Satisfactory
46.27
Good
39.27
Very good
37.17
(0(!
(0,!
,0(!
,0,!
3UBSCALES )NTERNAL 7,/# %XTERNAL 7,/#
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
QBHF
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
POUIF2VBMJUZPG8PSL-JGFGPS3BEJBUJPO5IFSBQJTUT John French DCR(T). ACT, CMS, BSc.(Hons), FCAMRT, MSc. Chief Radiation Therapist
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was undertaken as part of the requirements for an MSc. Degree from Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge, England. The author would like to thank all of the Radiation Therapists in British Columbia for participating in this survey.
AB S T RA C T
RÉSUMÉ
R
BEJBUJPO5IFSBQJTUTQSBDUJTJOHJO#SJUJTI$PMVNCJB $BOBEB XFSF TVSWFZFE UP EFUFSNJOF UIF FYUFOU PG XPSLSFMBUFE TUSFTTPST BOE SFTVMUBOU KPC TUSBJOT "MTP NFBTVSFE XBT UIF QFSTPOBMJUZ WBSJBCMF PG 8PSL -PDVT PG $POUSPM 8-0$ GPS SFTQPOEFOUT8-0$ JT UIF EFHSFF UP XIJDI JOEJWJEVBMT GFFM UIFZ IBWFJOnVFODFPWFSXPSLSFMBUFESFXBSETPSQVOJTINFOUT5IPTF XJUI BO JOUFSOBM MPDVT GFFM CFMJFWF UIBU UIFZ IBWF DPOUSPM XIJMF UIPTFUIBUIBWFBOFYUFSOBMMPDVTCFMJFWFUIBUSFXBSETBSFNPSF HPWFSOFECZFYUFSOBMGBDUPSTTVDIBTMVDLPSUIFBDUJPOTPGPUIFST 5IF SFTVMUT DPNQBSFE UIF QFSDFQUJPO PG TUSFTT BOE QSFWBMFODF PG KPC TUSBJOT GPS UIPTF XJUI B NPSF FYUFSOBM MPDVT DPNQBSFE UP UIPTF XJUI B NPSF JOUFSOBM 8-0$ *U XBT GPVOE UIBU UIPTF XJUIBNPSFFYUFSOBMMPDVTXFSFNPSFMJLFMZUPFYQFSJFODFCPUI JOUFSQFSTPOBM DPOnJDU BU XPSL BOE PSHBOJ[BUJPOBM DPOTUSBJOUT 5IFZ BMTP FYIJCJUFE MPXFS BõFDUJWF XFMMCFJOH FYQFSJFODFE NPSFMPXQMFBTVSFFNPUJPOTBOEIBEMPXFSQIZTJDBMXFMMCFJOH 3FTQPOEFOUT XJUI B NPSF FYUFSOBM MPDVT TDPSFE MPXFS PO KPC TBUJTGBDUJPO SBUJOHT 5IF SFTVMUT TVQQPSU FYJTUJOH MJUFSBUVSF JEFOUJGZJOHUIBUQFSDFQUJPOTPGKPCTUSFTTBOESFTVMUBOUKPCTUSBJOT BSFBGVODUJPOPGQFSTPOBMJUZBTXFMMBTFOWJSPONFOU
N
PVTBWPOTFõFDUVÏVOTPOEBHFBVQSÒTEFTSBEJPUIÏSBQFVUFT FYFSÎBOU MFVS QSPGFTTJPO FO $PMPNCJF#SJUBOOJRVF $BOBEB QPVS EÏUFSNJOFS MÏUFOEVF EFT GBDUFVST EF TUSFTT EBOT MFVS USBWBJM FU EFT UFOTJPOT RVJ FO SÏTVMUFOU /PVT BWPOT B ÏHBMFNFOU NFTVSÏMBWBSJBCMFEVTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFEFTQFSTPOOFTJOUFSSPHÏFT-F TJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUMFGBDUFVSTFSWBOUËNFTVSFSMFEFHSÏEJOnVFODF RVF MJOEJWJEV FTUJNF BWPJS TVS MFT SÏDPNQFOTFT FU MFT QVOJUJPOT SFMJÏFTËTPOUSBWBJM-FTJOEJWJEVTRVJPOUVOTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFJOUFSOF DSPJFOUBWPJSMBNBÔUSJTFEFMBTJUVBUJPOBMPSTRVFDFVYRVJPOUVOTJUF EF DPOUSÙMF FYUFSOF DSPJFOU RVF MFT SÏDPNQFOTFT TPOU MF SÏTVMUBU EF DJSDPOTUBODFTFYUÏSJFVSFTDPNNFMBDIBODFPVMFTHFTUFTEBVUSVJ -FTSÏTVMUBUTDPNQBSFOUMBQFSDFQUJPOEVTUSFTTFUEFTUFOTJPOTSÏTVMUBOU EVUSBWBJMDIF[DFVYEPOUMFTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUQMVUÙUFYUFSOFFUDFVYEPOU MFTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUJOUFSOF/PVTBWPOTBDPOTUBUÏRVFMFTJOEJWJEVTEPOU MFTJUFEFDPOUSÙMFFTUQMVUÙUFYUFSOFPOUQMVTTPVWFOUUFOEBODFËDPOOBÔUSF EFT DPOnJUT SFMBUJPOOFMT BJOTJ RVF EFT DPOUSBJOUFT PSHBOJTBUJPOOFMMFT BV USBWBJM*MTÏQSPVWFOUBVTTJNPJOTEFCJFOÐUSFBõFDUJG FYQÏSJNFOUFOUEFT ÏNPUJPOTNPJOTBHSÏBCMFTFUDPOOBJTTFOUNPJOTEFCJFOÐUSFQIZTJRVF -FT QFSTPOOFT JOUFSSPHÏFT EPOU MF TJUF EF DPOUSÙMF FTU QMVUÙU FYUFSOF PCUJFOOFOU EFT SÏTVMUBUT NPJOT ÏMFWÏT TVS MÏDIFMMF EF MB TBUJTGBDUJPO BV USBWBJM -FT SÏTVMUBUT BQQVJFOU EBOT MB EPDVNFOUBUJPO BDUVFMMF Ë TBWPJS RVFMFTQFSDFQUJPOTEVTUSFTTBVUSBWBJMFUEFTUFOTJPOTRVJFOSÏTVMUFOU EFQFOEFOUUPVUBVUBOUEFMBQFSTPOOBMJUÏRVFEVNJMJFV
INTRODUCTION The level of stress amongst Radiation Therapists (RTs) has been examined in the literature, with some evidence suggesting that the amount of stress may be unduly high. 1 As a result, RTs may experience job strains or responses to stress. These responses can range from changes in affective, or emotional well-being, to decreased physical well-being and includes responses such as burnout or depression. Repeated exposure to stress can lead to actual disease, with a connection between stress and cardiovascular disease well established.2 A high level of burnout amongst RTs has been previously identified, with a study of 603 RTs from the United States of America (USA) identifying that RTs had a higher level
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
of burnout, as measured on the Maslach Burnout Inventory, than other professional groups such as nurses. Factors that may influence burnout were also assessed, including stress; social support, specifically reassurance of worth and guidance; and workload, based on number of patients treated per week by the respondents. The results found that burnout was particularly high in areas of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and higher than normative values for nurses across a range of settings. The results indicated that the variables measured had an impact on burnout. Personal and environmental stress and workload increased emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, while social support in the form of reassurance of worth and guidance had an inverse correlation with these aspects of burnout. 2
QBHF
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
In contrast, a 1998 survey of 45 RT’s, dosimetrists and managers in the State of Florida revealed an overall higher level of satisfaction and less burnout amongst the study group compared to national norms. However, the RTs did indicate that they felt unappreciated by other health care providers. RTs were satisfied primarily with their patient contact and the technical aspects of the job. A positive workplace culture and benefits such as time off for professional development increased work satisfaction and it was suggested that management attitude might play a greater role in employee job satisfaction than individual demographics or personality characteristics. The study also concluded that benefits played a large role in determining where people work. This study had a much smaller sample size than other studies, which may account for the difference in findings. 3 A 2000 study conducted by French examined the level of job satisfaction amongst RTs across Canada. This study used the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) developed by Spector; to measure job satisfaction rates for a sample of 197 RTs from English speaking Canada. The results found that satisfaction levels were consistent with normative values, but the study did identify that organizational constraints such as adequate resources, time to deliver adequate care, training for tasks, operating conditions and workload were significant variables contributing to dissatisfaction. Workload was identified as the biggest factor influencing job dissatisfaction, with a prevailing sense that the workload was too high, there was too much overbooking and that more staff were required to do the job properly. Several respondents noted that they felt stressed or burnt out due to the high workloads they had to deal with. The study also found that those who exhibited higher levels of job dissatisfaction were more likely to state that they were likely to leave their current place of employment within the next 2 years.4 These studies have focused predominantly on the impact of environmental variables on work-related stress or job satisfaction. Little attention has been paid to the impact of personality factors of RTs, despite substantial evidence that personality plays a significant role in the perception of stress and attitudes toward work. 5 One such personality construct is Locus of Control (LOC). LOC is an important construct in psychological theories. It can be defined as an individual’s generalized expectancies regarding the forces that determine rewards and punishments in life. Those with an internal LOC view events as resulting from their own actions. People with an external LOC view events as being under the control of external factors such as luck or the actions of others. LOC can also be a facet construct, that it may be applied to general beliefs and also to beliefs about work (Work LOC) or health (Health LOC).6 Psychological research indicates that those with an external LOC are less likely to reach their full potential because of the motivational, emotional and cognitive defects associated with a perceived inability to influence their future outcomes. Externally focused individuals are more likely to suffer from
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
QBHF
depression and other conditions because they believe that their actions cannot improve their current condition. Conversely those that are internally focused are more likely to believe that their own efforts influence their outcomes, and thus are more likely to meet challenges and succeed in their future endeavors. Even if events are not controllable to a great degree, those with an internal LOC have a belief that they can influence events, and this belief can contribute to psychological well-being 7. Several outcomes are affected by LOC. For example, those with an internal LOC tend to have more academic success and work harder at school than those with a more external locus. 8 LOC may also have a moderating effect on health. Research has indicated that those with an internal locus tend to take a more active interest in their health, experience more positive psychological outcomes such as reduced depression or anxiety and experience better physical health than those with an external locus. 6 Work LOC is a measure of the amount of control people feel that they have over their work environment. Work LOC has been found to correlate with several organizational relevant variables. Those with a more internal locus have a tendency to be more satisfied with their jobs, see their supervisors as higher on consideration and initiating structure, report less role stress, perceive more autonomy and control, and enjoy longer job tenure.9 The literature predicts that Work LOC will have a moderating effect on the stresses and strains experienced at work. The intent of this study was to determine if Work LOC acts as a moderating influence on perceptions of work stressors, resultant strains and job satisfaction for those working in the profession of Radiation Therapy. METHODOLOGY In February 2003, a survey was conducted of RTs working at four cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada. The survey was delivered over a secure intranet connection. The survey was designed to measure job stressors, specifically: interpersonal conflict, workload and the extent of organizational constraints; and resultant job strains in the forms of job related affective well-being and the presence of physical symptoms. The level of job satisfaction of respondents was measured using a single item question, with a Likert scale response ranging from very poor to very good. Also measured was the personality construct of Work Locus of Control. Approval to conduct the research was obtained from the Clinical Investigations Committee at the BCCA. The following survey instruments were used: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS); Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS); Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI); Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI); Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (Jaws) and Work LOC Scale (WLCS). The Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS) is
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
a 4-item, summated rating scale designed to assess the perception of conflict at work. Respondents were asked how often a variety of conflict situations arise, with answers provided on a five- point Likert scale response ranging from never to extremely often. The overall response scores vary from 4, representing zero conflict, to a maximum of 20. The scale has been used extensively and has a published internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of average .74 across 13 studies.10 The Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) is designed to measure organizational constraints, which can be defined as situations or things that interfere with task performance at work. The survey is an 11-item survey measuring 11 constraint areas, such as poor equipment, organizational rules and procedures. All items are summed into a total score. A Likert scale response is used to identify the frequency at which constraints are experienced, ranging from less than once per month or never to several times per day. The scale has a final score ranging from 11 to 55. Because the survey items are individual constructs, internal consistency reliability ratings are not relevant (ibid). The Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) is a 5-item summed scale designed to assess the amount or quantity of physical work in a job, as opposed to qualitative workload, which is the mental effort required to do the work. Survey items assess the frequency at which respondents work hard, fast, have a great deal to be done, have little time to get things done and have more work to do than can be done well. Responses use a Likert scale ranging from less than once per month or never to several times per day. Scores for the QWI range from 5 to 25. The scale has an average internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of .82 across 15 studies (ibid). The Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI) is an 18-item scale that assesses physical, somatic health symptoms thought by stress researchers to be associated with psychological distress. Each is a condition or state about which a person would likely be aware, such as headache or fatigue. Respondents are asked to indicate for each symptom if they didn’t have it, had it, or saw a doctor for it in the past 30 days. The survey can be used to measure three constructs: namely; the number of symptoms present PSI(YES), the number for which required seeing a doctor PSI(DOC), and sum of both PSI(SUM). Possible scores range from 0 to 18. No coefficient data exist for this survey.10 The Work LOC Scale (WLCS) is a 16-item tool designed to assess control beliefs in the workplace. It is a domain specific LOC scale and has been found to correlate at about .50 to .55 with general LOC. Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) generally ranges from .80 to .85. Test-retest reliability for a year was reported as .60. The survey asks respondents to assess the extent to which they agree or disagree with a variety of statements relating to control in the workplace, such as “promotions are given to employees who perform well on
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
the job.” Responses use a Likert scale ranging from “disagree very much” to “agree very much” (ibid). The survey items are scored with final scores ranging from 16, representing high internality, to 96, representing high externality 9. The Job-related Affective Well-being Scale, (JAWS) is a 30-item scale designed to assess people’s emotional reactions to their job. Each item is an emotion, and respondents are asked how often they have experienced each at work over the prior 30 days. Responses are made with a five-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “extremely often”. The JAWS includes a wide variety of emotional experiences, both negative and positive, such as feeling elated or feeling discouraged. The scale also includes sub-scales which measure responses to clusters of emotions or feelings corresponding to the following four categories; High Pleasure High Arousal (HPHA), High Pleasure Low Arousal (HPLA), Low Pleasure Low Arousal (LPLA) and Low Pleasure High Arousal (LPHA). Overall scores on the total JAWS scale range from 30 to 150, and scores on the sub-scales range from 5 to 25. Coefficient alpha scores for this scale range from 0.8 – for sub-scale items to 0.95 for the overall total score.11 The survey tools were selected for several reasons. The tools have been tested for reliability and validity, and have normative values from a variety of settings available. This meant that results from this study could be compared to other studies, providing a meaningful assessment of the extent of stressors and strains amongst RTs relative to other workers. Work Locus of Control was determined as internal or external by splitting the cohort into two groups, based on response to the WLCS scale, namely; those having above average scores (more external) and those having below average scores (more internal). This was done to provide two equally sized cohorts with WLOC scores either above or below the mean score. T-tests were used to identify any differences between the responses to other scales and sub-scales for each group. A T-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other. RESULTS A total of 131 surveys were completed, equivalent to a 69% response rate. Overall responses to the survey items were consistent with normative values, the only significant difference being somewhat lower scores on the organization constraints (OCS) scale, with the RT cohort scoring 18.78 compared to a norm of 21.3 (p<0.0002). The Work LOC of respondents was determined by grouping respondents into two groups based on the average response to this scale. Those with a tendency to be more external, having an above average score (mean 49.07), and those tending to be more internal, having a below average score (mean score 34.71). The average Work LOC score for this sample was 40.8,
QBHF
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
compared to the normative score for Canada for Work LOC of 40.6, from a sample size of 297, and for the USA of 39.9 from a sample size of 3,969. The impact of Work LOC on the perception of job stressors is demonstrated in Figure 1.
negative affectivity, or the tendency to experience negative emotions. 5 It is then probably unsurprising that Work LOC plays a significant role in moderating both perceptions of stressors and responses to stress in the workplace.
The scores for job-related affective well-being can be seen in Figure 2, for the affective well-being sub-scales in Figure 3 and for the presence of physical symptoms in Figure 4.
This should be considered when determining strategies to improve conditions of work. It is important for organizations to maintain a high quality of work life, but it is possible that efforts of reducing overall stress will have a different effect depending on the personality of those impacted by such efforts.
Respondents with a more internal LOC score had a higher score on the affective well-being (JAWS) scale (p< .01). They also exhibited higher scores on the HPHA (p<.01) and HPLA (p<.03) scales, indicating a greater tendency to experience pleasurable emotions, and lower scores on the LPLA (p<.01) and LPHA (p<.01) scales, meaning less tendency to experience unpleasurable emotion. Internals also experienced less conflict (ICAWS) (p<.02), less organizational constraints (OCS) (p<.01) and less workload (QWI) (p<0.02) compared to externals. Internals also had less physical symptoms (p<.01) and less overall symptoms (p<.01) than internals. Internals also as less symptoms that required a doctor’s visit, though statistically, this was not as significant (p<.12). The average Work LOC scores for respondents who rated their job satisfaction from poor to very good are demonstrated in Figure 5. Those with very good job satisfaction had a more internal WLOC score than those with satisfactory (p<.01) or poor levels (p<.01). Also, those with good levels of job satisfaction had a more internal score than those with satisfactory (p<0.01) or poor (p<0.01) levels of satisfaction. DISCUSSION As predicted in the literature, notably by Spector, Work LOC had a significant impact in determining individual perceptions of work-related stress, resultant job strains and levels of job satisfaction. 5,9 Those who had a more external locus tended to experience more interpersonal conflict at work and more organizational constraints, as demonstrated on the ICAWS and OCS tools than those with an internal locus. They also perceived that they had a larger workload, measured with the QWI tool, than those with an external locus. Perhaps as a result of this, they also experienced lower affective well-being, with a tendency to experience emotions related to low pleasure, compared to the internal cohort, measured using the JAWS scales and sub- scales. They also exhibited more in the way of actual physical symptoms, measured on the PSI scales, and had lower levels of job satisfaction. Given that the RTs in the study work in essentially similar environments, the differences are plausibly related to differences in personality. While Work LOC is only one aspect of personality, it does tend to correlate with other personality constructs, such as
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
QBHF
This illustrates the complexity of understanding job-related stresses and strains. Individuals respond differently to the stresses that they perceive, likely as a function of their personality. As a result, the personality of employees is an important factor when considering the extent of job stress within the workplace. CONCLUSION As predicted elsewhere, Work Locus of Control is an important indicator of the level of stress and resultant strains experienced by Radiation Therapists. Those with a more external Work Locus of Control were more likely to perceive conflict and organizational constraints as stressors, have lower affective well-being, more physical symptoms and less job satisfaction than those with a more internal locus. This illustrates the importance of personality factors as a moderating influence in the level of stressors and strains associated with a job. While this does not limit the responsibility of organizations to provide a high quality workplace, it does suggest that the impact of such efforts will vary depending on the personality of the employees within the workplace. REFERENCES 1.
Ackroyd D., Caison A., Adams R.D., 2002 “Burnout in Radiation Therapists: The Predictive Value of Selected Stressors” Journal: Int. J. Radiation Oncology, Biol., Phys. 52 (3) 816-821.
2.
Matteson M.T., Ivanevich J.M., 1988, “Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource and Management Strategies” 1st Edition, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco, U.S.A.
3.
Johnson D.J., Roberts C., Trotti A., Greenburg H.M.,1998 “Professional satisfaction among radiation therapists: a regional survey” Radiation Therapist 7 (4) 76-83
4.
French, J.G. 2000 “Job Satisfaction amongst Radiation Therapists - A Canadian Study” Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology 31 (4) 168-175.
5.
Spector, P.E. 1997 “Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences” Vol 1, Edition 1 Sage Publications, California, U.S.A.
6.
Oberle, K. 1991 “A decade of research in Locus of Control: What have we learned” Journal of Advanced Nursing 16 pp 800-806.
7.
Wise, M. 1999 “Locus of control in our daily lives” Miami University Access Date: Dec 2002. Internet reference URL: www.units.muohio.edu/psybersite/control
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1
9. 10.
11.
Findley M.J., Cooper H.M,1983 “Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 pp 419-427. Spector, P.E. 1988 “Development of the work locus of control scale” Journal of Occupational Psychology 61 pp 335-340. Spector P.E., Jex S.M., 1998 “Development of four self report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory and Physical Symptoms Inventory” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3(4) 356-367.
Figure 4. Scores on the PSI scales for those with an internal versus external WLOC
3CORE ON SUBSCALES
8.
03)9%3
Van Katwyk P.T., Fox. S., Spector P.E., Kelloway, E.K. 2000 “Using the Job-Related Affective Well-being scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 pp 219-230.
Figure 5. WLOC score and level of job satisfaction
7,/# SCORE
03)35-
)NTERNAL 7,/# %XTERNAL 7,/#
03)$/#
3CALES
Figure 1. Scores on the ICAWS, OCS and QWI Scales for those with an Internal and External Locus of Control !VERAGE SCORE ON EACH SCALE
'OOD
6ERY GOOD
)#!73
/#
17)
3TRESSOR 3CALES
0OOR
!VERAGE SCORE ON EACH SCALE
Figure 2. Scores on the JAWS Scale for those with an Internal and External Locus of Control
).4%2.!, 7,/#
%84%2.!, 7,/#
6.61
7.45
ICAWS
OCS
17.14
21.04
QWI
15.57
17.62
JAWS
108.89
100.18
HPHA
14.59
12.98
HPLA
17.87
16.78
LPHA
8.82
10.33
LPLA
11.34
13.05
PSI(YES)
3.68
5.16
PSI(DOC)
0.38
0.69
4.07
5.85
)NTERNAL 7,/#
%XTERNAL 7,/#
#OHORT
Figure 3. Scores on the JAWS sub scales for those with an Internal versus External WLOC
3CORE ON SUBSCALES
3ATISFACTORY
,EVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION
)NTERNAL 7,/# %XTERNAL 7,/#
PSI(SUM)
7,/#
Poor
53.6
Satisfactory
46.27
Good
39.27
Very good
37.17
(0(!
(0,!
,0(!
,0,!
3UBSCALES )NTERNAL 7,/# %XTERNAL 7,/#
The Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology
QBHF
Spring / Printemps 2005 Volume 36 Number / Numéro 1